April 30, 2009

House Passes Hate Crimes Bill
— Gabriel Malor

This was yesterday, but I didn't really give it a second glance when I saw the headline. It's not really one of those things that should take a lot of time to think about.

Question: Should some criminals be punished more than other criminals who commit the exact same crimes merely because they had "objectionable" thoughts at the time they commited their crimes (and were dumb enough to express those thoughts aloud)?

Answer: Of course not, FUCKWIT. FY, NQ.

Grand High Muckity-Prez Obama the First of His Name disagrees:

Obama strongly supported the measure, which he dubbed an "important civil rights issue" in a statement late Tuesday urging Congress to approve the bill.

Current law gives national law-enforcement authorities jurisdiction over hate crimes only when directed at individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, and only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting.

The new measure would expand protections to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, and would expand help from Washington to local authorities to punish hate crimes.

It's old, it's tired, it's damn-near worn out from abuse, but I hafta say it: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:57 AM | Comments (147)
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

1 To quote and old hippie movie, "This used to be a hell of a country."

Posted by: Farmer_Joe at April 30, 2009 06:00 AM (z4es9)

2

good thing for the new black pnathers that this wasn't passed last year

 

/rollseyes

Posted by: todler at April 30, 2009 06:02 AM (fPOY0)

3 This to go along with restrictions on "hate enforcement" of laws on the basis of nationality, documentation, and plain ol' meanness.

Posted by: t-bird at April 30, 2009 06:02 AM (FcR7P)

4 Finally, this is long overdue.

Posted by: A fucking nonthinking idiot at April 30, 2009 06:04 AM (OkrJ4)

5 But of course, it doesn't count if it's a crime against an Evangelical Christian.

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 06:05 AM (oRJZj)

6

Question: Should some criminals be punished more than other criminals who commit the exact same crimes merely because they had "objectionable" thoughts at the time they commited their crimes (and were dumb enough to express those thoughts aloud)?

 

Does it not follow that those expressing "objectionable" thoughts should be prosecuted prior to a physical crime being committed?

Posted by: drjohn at April 30, 2009 06:05 AM (Rfj7X)

7

Does it not follow that those expressing "objectionable" thoughts should be prosecuted prior to a physical crime being committed?

Minority Report.

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 06:06 AM (oRJZj)

8 I can't wait for the prosecutions of all those committing hate crimes against caucasians.

Posted by: Twinks at April 30, 2009 06:07 AM (dTt9I)

9 So what happens if someone beats someone up because he's a jerk who just happens to be gay?  Well, we all know the answer to that.

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 06:10 AM (oRJZj)

10 Idiot savant in chief on TV whining about Chrysler now --- instead he wants tiny bullshit european cars

fucking idiot

Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at April 30, 2009 06:11 AM (5r0Tz)

11

8 I can't wait for the prosecutions of all those committing hate crimes against caucasians.

When the law is used to prosecute "protected people" who committ crimes against caucasians, it will be noticed and lamented that the law is being enforced in a way not intended by its authors.

 

Posted by: Ed at April 30, 2009 06:11 AM (VplQ7)

12 If you're ever attacked and you're not a member of a protected class and the other person is, think carefully about how you defend yourself.

Posted by: yinzer at April 30, 2009 06:11 AM (/Mla1)

13 I feel so guilty...I had a bad thought.

Posted by: maddogg at April 30, 2009 06:12 AM (OlN4e)

14

Finally! Now I can rest easy that the next time a minority kills a straight white conservative male they'll be prosecuted under this legislation, right?

Posted by: txhorn at April 30, 2009 06:12 AM (G/UA+)

15

But of course, it doesn't count if it's a crime against an Evangelical Christian.

Or a white person. Or an Asian (unless by a white person). The Asian experience in Los Angeles and Oakland is instructive: anyone who deviates from the Commiecrat "minority" party line loses his or her protected minority status when it no longer suits the narrative. See also Thomas, Clarence.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009 06:13 AM (ujg0T)

16 @10, they should stick idiots like this in a Yugo and make them drive across Texas. Then get their opinion about small cars

Posted by: MikeH at April 30, 2009 06:14 AM (LdYLm)

17 A black man kills a black man: same-old, same-old, a murder, no one cares. The state will prosecute...eventually, maybe, if the police don't have anything better to do.
A black man kills a white man: murder, might get a column inch in the C section of the paper. The state will prosecute. (And in Texas, the state will execute.)
A black man kills a blonde white woman: OMG! 24 HOUR SATURATION COVERAGE ON FOX! GRETA WILL PRACTICE LOOKING CONCERNED! The state will prosecute; in Texas, the state will execute.
A white man kills a black man: OMG! HATE CRIMEZ! The state will prosecute (in spite of what Bammer seems to think); and in Texas, the state will execute (regardless of what Bammer seems to think).

No one ever wants to open the can of worms on black crime, do they? The primary cause of death among black men under 30 is murder by other black men. Young black men are many times more likely to commit a crime of violence against another person (usually another black person). But no one wants to talk about it. It's embarassing, it's not politically correct, and anyway it's probably racist for a white person to point this stuff out, so let's just pretend it isn't true, okay?

I have yet to hear a compelling case as to how a federal hate-crime statute in any way advances either the punishment or justice aspects of the criminal system in ways that state murder statutes do not. Bammer is in a sense saying that the individual states cannot be trusted to prosecute CAPs (crimes against persons) honestly.

This is yet another blow to Federalism, and the states are just standing around taking it in the pooper.

Posted by: Monty at April 30, 2009 06:15 AM (/0a60)

18
Obama campaigned on expanding "hate crime" legislation.  It was on his website for two years, prominently displayed.  It is more than a little disappointing that more people didn't notice, or speak up; this is 1984 stuff. 

Last week in the south, a negro shot a white man in the chest at point blank range for wearing a hat with a Confederate flag on it and displaying a Confederate flag.  He hasn't been charged with a "hate crime", and won't be, the legislation exists for the sole purpose of persecuting men, persecuting whites, persecuting Christians, and persecuting heterosexuals.

Posted by: Adriana Lima at April 30, 2009 06:15 AM (DJjeC)

19 Any threat made against Obama can include a hate crime charge.  Another historical first!  

Posted by: polynikes at April 30, 2009 06:16 AM (m2CN7)

20 I can't wait for the prosecutions of all those committing hate crimes against caucasians.

Won't happen.  Caucasians are not 'a protected class'.

Posted by: GarandFan at April 30, 2009 06:17 AM (C3okI)

21 I'd like to toss Barry's ass in jail for hating America and his crimes against this country.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at April 30, 2009 06:17 AM (1Jaio)

22 Quandary: say the head (yeah, I know) of an Islamic TV station beheads his divorce-seeking wife. Should she be charged with the hate crime of dishonor even though she herself was also a member of a protected group? Nuance. It makes ruling you people tough.

Posted by: t-bird at April 30, 2009 06:18 AM (FcR7P)

23 Well, some feel that some crimes should be prosecuted more or less severely, or even at all, based on political ideology (R vs. D), so this is only a horse of a different color.

Posted by: Roy at April 30, 2009 06:21 AM (cB77O)

24 The solution is simple: Just be sure to shout "I love you, man! I really love you!" before you pull the trigger.

Posted by: lmg at April 30, 2009 06:23 AM (A/vgC)

25

And this is constitutional....how?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 30, 2009 06:23 AM (ZGhSv)

26 Posted by: Monty at April 30, 2009 11:15 AM (/0a60)

You sound somewhat jaded, Monty.  New America not agreeing with you?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2009 06:24 AM (sKNox)

27 And this thread needs more women talking about their tits.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at April 30, 2009 06:24 AM (sKNox)

28

We knew this was coming. When they had the Republican congressman on the day before yesterday talking about it he said it was a fregon conclusion in the House. He held out hopes for a filibuster in the Senate. Hell, I don’t even see that happening as there are just too many Republicans who are afraid of the NAACP and the Gay Lobby.

 

If we had a Supreme Court worth a shit these so-called hate crimes laws would have been struck down long ago. Maybe if commie Ginsburg goes back in the hospital they could rush a case through.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 06:26 AM (f6os6)

29 It does not bode well for the future of freedom when thoughts are a basis for law rather than actions. The interpretation of this law is an open door for totalitarian abuse, under the right circumstances. This is very, very bad legislation.

Posted by: maddogg at April 30, 2009 06:26 AM (OlN4e)

30 The new measure would expand protections to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, and would expand help from Washington to local authorities to punish hate crimes.

I fully plan on going after the gay activist left under these provisions when they slur me as being insufficient queer since there's that (R) after my name.  Hey, I've got a twofer, gender and orientation.  I'm not kidding, I'm willing to have a fool for a client and represent myself to take this on. 

This is just SUCH fucking idiocy and I hate hate hate the ongoing attempts to shove me into a classification that seems intent on proving that they have the vapors over every little thing. 

Posted by: alexthechick at April 30, 2009 06:26 AM (SHHaV)

31

Right on, Curmudgeon (#15).  I'm an woman of Japanese ancestry, but I am not a minority as per the PC Police.  Well, other than the fact that I'm a Republican.  For some reason, Japanese Americans vote overwhelmingly Democrat here in Seattle.  I find this so ironic as they were interned by FDR and received reparations under the evil/alzheimered addled Ronald Reagan.  But yeah, Asians are never affirmative action admits in colleges across the country.

Posted by: WAstaterepub at April 30, 2009 06:30 AM (aC/SY)

32

So let's say, hypothetically of course, that I'm shoplifting a bag of corn-nuts from the local 7-11 and the clerk is, let's just say....Pakistani, and in the course of committing said crime of shoplifting I call him a lesbian. Enhanced penalty or no?

These kinds of laws are above his paygrade and he don't even know it yet. Unfortuneatly the ruling class never gets to swim in the shit that they create.

Posted by: pendejo grande at April 30, 2009 06:30 AM (PXZI9)

33 If this law was installed according to the bias of Janeane Garofalo, I should be on death row.

Posted by: Captain Crunch at April 30, 2009 06:30 AM (RUzMf)

34

And this is constitutional....how?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 30, 2009 11:23 AM (ZGhSv)


That is something I would like to know to. 

Especially if they prosecute for a crime for which the defendant has already been acquitted of by a state trail. Aren't they then simply being tried for their speech?

"Hate" speech is still free speech isn't it?

Also it would seem that the only thing being proven here is motive. Why is something that is not even required at trial suddenly allowed to become a crime in and of itself?

Has SCOTUS or the fed courts passed any decisions upholding "Hate" crime laws?





Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 06:31 AM (Q1lie)

35 I'm thinking you don't have to be expressing anything "aloud" to be charged with a hate crime. This is about the ability to charge people twice for the same crime in case the first outcome isn't what you thought it should be (or even if it was). And it's about lawyers and lawsuits for everyone and everything.

Posted by: BK at April 30, 2009 06:31 AM (nffrt)

36 "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

Posted by: mojo at April 30, 2009 06:32 AM (g1cNf)

37 I have never understood these types of bills. Doesn't this disproportionately impact minorities?

The numbers of black on white crime far exceeds white on black. Wouldn't this put more blacks at risk?  All they have to say is "Honkey" or "cracker" or "nilla"  or "blue eyed devil" or "pasty skinned small dicked motherfucker" or "motherfucking son of the devil" and that should be enough to prove it was a hate crime.

Am I wrong in this?

Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009 06:32 AM (27iEn)

38

I fully plan on going after the gay activist left under these provisions when they slur me as being insufficient queer since there's that (R) after my name. 

First the Commiecrats came for the white males,

Then the insufficiently black (1991),

Then the Asians (1992),

Then the white women (1995),

Who is next?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009 06:33 AM (ujg0T)

39 Twinks:  I can't wait for the prosecutions of all those committing hate crimes against caucasians.

Careful, man, there's a BEVERAGE here!

Posted by: Jazz at April 30, 2009 06:33 AM (hnq5i)

40

This is yet another blow to Federalism, and the states are just standing around taking it in the pooper.

 

Not just federalism, try equal protection and free speech as well as the “double jeopardy clause. This law allows the feds to prosecute the same crime under “federal hate crime laws” if a defendant is found innocent in State court. Will it ever be used on a minority? Hell no.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 06:33 AM (f6os6)

41

The numbers of black on white crime far exceeds white on black. Wouldn't this put more blacks at risk?  All they have to say is "Honkey" or "cracker" or "nilla"  or "blue eyed devil" or "pasty skinned small dicked motherfucker" or "motherfucking son of the devil" and that should be enough to prove it was a hate crime.

Am I wrong in this?

Yes, you are. That doesn't count, see?

Posted by: bell hooks, Cornel West and associated assholes at April 30, 2009 06:34 AM (ujg0T)

42 New York's is broader scope than this. So much for a classless society. So if your ass is kicked because your not a protected class or engaging in a protected activity are you only 3/5 a victim?

Posted by: Penfold at April 30, 2009 06:34 AM (lF2Kk)

43 A lot of you seem to have questions, so let me explain: Shut up!

Posted by: Bare, Bare, Bo-Barry at April 30, 2009 06:37 AM (FcR7P)

44

I'm still new enough here that I don't know the exact criteria, but I would suspect the prosecution of any minority person killing a white person under the hate crime statute would be an unusual enough event to merit a flaming skull here?

I won't hold my breath waiting.

I also look forward to someone trying to twist and use this statute to push for extra punishment for someone because they are conservative in cases where a liberal or a minority is injured or killed. Sound crazy? Bookmark it.  

Posted by: RM at April 30, 2009 06:37 AM (1kwr2)

45 Not just federalism, try equal protection and free speech as well as the “double jeopardy clause. This law allows the feds to prosecute the same crime under “federal hate crime laws” if a defendant is found innocent in State court.

Doesn't this give them a third chance to convict? They already retry the crime on "civil rights" grounds when they don't get a conviction.

Posted by: lmg at April 30, 2009 06:38 AM (A/vgC)

46 Since Obama won, we conservatives should be designated a protected class entitled to the protections of this Hate Crime Bill. Snort!! Likes that's ever gonna happen!

Posted by: dane skold at April 30, 2009 06:39 AM (JPKWk)

47 "It's not really one of those things that should take a lot of time to think about."

In Wingnuttia nothing takes a lot of time to think about. Thinking is hard. And it might blow up the belief system that everything is simple.

I favor the legislation.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 06:42 AM (hOPQH)

48

And this is constitutional....how?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 30, 2009 11:23 AM (ZGhSv)

 

That is something I would like to know to. 

 

Yes hate crimes have been ruled OK by SCOTUS. They have ruled that Hate Speech is not OK. You can talk bullshit but not act.

 

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul struck down the speech shit.

 

Wisconsin v. Mitchell upheld the “acts” portion of Hate Crime Laws. The reasoning went like this:

 

Wisconsin was within its rights to offer sentence enhancement in bias-motivated crime because it had a compelling interest in preventing the negative secondary effects of such crimes

 

In other words, they even stated their bias toward “outcome” and their distain for the Constitution.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 06:43 AM (f6os6)

49 Well thats it for me. Total idiots favor the legislation.

Posted by: maddogg at April 30, 2009 06:44 AM (OlN4e)

50

Doesn't this give them a third chance to convict? They already retry the crime on "civil rights" grounds when they don't get a conviction

Sure does, 3 swings of the judiciary bat, if a proetected class is involved.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 06:45 AM (f6os6)

51 The numbers of black on white crime far exceeds white on black. Wouldn't this put more blacks at risk?  All they have to say is "Honkey" or "cracker" or "nilla"  or "blue eyed devil" or "pasty skinned small dicked motherfucker" or "motherfucking son of the devil" and that should be enough to prove it was a hate crime.

Am I wrong in this?
Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009

No, I can't argue with that.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 06:45 AM (hOPQH)

52 So let's say, hypothetically of course, that I'm shoplifting a bag of corn-nuts from the local 7-11 and the clerk is, let's just say....Pakistani, and in the course of committing said crime of shoplifting I call him a lesbian. Enhanced penalty or no?

No.

You guys obviously don't understand the legislation. Please educate yourself and find out what the law means before getting yourself all twisted into a fury.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 06:47 AM (hOPQH)

53 "Hate crimes" legislation is fascistic horseshit, pure and simple. When an "offender" is percieved to harbor politically "incorrect" sympathies, hate crime laws allow for such individuals to suffer more severe sentences due to nothing more than the ideas they hold. 

Posted by: Capt. Numbstick at April 30, 2009 06:48 AM (voIlD)

54 Chile and Argentina are looking better and better, no?

Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009 06:48 AM (27iEn)

55 Thanks Vic.

Wisconsin was within its rights to offer sentence enhancement in bias-motivated crime because it had a compelling interest in preventing the negative secondary effects of such crimes


I can see where sentence enhancement would be legal.  But  why isn't this simply part of sentencing guidelines then? Why is the Federal government needed for sentence enhancement? Or additional resources needed at all?

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 06:49 AM (Q1lie)

56 Yes, you are wrong.

Yup.  Not a protected class.  Doesn't matter. 

Honestly, I cannot express how furious this makes me.  It's pure sentence enhancement based on opinion.  I know where this is going.  I know that the scorpion will turn around.  It's sickening. 


Posted by: alexthechick at April 30, 2009 06:50 AM (SHHaV)

57 I've got it:  I'm going to set up a consulting business in DC advising deer-in-headlight Americans how to effectively manage the challenges of living in a Marxist-Trotskyist society.  Who better than a Canadian to teach our American cousins the ins and outs of their Brave New World?  All the guns and ammo in the world aren't going to help you, you need to take my 1 day seminar, attractively priced at $2999 per head.  That's a $2999 value!

Posted by: Adriana Lima at April 30, 2009 06:52 AM (DJjeC)

58 That high-pitched whine you hear in the background is our founding fathers spinning in their graves.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 30, 2009 06:53 AM (ZGhSv)

59

I would like to see this hate crime law directed at those protestors who harrass and chase off military recruiters on college campuses.  The recruiters are there operating in a federal activity.  They are being harrassed and attacked because they are in a group.

Welcome to hate crime lawsuits, libtards!!!!  Hoisted by your own fuckin' petards again.

Posted by: EC at April 30, 2009 06:55 AM (mAhn3)

60
Doesn't this give them a third chance to convict? They already retry the crime on "civil rights" grounds when they don't get a conviction.

Yeah, and since this third trial would be civil, not criminal, the standards of evidence are lower and getting a conviction is easier. This is what happened to O.J.  Dude's scum, but I've always thought the Goldmans' subsequent civil suit against him was bogus.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 30, 2009 06:57 AM (FO+YO)

61 All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Non-White or Female legs good, White Male legs bad!

Posted by: The Sheep at April 30, 2009 06:58 AM (Q1lie)

62 Great. We now have thoughtcrime at the federal level.

Posted by: epobirs at April 30, 2009 06:59 AM (tGZMy)

63

You guys obviously don't understand the legislation. Please educate yourself and find out what the law means before getting yourself all twisted into a fury.

Just keep telling yourself that.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009 07:01 AM (ujg0T)

64

The case was Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for a unanimous Court. Summarizing:

The case involved aWisconsin hate-crime statute which provided for enhancement of a defendant's sentence whenever he intentionally selects his victim based on victim's race.

The Court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad because of its possible chilling effect on free speech.  The possibility that the statute might lead a person to suppress his unpopular bigoted opinions, out of fear that his opinions might later be offered against him to enhance a punishment if he later commits offense covered by the Wisconsin statute, was too speculative to support overbreadth claim.

The court did not reach the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection question.

I'm putting this part in bold for certain commenters up above, especially the fellow who's tripping my banhammer reflex: Mitchell, the fellow who was subject to the hate-crimes statute, was a black man who put a white boy into a coma after robbing and beating him.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 30, 2009 07:01 AM (ztNrs)

65 Question: A synagogue is vandalized by spray-painted swastikas. How do we prosecute this without resorting to all the hate crime crapola? Treating it as simple vandalism or property destruction just doesn't seem to cover what's going on here. Like burning a cross on the lawn of a black family. As I said, I agree with the  bogus nature of hate crimes, but these, to me, seem to be the tough cases.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 30, 2009 07:02 AM (FO+YO)

66 47 I favor the legislation.

Posted by: honest cloud

_____________________________________

So you favor devaluing, say, a heterosexual's life and elevating the value of a homosexual's life by advocating that a person assaulting a heterosexual is to be given less severe punishment than for committing an equal physical assault on a homosexual simply because it could be construed that the person doing the assaulting was anti-gay?

Figures.

As Gabiel noted, I guess some animals are more equal than others...

Posted by: Capt. Numbstick at April 30, 2009 07:02 AM (voIlD)

67 51 The numbers of black on white crime far exceeds white on black. Wouldn't this put more blacks at risk?  All they have to say is "Honkey" or "cracker" or "nilla"  or "blue eyed devil" or "pasty skinned small dicked motherfucker" or "motherfucking son of the devil" and that should be enough to prove it was a hate crime.

Am I wrong in this?
Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009

No, I can't argue with that. Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009

Yes, you are wrong.

And very flattering that you have taken to changing my posts. Very flattering.

You are so afraid of the truth that that is the best you can do.

How's that make you feel?

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 07:03 AM (hOPQH)

68 Also, you guys talking about trying and re-trying defendants in criminal and civil proceedings have misunderstood hate-crimes legislation.  Hate-crimes statutes provide sentence enhancements for certain criminal activity if the activity is accompanied by "objectionable" thoughts.  These statutes are not separate criminal statutes, under which individuals can be convicted.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 30, 2009 07:05 AM (ztNrs)

69 honest cloud,
Who are you referring to?

I can't change your posts.

Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009 07:09 AM (27iEn)

70 Gabriel,
So I am right?

Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009 07:10 AM (27iEn)

71 Hey mates, you do not want to go down this road. Take one look north at the 14 human rights commissions in Canada to get a sense of where this legislation will lead to.

Posted by: Oppressed Canadian at April 30, 2009 07:11 AM (e4slO)

72

To steal from Jonah Goldberg,

If this is considered an important civil rights issue, then congratulations to us, there are no more important civil rights issues.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at April 30, 2009 07:11 AM (4cofd)

73 Also, you guys talking about trying and re-trying defendants in criminal and civil proceedings have misunderstood hate-crimes legislation.  Hate-crimes statutes provide sentence enhancements for certain criminal activity if the activity is accompanied by "objectionable" thoughts.  These statutes are not separate criminal statutes, under which individuals can be convicted.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 30, 2009 12:05 PM (ztNrs)


Thanks Gabe. But aren't these being presented and sold as such? Why is federal help to local jurisdictions needed? Why do local authorities need help to punish hate crimes? Isn't the real intent here to allow federal authorities to punish a hate crime even if the state declines to?

Posted by: The Sheep at April 30, 2009 07:14 AM (Q1lie)

74 The frog in the pot is definitely starting to experience some warmth.

Posted by: Capt. Numbstick at April 30, 2009 07:16 AM (voIlD)

75 69 honest cloud,
Who are you referring to?

I can't change your posts.
Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009

How in the fuck would I know who changes my posts?


Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 07:16 AM (hOPQH)

76 Lousy Sheep sockpuppet

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 07:16 AM (Q1lie)

77 honest cloud,

I didn't change your post and I don't know who the fuck changed your post.

Who the fuck changed his posts?

Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009 07:19 AM (27iEn)

78 68 Also, you guys talking about trying and re-trying defendants in criminal and civil proceedings have misunderstood hate-crimes legislation.  Hate-crimes statutes provide sentence enhancements for certain criminal activity if the activity is accompanied by "objectionable" thoughts.  These statutes are not separate criminal statutes, under which individuals can be convicted. Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 30, 2009

Good one and thanks for straightening things out.

However, this part "Hate-crimes statutes provide sentence enhancements for certain criminal activity if the activity is accompanied by "objectionable" thoughts."

Is not accurate.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 07:19 AM (hOPQH)

79 I didn't change your post and I don't know who the fuck changed your post.

Who the fuck changed his posts?
Posted by: Uniball at April 30, 2009

I believe you. The only thing I know is that whoever does change my posts (it has happened often) is a yellow bellied coward.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 07:21 AM (hOPQH)

80

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't any crime where you intentionally commit bodily harm or mental distress to another person a hate crime by it's very defintion?  

Posted by: slug at April 30, 2009 07:23 AM (n8Nln)

81

78

his part "Hate-crimes statutes provide sentence enhancements for certain criminal activity if the activity is accompanied by "objectionable" thoughts."

Is not accurate.

So you say. Now back that shit up. Enlighten us poor schlubs as to what hate-crimes legislation actually entails.

Posted by: Capt. Numbstick at April 30, 2009 07:24 AM (voIlD)

82

You guys obviously don't understand the legislation.

No, we understand the legislation better than you do. 

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 07:25 AM (oRJZj)

83

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't any crime where you intentionally commit bodily harm or mental distress to another person a hate crime by it's very defintion? 

Logic would say so.  But what's logic got to do with it?

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 07:26 AM (oRJZj)

84 #71- yeah the Mark Steyn fiasco.  Though I do not know for certain, but CAIR was more than likely a great champion of this legislation. 

Posted by: Derak at April 30, 2009 07:29 AM (QIsMa)

85

Seriously, isn't every crime a hate crime?  On some level?  Crime isn't committed out of love.  I'm sure someone will think of examples to correct me, but still...

One of my  problems with hate crime legislation is that every time you specify or protect one kind of victim, you exlude others.  It means that you must keep identifying protected classes, ad nauseum, as there will always be a group that is left out of the legislation.

Murder is illegal.  Doesn't matter if you kill a white guy, a black woman, a gay guy, a baby--whatever. It's all punishable by law.  Tell the mother of a stray drive-by victim that hate didn't kill her child.

Posted by: April at April 30, 2009 07:32 AM (2B3NC)

86 alexthechick @ 30

Don't worry your pretty little head, sweet cheeks, we've got Daddy government to protect you from the mean old white hetero man.  You just need a little consciousness raising to see what a victim you really are. 

Oh, and if you resist, we'll just call you an Uncle Tom

Posted by: sears poncho at April 30, 2009 07:37 AM (uj/0b)

87

So you say. Now back that shit up. Enlighten us poor schlubs as to what hate-crimes legislation actually entails.

Posted by: Capt. Numbstick at April 30, 2009

Hate crimes happen when an influential mind targets a victim because of their membership in a certain Social group usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gende,r gender identity, political affiliation.

 A "hate crime" can take two forms: "hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions.

So as you can see even wingnuts are protected. If someone kicks your ass simply because you are a wingnut, Obama has just made this a more serious crime.

You are welcome.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 07:39 AM (hOPQH)

88 Thanks shit for brains, but I don't need or want the fucking governments protection. Thats for witless pussies like yourself.

Posted by: maddogg at April 30, 2009 07:41 AM (OlN4e)

89

Also, you guys talking about trying and re-trying defendants in criminal and civil proceedings have misunderstood hate-crimes legislation.  Hate-crimes statutes provide sentence enhancements for certain criminal activity if the activity is accompanied by "objectionable" thoughts.  These statutes are not separate criminal statutes, under which individuals can be convicted.

 

Gabe, I based my statement on a statement made by the Republican congress member who discussed this bill on Fox two days ago. Dual prosecution was one of his concerns based on the text in one portion of the bill.  I haven’t read the bill myself, but that was his concern.

 

BTW, I hope it wasn’t me who was “tripping your ban-hammer”.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 07:44 AM (f6os6)

90 What this law says is that if you're smart, you'll commit all your crimes against heterosexual, white males. 

Posted by: TrickyDick at April 30, 2009 07:51 AM (TYOTD)

91 How about if we stop with this "hate-crime" bullshit and just call all humans a "protected class?"

Oh wait... then they'll just pass legislation calling all conservatives/non-pc groups non-human.  After all, I've heard that one before from Hollywood troglodytes.

Posted by: soulpile at April 30, 2009 07:52 AM (Difyf)

92

More on the bill itself:

 

Bill Title: To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

 

Oh that infamous “for other purposes” statement that they put in every bill. The bill contains the following paragraph.

 

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws

 

Also this:

 

(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence

 

So it appears to me that this bill will, in fact, allow double jeopardy and is specifically written to authorize it.

 

The Bill

 

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 07:53 AM (f6os6)

93

Gabe, I based my statement on a statement made by the Republican congress member who discussed this bill on Fox two days ago. Dual prosecution was one of his concerns based on the text in one portion of the bill.  I haven’t read the bill myself, but that was his concern.

 

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009

Vic,

I hope you learned something from this. Two phrases "Republican Congressmember" and "on Fox" should have been a tipoff.

It's 90% bullshit and THAT"S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THROUGH TO YOU.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 07:55 AM (hOPQH)

94

If someone kicks your ass simply because you are a wingnut, Obama has just made this a more serious crime.

You are welcome.

And you really are a dupe, aren't you? 17 years have passed since Reginald Denny and the Korean Store burnings....

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009 07:56 AM (ujg0T)

95

Hey Lying Clod; I did not address you so go get a case of STFU. If I want to see or smell a pile of puss I’ll go find some drunk hobo and pop one of his disease ridden pimples.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 07:57 AM (f6os6)

96 17 years have passed since Reginald Denny and the Korean Store burnings....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009

And what in the fuck, if I might ask, is your point?

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 08:04 AM (hOPQH)

97

Hey Lying Clod; I did not address you so go get a case of STFU. If I want to see or smell a pile of puss I’ll go find some drunk hobo and pop one of his disease ridden pimples.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009

Hmmm. A little sensitive about being misled and made into a fool by Fox and a GOP Congressman?

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 08:06 AM (hOPQH)

98 D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence




This is what confuses me. Where the hell in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has any business in "eradicating bias motivated violence"? Or any violence for that matter?

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 08:10 AM (Q1lie)

99

Honest Cloud, your mindthoughts are disturbing my soulpatterns. J'Accuse!

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at April 30, 2009 08:12 AM (AJ4xq)

100

Where the hell in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has any business in "eradicating bias motivated violence"? Or any violence for that matter?

 

They took care of that as well:

 

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 08:13 AM (f6os6)

101 Honest Cloud hates gay hookers. I have it on good authority. Watch him carefully.

Posted by: dumb_blonde at April 30, 2009 08:17 AM (9rdxF)

102

Slug @ 80--didn't see yours while I posted mine.  But we're thinking alike. You start choosing protected groups, where does it end? If a law does not adequately punish a crime, fine--enhance the law, but without regard to the particular degree of hatred in the violator's mind.

Posted by: April at April 30, 2009 08:25 AM (2B3NC)

103

Vic, there is a dual-prosecution loophole to hate crimes legislation. But it does not have to do with civil trials, as somebody said up above.

Go to http://is.gd/uOh7 for lots of links about that.

Also, if you guys would stop playing with the trolls they'd just get tired and leave. If you chat it up with them, you encourage them, and now you're stuck with them.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 30, 2009 08:26 AM (ztNrs)

104

And what in the fuck, if I might ask, is your point?

The point is that there has been a double standards involved for some time now. And you damn well know it.

Drop the banhammer, Gabe.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009 08:26 AM (ujg0T)

105 slug: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't any crime where you intentionally commit bodily harm or mental distress to another person a hate crime by it's very defintion? 

Not necessarily.  A criminal breaking into a warehouse who encounters a security guard may intentionally cause bodily harm while incapacitating the guard - broken legs or whatnot.  Same for loanshark collections.  Something like that isn't motivated by hateful thought, just cold pragmatism.

Posted by: Jazz at April 30, 2009 08:30 AM (hnq5i)

106

Vic, there is a dual-prosecution loophole to hate crimes legislation. But it does not have to do with civil trials, as somebody said up above

 

OK, I thought you were saying that there was no double jeopardy in the bill. My post at 92 contains the actual text of the bill that puts it in there.

 

Maybe the Senate will remove that portion of the bill by amendment and it will get “reconciled out”.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 08:32 AM (f6os6)

107

It isn't only that it's bad law. The legal aspects are objectionable enough.

It's that this law is also bad for gay people. Half the animus gay men face in this country is based on the perceived weakness their orientation afflicts them with.

So the best way possible to combat that is to get oneself enshrined as the ultimate victim class?

Sigh sigh sigh.

Posted by: Robbie at April 30, 2009 08:32 AM (+D9QR)

108 Point of Fact:
According to FBI statistics more blacks are prosecuted for "hate" crimes than whites. Look it up yourself.

(That said, I think increased punishment for the thoughts that led one to a crime are irrelevant. We punish actions not thoughts. And if thoughts result in increased punishment, then thoughts are punished.)

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 30, 2009 08:36 AM (fnU+z)

109

17 years have passed since Reginald Denny and the Korean Store burnings....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009

The point is that there has been a double standards involved for some time now. And you damn well know it.

Drop the banhammer, Gabe.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009

First I don't think you should be banned for being a moron. If that was the case we'd be down to about three posters.

And I have no idea what you are talking about.  Double standards? Care to try to explain you idiocy?

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 08:38 AM (hOPQH)

110

First I don't think you should be banned for being a moron.

You don't think period, asshat.

Posted by: Edward Van Cullen at April 30, 2009 08:39 AM (f7A+e)

111 Care to try to explain you idiocy?

Heh.

Posted by: Officer Paddy O'Irony at April 30, 2009 08:39 AM (8ffW/)

112

According to FBI statistics more blacks are prosecuted for "hate" crimes than whites. Look it up yourself.

 

Could that be because most violent crime is committed by blacks?

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 08:42 AM (f6os6)

113 Be aware, the government is probing your mind for unclean thoughts.

Posted by: rplat at April 30, 2009 08:49 AM (G1ArL)

114 hate crimes ARE different, they foster a climate of fear that random acts of violence do not. When KKK or Nazis wearing uniforms attack Jews, for example, they should be judged differently than a common mugger.

Posted by: John ryan at April 30, 2009 08:49 AM (wHLW0)

115 Vic,
Bingo. And you'd think some of the Liberals, who claim these laws protect blacks, would get that memo too. But, alas, it is not to be.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 30, 2009 08:49 AM (fnU+z)

116 Honest Cloud: If that was the case we'd be down to about three posters.

What's this "we"?  Unless you forswear your ignorance and douchebaggery, you'll never be one of us, meaning both conservative and an accepted patron of this site.  At best you're tolerated, and sometimes that's not even true.

Posted by: Jazz at April 30, 2009 08:51 AM (hnq5i)

117

I hope there is no grandfather clause in that law if you know what I mean.

Posted by: honest cloud's ex boyfriend at April 30, 2009 08:51 AM (m2CN7)

118

Be aware, the government is probing your mind for unclean thoughts.

And hacking your computer.  We're all screwed.  Watching Enemy of the State right now.  It's not helping my paranoia much.

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 08:52 AM (oRJZj)

119

When KKK or Nazis wearing uniforms attack Jews, for example, they should be judged differently than a common mugger.

How about puppet head wearing or bandana wearing thugs attack conservative old people?

Posted by: honest cloud's ex boyfriend at April 30, 2009 08:53 AM (m2CN7)

120 Gabe thanks for those links.

Another question, like this is all you have to do today I know.
The article cites a Bartkus decision as a loophole allowing double jeopardy but would it? Bartkus allows the state to prosecute after a failed federal but does it really allow the reverse?

2. The Fourteenth Amendment does not impliedly extend the first eight amendments to the States. Pp. 124-126.

The Feds must abide by the 5th  amendment right?

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 08:55 AM (Q1lie)

121

When KKK or Nazis wearing uniforms attack Jews, for example, they should be judged differently than a common mugger.

You know the libs equate conservatives with the above groups, don't you?

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 08:58 AM (oRJZj)

122 Hate crimes happen when an influential mind targets a victim because of their membership in a certain Social group usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gende,r gender identity, political affiliation.

 A "hate crime" can take two forms: "hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions.

So as you can see even wingnuts are protected. If someone kicks your ass simply because you are a wingnut, Obama has just made this a more serious crime.

You are welcome.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 12:39 PM (hOPQH)

 

So, based on the social group aspect of this, gang wars are a hate crime?  At least something good will come of this shit.

Posted by: todler at April 30, 2009 08:59 AM (fPOY0)

123 You all should read that link Gabe posted at 103. It's very good.

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 09:04 AM (Q1lie)

124 Rocks,

The Feds are not bound by state acquittals.

It's simple, really. If the elements of the crime are different then double jeopardy does not attach.

The officers involved in the Rodney King beating are the easiest example.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 30, 2009 09:04 AM (fnU+z)

125

So, based on the social group aspect of this, gang wars are a hate crime?  At least something good will come of this shit.

Posted by: todler at April 30, 2009

I'm not a lawyer but I'd say so.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 09:07 AM (hOPQH)

126 "I'm not a lawyer..." honest cloud @ 125

More obvious truth has never been typed.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 30, 2009 09:09 AM (fnU+z)

127

Quick HC, a legally-actionable definition of "influential." This is important, so don't pass it up.  "Usually defined" is wide-openly ambiguous, which I suppose you'd like, but usually gets laws thrown out in my country.

Why is "Social" capitalized?  Your little red roots are showing again. 

You cut and pasted this, didn't you.

And what do you mean WE, white'un? Who do you claim to speak for?

 

Posted by: comatus at April 30, 2009 09:10 AM (zFDqJ)

128 Do Obama's comments about the Chrysler bankruptcy qualify?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 30, 2009 09:11 AM (UXMW8)

129 Do Obama's comments about the Chrysler bankruptcy qualify? And who files the first claims against MSNBC?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 30, 2009 09:11 AM (UXMW8)

130

Der derrr der DER derrr der derr derr duh!

Posted by: honest choad at April 30, 2009 09:13 AM (f7A+e)

131 Call it the full employment for sleazy lawyers bill.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 30, 2009 09:19 AM (T0NGe)

132

Call it the full employment for sleazy lawyers bill.

You know dirty lawyers must love a democrat government. 

Posted by: katya at April 30, 2009 09:26 AM (oRJZj)

133

You should all read the link I posted at 92 to the actual bill oops, it doesn’t work. Here it is again.

 

HR 1913

 

This bill SPECIFICALLY allows double jeopardy.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 09:36 AM (f6os6)

134 Here's a doozy of a subsection:

(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);


In other words if the dependent used anything covered by interstate commerce, even if he didn't actually leave the state, he's fucked. Nice and broad that.

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 09:49 AM (Q1lie)

135

Double standards? Care to try to explain you idiocy?
That's a reference to blacks attacking Korean shop owners etc. during the OJ Riots and not being guilty of hate crimes for attacking someone of a different race because of their race. Kind of like you not seeing the irony of you hating gay Gannon and wanting him punished and hating Miss California and wanting her punished because you believe that it's okay to hate the haters.

Posted by: andycanuck at April 30, 2009 09:57 AM (MGu62)

136 The civil rights issue here is the selectiveness of prosecution.

Posted by: davod at April 30, 2009 10:07 AM (GUZAT)

137

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the same bit of legislation that included pedophiles under the list of protected groups?  Pedophiles but not members of the military -- so being nasty to a child raper is bad, but attacking a recruiting station is all right?

Just wait -- when the class of "we need a victim, and we need one now!" taps out the non-whites, non-women, and non-heterosexual as their victims du jour they'll start trumpeting "child love" as merely a sexual lifestyle that cannot be verboten, as it is a natural thing (or some such shit).  Oh, that, and hate crimes against animals (which is a bit of a redundancy concerning pedophiles if you ask me).

To respond to comments above -- yes, I have noticed that the Japanese-American community likes to trend Dem; for the life of me I cannot understand it, but I think many of the younger generations are desperately trying to get back at Mommy and Daddy/Gramps and Grans.  That's the same take I have for my dad's people as well (I for one loved my father and could accept that we did not see eye to eye on some things, but that he was often a wise man -- hence no need to get back at him for any imagined slight to my soulfeelings).

As response to Herr Morgenholz -- why the obsession with boobies?  I've often been puzzled by the impression female mammary glands make on certain males of the species -- would be willing to discuss, certainly would be more giggle creating than most of the actual news (Obama on the 8's!).

Posted by: unknown jane at April 30, 2009 10:11 AM (EpmMs)

138

only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting.

 

Is it just me, or does this seem like an attempt to intimidate people into not challenging voter fraud?  Challenge an illegal and you risk a hate crime prosecution.  I think that right there is proof in black and white they're already trying to rig the electoral system.  It's the Chicago Way.

Posted by: publicserf at April 30, 2009 10:23 AM (loRWh)

139 only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting getting an abortion.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 30, 2009 10:39 AM (FO+YO)

140

c'mon- 139 comments and not one reference to 1984 and "Thoughtcrime"?

God- I'm among the heathens.

Posted by: Jones at April 30, 2009 12:37 PM (KOkrW)

141

There were a few 1984 / thoughtcrime comments.  I saw 'em.  Unless they've since been unthought.

But this should protect the Bush administration officials who approved enhanced interrogation techniques, right?  Because the only reason they are being targeted is because they are a member of a specific group of individuals.  And they were "engaged in a federally protected activity," namely, keeping all our asses safe.

Posted by: reason at April 30, 2009 12:56 PM (sPO/s)

142 @87
So as you can see even wingnuts are protected. If someone kicks your ass simply because you are a wingnut, Obama has just made this a more serious crime.

LOL.  If you think even one single white male, or conservative, or Christian, is going to get any benefit out of this law, you are seriously delusional.  It will be just like the Canadian Thoughtcrimes Office--any complaints filed by the "wrong" groups will be tossed in the trash and ignored.
I will personally apologize to you if even ONE case results in a conviction under the law where a gangbanger calls his victim a honky or a cracker.
It ain't gonna happen, ever.  With the laws already in place that are supposedly two-way, it hasn't yet happened, so why should this pile of discriminatory puke be any different?

Posted by: Flubber at April 30, 2009 01:29 PM (0jQJW)

143

You all don't understand the legislation.  Criminals don't select their victims because they hate them unless they are of protected status.  You see criminals love you when they rape, mug or murder you.  But if you attack a protected class thats "hate."

 

Don't you folks read the Constitution.  See the 14th Amendment has just grown!

 

And only the truly enlightened can understand what justice is like when Perez Hilton tore into that bitch for PC thought and urged everyone to stone her.   That under our new enlightened society is love and a demonstration of class solidarity.

Ever notice that people who support torture have problems with hate crimes?    They just don't have the same mental abilities that I do after I had that frontal lobotomy that artifically enhanced my all ready super human intelligence.

 

Now then,  "Do you want fries with your order>"

 

Posted by: Honest Cloud at April 30, 2009 02:14 PM (0Qynq)

144 Why hasn't someone cyber-shanked this twat Honest Cloud in the shower and banned his ass? Gabe, you KNOW you want to; do it for an old war vet.

Posted by: Carl hungus at April 30, 2009 02:54 PM (vgaob)

145 I'm not a lawyer, hell I'm not even what you might call rational.

Posted by: Honest Cloud at April 30, 2009 06:36 PM (0Qynq)

146 I like this post and I'm sure people would do much more than just read, they act. Great stuff here. Please keep it up....Mercedes-Benz Mobil Mewah Terbaik Indonesia::Meriahkan pesta ulang tahun bersama GarudaFood::Mari Berkomunitas Di Faceblog

Posted by: Mercedes-Benz at June 02, 2011 09:32 PM (xJe3c)

147 I love Obama, just because he used to live in Indonesia, a country famous for its batik

Posted by: batik dresses at May 26, 2012 01:14 PM (cU+kB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
162kb generated in CPU 0.42, elapsed 1.7134 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.5372 seconds, 383 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.