Thought Crimes

Whenever politicians run for office, they regularly promise favors and special treatment for those who have supported them. Over the course of American political history, such paybacks have varied from secretly provided to openly proclaimed. While not yet mentioned in an official White House press release or in a joint statement by the Democrats in Congress, the dervishes of political correctness are on the verge of reaping their rewards for their presidential jihad on behalf of Barrack Hussein Obama.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The bill awaits widely expected passage by the Senate. President Obama's signature on the bill transforming it into law appears to be a foregone conclusion.

This bill perpetuates the Orwellian campaign against lines of thinking deemed punishable by the thought police. Despite the doublespeak about the value of freedom of speech and the right to hold unpopular opinions from the proponents of this bill, its provisions will be implemented as a weapon to punish those with politically incorrect viewpoints. These include, but are not limited to, opposition to legalization of homosexual marriage, normalization of homosexuality in general, support for at least some legal restrictions on abortion, opposition to racial quotas and preferences and criticism of Islam. The more politically incorrect traits someone possesses (Caucasian race, male gender, Christian faith, European ancestry or heterosexual preference), the more grounds for accusation of "hate" will become available for the thought police.

The purpose of this law will manifest itself whenever a member of a politically correct group such as "sexual minorities" and "persons of color" has been involved with a violent incident with a non-member of these groups. The non-member will face a ten year prison sentence or possibly a life sentence. The prosecutors need only persuade a jury that the non-member was possibly thinking about the "privileged" person's actual or perceived membership in one or more classifications prior to or while engaging in seemingly illegal acts. The incidents of playing the "race card" will skyrocket, along with open appeals for sympathy based solely on the perennial claims to victim status among sexual deviants. We will be told to overlook the fact that the "sexual minority" member or "person of color" may have instigated a violent confrontation. Additionally, the shock and outrage of crimes committed against politically favored minorities remarkably will be absent if the true perpetrators of the crimes turns out to be members of the same classification or at least another politically correct minority.

One might ask what is the purpose of this proposed law. It would allow federal money and other forms of assistance to be sent to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies. This aid would only be available if someone is accused of committing a crime against someone who is "different" as long as the "difference" has been consecrated by the thought police. Someone targeted based on his preference for engaging in anal intercourse can demand prosecution based on this law. However, someone attacked because of his preference for eating meat does not have such an option. A group of thugs who attacked a man for wearing a mini-skirt and cosmetics faces additional punishment for doing so; the same group of thugs who attacked a man for wearing a military uniform does not risk more punishment for their choice of target. This subjective legal protection for behaviors like sodomy and cross-dressing but not consumption of meat or service in the armed forces proves that some minorities are more equal than others.