by Mark Silva
"The Pentagon is not the kind of place that can turn on a dime,'' says Defense Secretary Robert Gates, hailing the signing of a defense-spending bill that targets wasteful spending and unneeded weapons. "It will take more than a single budget to get where we need to be.''
Nor can American society turn on a dime.
Ask the parents of Matthew Shepard, the Wyoming college student killed over a decade ago because he was gay. They attended the signing of a defense bill today that also adds gay Americans to those protected from hate crimes under federal laws.
"After more than a decade... of delay, we have passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation that protects victims from violence based on what they look like, who they love, or who they are,'' President Barack Obama said at the bill signing this afternoon. "I promised Judy Shepard... that this day would come. I'm happy that she and her husband Dennis could join us at this event.''
The $680-billion defense billfor fiscal 2010, which includes $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but leaves out $2 billion for F-22 fighter jets that the Pentagon didn't want and bars a lot of no-bid contracting that has run up prices for other work, is a first step toward reform of a waste-laden Defense Department, Obama and Gates said today.
"I have always rejected the notion that we have to waste billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars to keep this nation secure,'' Obama said.
"This bill isn't perfect,'' he said. "There are still more cuts we need to make... fights we need to win.... (but) there were a lot of people in this town who didn't think it was possible... who were certain we would get steamrolled... Today, we're putting an end to some wasteful projects that some lawmakers have tried to kill for years.''
The bill takes a stance against no-bid contracts and entrenched lobbyists "pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want or doesn't need,'' he said. " At a time when we're facing two wars and an increasing deficit, it's inexcusable. It's unconscionable.''
Both the spending bill and the hate-crimes legislation attached will be hailed by the White House as elements of change that Obama promised with his election as president.
"We have proved that change is possible,'' the president said at the signing. "It may not come quickly or all at once, but if you push hard enough, it does come quickly.''
Comments
The GOPer's have been trying everything in their power to kill hate crime bills.
Speaking in front of Congress, Rep. Virginia Fox (R-NC) not only proved herself to be both a liar and an idiot, she also desecrated the memory of Matthew Shepard, who was killed in a horrific anti-gay hate crime back in 1998. Not only that, she did it all in front of Matthew Shepard's mother.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZckDoKz7Dk
Posted by: ComeAsYouAre | October 28, 2009 3:50 PM
ComeAsYouAre | October 28, 2009 3:50 PM
You have to keep your brain in a jar on the very top shelf!
As has become expected from the Obama Divider crowd of sheeple, you demonize the opposing viewpoint rather than use "logic" or "true bipartisan" methods of actually accomplishing anything!
You are obviously NOY GAY! otherwise, you'd be pissed as all get out over the broken promises then candidate and now President Obama has pulled off on the gay community.
Speaking of idiot's - "The GOPer's have been trying everything in their power to kill hate crime bills". You are one!
Posted by: springfield | October 28, 2009 4:05 PM
Matthew Shepard was not killed because he was gay. He was killed during a robbery.
Posted by: P. Kellner | October 28, 2009 5:24 PM
The real question to me, is how hate crime legislation will be used not to protect the innocent, but how it will be a stumbling block for the investigation and /or prosecution of individuals and organizations affiliated with terrorism in the United States.
Posted by: Michael Augustin | October 28, 2009 7:44 PM
Posted by: springfield | October 28, 2009 4:05 PM
HUH??? Hitting the bottle so early Springfield?
Posted by: P. Kellner | October 28, 2009 5:24 PM
Ya, sure, nice spin buddy. NOT!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | October 28, 2009 7:48 PM
Matthew Shepard was not killed because he was gay. He was killed during a robbery.
Posted by: P. Kellner | October 28, 2009 5:24 PM
******************************
Matthew Shepard was robbed and killed BECAUSE he was gay, you moron.
Do they teach stupidity at the RNC or do you Wingnuts just show up already pre-stupid?
"During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the respective girlfriends of McKinney and Henderson at the time of the event) testified that Henderson and McKinney both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man. McKinney and Henderson then went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Matthew Shepard as their target"
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
Posted by: Donny | October 28, 2009 8:05 PM
All crimes are hate crimes. The democrats are just too stupid to know that so politicians keep buying votes and kissing asses. Soon being stupid will be a hate crime which catches and jails all democrats. Laws eventually catch up with all idiots.
Posted by: Scrapiron | October 28, 2009 8:12 PM
Obama's version of abolishing, "don't ask, don't tell."
.
Or such as, and also.
.
Signed Independently,
Leo
Posted by: Leo | October 28, 2009 8:29 PM
According to this "Hate Crime", legislation, if you are overheard reading certain verses in the bible to others, that would be catagorized as a "Hate Crime". I can see it now, OB stormtroopers monitoring all the Catholic/christian masses, looking for violations. But if your a Muslim, hey, its loki, keep the infidel rath going within your mosques....
Posted by: TJ | October 28, 2009 8:45 PM
All crimes are hate crimes....
Posted by: Scrapiron | October 28, 2009 8:12 PM
Oh really, so the rapist who kills hates the vistom because she screamed? The robber who kills the defending father hates him because he had a bat? You people are MORONS if you dont get the difference! Tell me, how many White men were hanged by men in sheets?? How many straight men were killed because they are breaders? IDIOT!!!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | October 28, 2009 8:47 PM
The creation of special laws for a particular population or populations is dangerous. If we are not all equal under the law, then the question must be asked: Who does the law serve, and who does the law not serve? Who will have special rights under the law, and who will not? It would appear that we have jumped from the frying pan of personal prejudice, into the fire of state sponsored favoritism. Hatred and bias cannot be legislated away............no one is immune to it. There already are laws to protect against discrimination and acts of violence against citizens of diverse beliefs, lifestyles, ethnicity. Hate crime ligislation in my humble opinion would not have saved Mathew Sheppard.
Posted by: Michael Augustin | October 28, 2009 9:26 PM
All crimes are hate crimes. The democrats are just too stupid to know that so politicians keep buying votes and kissing asses. Soon being stupid will be a hate crime which catches and jails all democrats. Laws eventually catch up with all idiots.
Posted by: Scrapiron | October 28, 2009 8:12 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You need to seek help for that drink problem of yours before you get arrested for being stupid, Biff.
Laws eventually catch up with drunken idiots.
Posted by: Juan | October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: ComeAsYouAre | October 28, 2009 3:50 PM
.
And maybe there are good reasons to oppose hate-crimes bills like this one, regardless of whether one is Republican, Democrat or and Indy.
.
Every single State has laws against violent crimes, and none permit a victim’s sexual orientation to serve a defense or factor in mitigation for sentencing. That’s true of Wyoming where Matthew Shepard was tortured and killed. The killers both got two consecutive life sentences. One got two life sentences as part of a plea deal in which he turned state’s evidence against the other. The second got two consecutive life sentences because of the intervention of Shepard’s parents (while the jury was deliberating on whether to give him the death penalty). How much more ‘justice’ can you get out of a state legal system than that? (You can’t unless you favor the death penalty - which the Wyoming jury could have given.) If you can’t get any more justice in the federal system than in the state systems, then where is the need for a special, federal hate crime law? How is it that the states aren’t doing their job of prosecuting those guilty of ‘hate-crimes’ (which is a bit of an oxymoron)? Why should the federal government try to fix something that isn’t broken?
.
A good reason not to have such a law is the concept of ‘federalism’ - i.e. the division of labor between the states and the federal government. The federal system is supposed to be a special one which deals with issues that involve larger areas than the internal workings of the various states. States are supposed to take care of protecting people from everyday problems, including crimes of violence or threatened violence. By purporting to occupy a field that is part of the States’ function, the federal government is overstepping its theoretical and constitutional boundaries. That’s especially true if one cannot demonstrate that the states have fallen down on the job.
.
In addition, when has it ever been okay to commit a violent crime against ANYONE? As defined, all “hate crimes” are crimes of violence or threatened violence. By singling out particular victims for increased or different punishment based on a victim’s behavior and/or personal characteristics, doesn’t the law then say these people are entitled to greater protection against violence than others? I have always believed that the highest ideals of our country and society have been to promote the greatest degree of freedom and equality. If the problem consists of too many lenient sentences for violence or threats of violence against certain groups, then the better answer is to alter the laws regarding probation eligibility, and the maximum and minimum sentence for violent crimes REGARDLESS of the victim’s personal characteristics. I am not sure that singling certain groups out for special protection in the field of criminal law isn’t a retrograde step.
Posted by: John W. | October 28, 2009 9:32 PM
All crimes are hate crimes. The democrats are just too stupid to know that
Posted by: Scrapiron | October 28, 2009 8:12 PM
________________________
If you've ever wondered why you Repug goons can't win elections anymore and why no one but doughy white guys will vote for your party nowadays, you can start by looking in the mirror, you clown.
Repuglicans won't start winning elections again until they stop promoting hate and division among Americans.
Posted by: Mike | October 28, 2009 9:51 PM
"I have always rejected the notion that we have to waste billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars to keep this nation secure,''
" At a time when we're facing two wars and an increasing deficit, it's inexcusable. It's unconscionable.''
Obama is clearly and purposely endangering the lives of Americans in order to forward his domestic health and cap and trade agenda by cutting defense spending.
This from a President who the other day said he would not endanger the lives of American soldiers at war. Then why cut defense spending
Posted by: mikez | October 29, 2009 3:53 PM
"I have always rejected the notion that we have to waste billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars to keep this nation secure,''
" At a time when we're facing two wars and an increasing deficit, it's inexcusable. It's unconscionable.''
Obama is clearly and purposely endangering the lives of Americans in order to forward his domestic health and cap and trade agenda by cutting defense spending.
This from a President who the other day said he would not endanger the lives of American soldiers at war. Then why cut defense spending?
Posted by: mikez | October 29, 2009 3:55 PM
I've read two maybe three posts that made any type of ADULT sense. John W., YOU ARE SPOT ON. The problem for you and for me and for the other couple of adults on this post, is that in this instance and in too many instances we are in the silent majority. Let's pray we keep getting louder and louder...
Posted by: scaredbutprotected | October 29, 2009 5:24 PM
I dislike hate crime laws and the mentality they create. Remember the white kid who was beaten up on a bus by black kids with other black kids cheering it on? Investigators say it was not racially motivated and it felt like nobody cared about the story after that. It seems the victim was denied a seat by everyone on the bus, so he finally just moved a book bag aside and sat down, resulting in a pummelling at the hands of a couple of bullies. We should be mortified as a nation about this sort of thing, but just shrug our shoulders if some "geek" gets beaten up. It's not that all crimes are hate crimes, it's that we only seem to notice if a crime involves an allegation of hate and Al Sharpton arrives with megaphone-in-tow.
Posted by: Eric | October 29, 2009 5:52 PM
When someone attacks another person simply because of their (color, religion, sexual affiliation, etc), it sends a message to everyone else in that group. Hate crimes should rather be treated as terrorism, because that is exactly what they are.
Posted by: incognita | October 29, 2009 5:54 PM
This from a President who the other day said he would not endanger the lives of American soldiers at war. Then why cut defense spending?
Posted by: mikez | October 29, 2009 3:55 PM
OK MORON, did you read what he cut from the Defense Budget or are you just mouthing off BS? The cuts he made were recomended and supported by the Defense Department! Would you rather we spend BILLIONS on something thats never going to be used??? Like this jet the Defense Department says they dont need?
You people are just too much man!!
IDIOTS!!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | October 29, 2009 8:37 PM