Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Rev Ted Pike Archive


Leahy's Hate Bill
Hearing A Sham

Rev. Ted Pike
26 June 2009

Today Sen. Patrick Leahy delivered on his promise to hold a federal hate bill hearing. Yet it was meant to only further his agenda, strongly slanted against opponents of the hate bill.
Attorney Gen. Eric Holder and three other hate bill witnesses chosen by Leahy had a four-to-two advantage over opponents of S. 909, the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The two pro-freedom witnesses surprisingly included Gail Heriot, one of the six members of the US Commission on Civil Rights who have publicly opposed the hate bill. Leahy’s time restrictions (little more than two hours) forced these outnumbered patriots, led by the excellent arguments of Sen. Jeff Sessions, to severely narrow their objections. An issue of such danger and complication demands at least three days of hearings, with more than just two witnesses permitted to object!
Here are some of the arguments which Judiciary Democrats, Holder and Leahy’s three witnesses gave:

• Hate crimes are an increasing “serious national problem that devastates entire communities.” The federal government doesn’t want to take over all hate crimes enforcement but should be empowered to provide “backstop” intervention in case the states can’t or won’t prosecute hate criminals.

• The hate bill will never threaten freedom of speech. It is only directed against violent hate crimes.

• It will not enforce “double jeopardy” (empowering the government to retry an individual acquitted by the state of a hate crime the government thinks he committed).

• Pro-hate bill testimony was heavily woven with the assertion that the Holocaust Museum shooting is a wakeup call, proving the need to legislate against prevalent and increasingly violent racism.

Most Judiciary Republicans were absent or called away from the hearing by debate over healthcare reform on the Senate floor. Yet Sen. Orrin Hatch, before having to leave, expressed the dominant question of Republicans through the hearing: Can Holder or anyone else give examples of how US states currently fail to enforce the law against hate criminals? Repeatedly, Holder was asked this question and couldn’t answer.
Republican Senators and their two witnesses attacked the hate bill, saying that FBI statistics show hate crimes are actually declining. They asserted that the hate bill is “overly broad” and gives the Attorney General, a political appointee, the right to pick and choose whom he and the government want to indict. These defenders of freedom also correctly stated that the hate bill empowers the government to retry individuals acquitted of a hate crime by the states. They said the hate bill gives Americans no equality before the law—a fundamental privilege of being a citizen.
Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.
There was no time for discussion of other major problems with S. 909, such as the following:

• S. 909 gives at least initial preferential rights and protection to homosexual pedophiles—any homosexual who screams “Hate crime!” This problem was repeatedly expressed by House Judiciary Republicans seven weeks ago but omitted today.

• Terms such as “actual or perceived sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” etc., are the conceptual pillars of the hate bill. But Democrats can offer no precise definitions of these amorphous terms.

• Similar “anti-hate” laws have destroyed free speech in other countries of the Western hemisphere. There was no mention in the hearing today of hate laws in the outside world.

• The specific text of the 1968 hate law needs to be cited and examined. Title 18, Sec. 2a says anyone whose speech “induces” a hate crime may be punished “as a principal.” The dangers of this federal statute were repeatedly emphasized by House Republicans earlier, especially Rep. Gohmert, but left out today

• This bill blatantly violates the 14th Amendment. Holder repeatedly admitted S. 909 gives preference to a minority over the majority. Yet he was not challenged on the way this violates the 14th Amendment, which forbids legal preference.

• S. 909 violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Democrats argued today that it is a good thing to establish a “uniform, seamless” relationship between federal and local police by abolishing at least six major barriers to federal takeover of state law enforcement. There was no time for significant rebuttal.

The above are only some of the enormous concerns to which Leahy denied a hearing by limiting time and witnesses. If the hearing today had allowed at least one more opposing witness, such as hate law authority Robert L. Knight, or another day’s testimony, these issues and more might have been addressed. This was truly a kangaroo hearing, meant to give only the illusion of due process. It was acted out on a steeply slanted playing field; Leahy intended to move the outcome in one direction: passage of S. 909 by a similarly biased Senate.


Continued to call all Senators asking them not to vote for the pedophile-protecting hate bill (names on Action Page at Call 1-877-851-6437 toll free or 1-202-225-3121 toll.
There may still be opportunity in the Senate mark-up session for Republican Senators to express objections and even amendments to S. 909. Continue to encourage opposition among Republican Senators, particularly those on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tell them: “Please continue to do all you can to speak out against the pedophile-protecting hate bill S. 909.”
Also, encourage staffers to watch NPN’s gripping 9-minute video, “Stop the Pedophile-Protecting Hate Bill!” at




Watch the dynamic 10-minute educational videos, "Stop the Pedophile-Protecting Hate Bill!, at which explains how the hate bill, S. 909, ends freedom. Please tell the offices of members of Congress to watch it! Also at, watch our gripping 82-minute documentary "Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians."

Let the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians:

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this topic. Call (503) 631-3808.

P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015


America First Books Editor's Note

For those new to this controversy, please link to the following articles:

Fox News Rips "Pedophile-Protecting" Hate Bill:

...[Fox News anchor Megyn] Kelly interviewed Rep. Steve King, who attempted to amend the hate bill in Judiciary last week to explicitly exclude pedophiles. King reported how Rep. Alcee Hastings, a pro-hate bill Democrat, proudly claimed practitioners of 547 paraphilias listed by the American Psychiatric Association can "live without fear" once the hate bill is passed.
Ms. Kelly also expressed indignation that, while the Democrats acted to protect pedophiles, they rejected Republican efforts to obtain similar special protection for war veterans. Especially in times of unpopular wars, these are common victims of "hate crimes," spit upon or attacked because of who they are -- military defenders of America's freedom...

Alert to Congress Regarding Hate Bills and the False Flag Attack Threat by America First Books publisher William B. Fox. Two-thirds down the web page please find the essay "The Hate Crime Law Concept: It is all very sinister for at least nine major reasons."
Also, earlier on this same page I comment:

Although Rev Ted Pike is completely independent from Captain May and myself in terms of his political and religious views, the threats we address all stem from the same corrupt power elite. I mention in my concluding remarks below that this elite “would mobilize us into domestic tyranny and foreign wars, while distracting us from economic depression and the groups that brought it about.”
This is the real problem, not the lack of more “hate crime” laws. If anything, we need even more freedom of speech to speak truth to power, sort out our problems, and develop peaceful strategies to handle high level malefactors. This is why we urgently need for members of Congress to not only take a principled stand and stop all hate crime legislative initiatives, but to also roll back all the existing hate crime laws currently on the books.

Hate crime laws actually pose a major national security threat. They condition Americans to feel that certain types of thought are inherently immoral or illegal, even if they do not result in any form of violence or infringement on the rights of others.
In our articles related to false flag attacks, Capt. Eric H. May and I have discussed strong evidence that Mossad-CIA was behind 9-11, the mere "thought" of which would some day be outlawed once hate crime oversight bureaucracies become firmly implanted in America. We can expect government hate crime overwatch entities to experience the usual cancerous growth and abuse of power that libertarian writer and Presidential candidate Harry Browne described in his classic book Why Government Doesn't Work.
Please find out more about the hate crime issue in the Rev Ted Pike archive.

Please discover important alternative religious and secular viewpoints on freedom of speech issues at America First Books:

a) The Rev Ted Pike archive
b) The Religious Crisis page

These web pages address not only conservative Christian and Christian Zionist viewpoints, but also secular, anarcho-libertarian, atheist, pagan (particularly Asatru/Odinist), racial nationalist, and "miscellaneous other" perspectives.

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.