Given that hate is an emotion, the creation of hate crimes is an unconstitutional attempt to legislate thoughts by the left through a cleverly designed hoax which sets up conservatives to face legal retribution for daring to challenge their regressive orthodoxy.
George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” described a future dystopian world in which the state controlled all aspects of human behavior including their thoughts. This thought control was accomplished through a nefarious agency known as the Thought Police tasked with punishing thoughtcrime which was any thoughts unapproved by the Ingsoc Party. Orwell’s novel intentionally sought to create outlandish situations to better illustrate its themes of political control in a not so subtle reference to the actual political movement of socialism infecting British politics and society.
The novel leaves one feeling repulsed by the thought of a world where individualism and personal freedom is replaced by constant state surveillance and dedication to a collective. Its themes were hardly imaginable when it was published in 1949, but it continues to resonate as these themes of political repression increasingly come to resemble our present existence. The massive spying operation conducted by the NSA on Americans looks eerily similar to the omnipresent watchful eye of Big Brother, while the political spin with which we are constantly deluged by the mediacrats reminds one of the novel’s Ministry of Truth spewing propaganda at odds with reality. It’s easy to see the similarity between the actions of the Thought Police and the creation of hate crimes as a way to punish those who refuse to accept the regressive orthodoxy.
In drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson expounded upon the inalienable rights of man including the right of liberty which formed the basis for the Colonies’ decision to seek independence from Great Britain. In drafting the Constitution, James Madison sought to establish the importance of personal liberty through checks and balances on the federal government designed to ensure the maximization of personal liberty while constraining the power of the government to those basic and necessary functions. The Bill of Rights was added to enumerate and codify these freedoms as sacrosanct underpinnings to the new government. The First Amendment specifically dealt with the freedom of an American to speak his mind freely criticizing the government and its representatives without fear of retribution and unencumbered by thoughts of reprisal.
Yet, what are hate crimes but an attempt to censor the thoughts of Americans? If we Americans are truly free to express our thoughts as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, then how can the category of hate crimes even exist? Even worse, how can one determine what a person is thinking when they commit a crime? The perpetrators of hate crimes legislation wrap their pernicious attempts to regulate thought in the material of purporting to heap extra punishment upon those who lash out at others on the basis of hatred. But, isn’t every crime perpetrated on the basis of hatred? The robber who brandishes a weapon and demands your property hates the fact that you have and he doesn’t so he seeks to redress his hatred by relieving you of your property through force and intimidation. The murderer deprives one of life because he hates the fact that someone whom he begrudges lives, while the assaulter or rapist seeks to assuage his hatred of others through physical violence upon them. The thief may appear to be indifferent to his victims because he refrains from physical intimidation or violence like that of the robber, but he nonetheless hates the fact that others have while he does not and seeks to redress this hatred by relieving others of their property.
It matters not what the criminal was thinking when he commits his crimes. Harboring a thought, even a malicious thought, is not grounds for punishment. Only by failing to exercise personal responsibility manifested by self-control does the citizen with a malevolent thought then become a criminal by acting upon his thoughts. Our laws are predicated upon actions, not upon thoughts. If they were, then every American would soon be in prison as none of us are beyond thinking the unthinkable from time to time. What separates the law-abiding from the criminals is our ability to resist acting upon our occasional malevolent thoughts.
In The Federalist #51, James Madison stated “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Being that men are not angels, hence the necessity of government and laws to regulate their behavior. America is a nation of laws with myriad regulations prescribing punishments to be meted out to those who intentionally harm others through violence. Just about every conceivable method of assaulting another human is covered by our laws, and the addition of a hate crimes category does nothing to prevent criminal intentions. Its creation under the liberal guise of demonstrating empathy and action in the face of malevolent evil merely increases punishment for actions already punishable by law instead of merely increasing the punishment of the crime itself.
Conservatives were cowed into acceptance of the hate crimes category by mediacrats intent on portraying their resistance upon legitimate constitutional grounds as uncaring and heartless. How could anyone be so unsympathetic to victims of such hatred by refusing to pass hate crimes legislation asked the biased media. Little did conservatives realize in their appeasement of liberal sensibilities that creation of a hate crimes category was merely the first step in legitimizing the idea of government sanctioned thought control. Followed to its logical conclusion, this line of thought results in punishment for anyone who dares to criticize ideas put forth by the liberals who are controlling the narrative on the definition of a hate crime in the first place. Hate crime is a nebulous idea resistant to precise definition, and it is liberals controlling the narrative who ultimately define what is and is not a hate crime. Like other nebulous liberal creations such as “assault weapon,” “social justice,” and “racism,” a hate crime is ultimately undefinable, and liberals will shift the definition to suit the particular case at hand.
America is currently engaged in a massive social struggle involving those on the left engaging in a campaign of obstruction against President Trump’s attempts to undo the damage of the Obama administration. These leftist radicals have taken to the streets expressing their vituperative hatred and committing all manner of criminal acts against peaceful Americans supporting President Trump, yet they are never portrayed by the mediacrats as perpetrating hate crimes, nor are they charged as such. Their actions are portrayed as an historic struggle against oppression in a carefully crafted narrative employing all the leftist tools created over the years while conservatives supporting President Trump are maligned as all manner of evil by these same mediacrats. Much like the Bible warns in Revelations, good is portrayed as evil by the mediacrats while evil is portrayed as good.
The left has revealed its intention of criminalizing conservative thought through such incidents as that of global warming supporters calling for the prosecution of opponents they derisively refer to as “climate deniers,” and attempts to portray conservatives as mentally defective for daring to challenge liberal orthodoxy with facts and logic. To those who think this scenario as unimaginable, they should remember that it was only a few short years ago that the thought of homosexual marriage enshrined as law was also completely unimaginable, yet it exists today. President Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton has revealed the desperation of the left as it watches its movement recede from the high water mark of the Obama administration. Rejected by Americans who were finally awakened to its pernicious destruction of personal liberty by the egregious actions of the Obama administration, its adherents on the left resort to unprecedented violence through front groups funded by billionaire agitators seeking to profit from the angst it creates.
Conservatives exposed to the violence and persistence of the left are beginning to realize that they must protect themselves from these criminal agitators and prepare to wage a vicious war for control of America. Timid no more, conservatives are meeting the violent protesters of the left head on armed and ready to defend themselves while refusing to cede the public square to their lawless control. The left will not watch the dismantling of their agenda resigned to try harder next time. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve the gains they have achieved and must be met with equal determination if conservatives are to have a chance at rolling back their agenda of destruction.
America’s military doctrine is predicated upon the belief that a strong defense deters others from attempting military action against our interests. Acts of appeasement by our leaders are interpreted as signs of weakness to be exploited by those who hate America’s dominance as the world superpower and lead eventually to conflict that could have been avoided had appeasement been resisted as a short term solution. History is fraught with myriad examples of appeasement failing to achieve peace and leading to eventual wars greater in magnitude than initial efforts to confront those seeking to exploit perceived weaknesses, yet it is a lesson that never seems to be learned by those who continue its practice.
Conservatives failed to confront the creation of hate crimes by the left and are now engaged in a much greater struggle with violent leftist rioters seeking to obstruct enforcement of the law while subjecting themselves to possible future criminal penalties for daring to espouse conservative thoughts critical of the left. As any gardener will tell you, it is much easier to prevent weeds than to be faced with pulling them up by the roots. So too it is with laws that prevention of bad legislation is much preferable than the elimination of bad laws which must be pulled up by the roots.
The creation of hate crimes is a pernicious and unconstitutional action undermining the freedom of every American to exercise their thoughts in peace without fear of government retribution. The malicious thoughts of those who wallow in hatred should be just as protected by the Constitution as the thoughts of those who engage in criticism of the government and its leaders as free men ought to do, for if the thoughts of those who hate and act out violently against others based on that hatred can be punished, so too can the legitimate thoughts of those opposed to the government and its leaders expressed lawfully as political criticism in the antithesis of the First Amendment.