The KrisAnne Hall Show
Hate Crimes and Federal Troops in Chicago: Part 2
July 08, 2017
Transcribed by: Angilyn Mathews
Listen to the audio here: http://krisannehall.com/hate-crimes-federal-troops-chicago/
Welcome back to the second hour of the KrisAnne Hall show. So glad to have you with us today, on this wonderful liberty Saturday. So exciting for us to be together to learn about liberty and to learn how to communicate that liberty with each other. You are not wrong to stand by principle and demand principle. When we sacrifice liberty at the altar of pragmatism, nobody wins. It is the slow degrees by which liberty is always taken, and we must be a people who are more willing to say, “Hey, I will stand on principles, because in the end it only matters where I stand.” And as we stand on principle I want to talk to you about something today that I don’t know if it’s getting enough talk. I’m not seeing it much in the media world; the mainstream media world, and I’m not really seeing a lot of it in the Facebook posts and that, around the constitutional conservative liberty forums. Maybe it’s because it’s a bit confusing, but nonetheless, what we’re gonna talk about is Senate Resolution 118. Senate Resolution 118’s title says,
“A resolution condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.”
As a person who knows history; has an acquaintance with history; has an acquaintance with free speech and how that stuff works, this title really, really makes some alarm bells go off for me. For “animus targeting a minority in the United States.” I just; I wonder, how do we protect certain classes of people above other classes of people, and maintain the understanding of equal protection under the law? I also wonder, because this is a resolution, is that perhaps why it’s not getting a lot of airplay?
Normally resolutions don’t mean anything; they’re just the senate or the house giving their opinion. It is not law, okay, so let’s just be clear; this is not a law, limiting free speech; this is not a law defining free speech; this is not a law invoking new hate crimes, okay. So this is not a law, this is a resolution. Generally speaking, resolutions are just legislative bodies offering up their opinion. Resolution for this, resolution for that; this is what we believe. And it starts off that way:
“This resolution condemning hate crime, and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.”
You know, as I keep saying that title over and over again, I really believe it’s that word “animus” that bothers me the most. Animus. I mean, it’s like a four dollar word, nobody really – how many people use that word anymore? But, you look it up. An animus is a “hostility or ill feeling.” I’m rather disturbed that we have now brought animus into the realm of hate crime in the minds of legislators. Animus. I harbor an ill feeling toward someone which is now in the same thought process as hate crime, by those who are writing laws. I really think, now that I sort of talk about this, it is the word animus; it is so vague; nondescript. And it rings of “thought police” – as if hate crime isn’t a matter of “thought police” to begin with, but I mean, seriously. Animus; it’s just not a very solid, descript word. It deals with feelings and, not even just hatred – it’s just an ill feeling.
Maybe I have an ill feeling towards you because I don’t like you. What if you happen to be a person that is defined by our legislator as a minority group? Does my dissatisfaction with your personality inadequacies make me now guilty of a hate crime? I don’t know.
So, it begins off as a resolution where; it always says whereas, whereas, whereas, whereas, whereas; whereas what in the past is making us think this way; what is happening now that makes us think this way? So, let’s go through these “whereas” because this is pretty general, standard kind of stuff for a resolution.
“Whereas, in the past several years, violent crimes, threats of violence, and other incidents of hate-motivated targeting of religious, racial, and ethnic minorities have increased across the United States.”
Would that apply to the federal government? Are they talking about Federal Department of Justice targeting Christians? Would that be the federal government targeting people for their certain religious beliefs? I’m just wondering, is this is a general statement, for the general public, or is this just for people, and not for government?
“Whereas in 2015, hate crimes targeting Muslims in the United States increased by 67 percent, reaching a level of violence targeting Muslim Americans, that in the United States had not experienced since the aftermath of September 11, 2001 attacks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Whereas in 2015 anti-Semitic incidents increased in the United States for the second straight year, according to the Anti-Defamation League;
Whereas in 2015, anti-Semitic incidents at institutions of higher education nearly doubled;
Whereas in 2015 among single-bias hate crime incidents in the United States, 59.2 percent of the victims targeted were racial, ethnic, or ancestry bias.”
Ancestry bias? Okay.
“And among those victims, 52.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offender’s anti-Black or anti-African American bias, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Whereas, in 2017, there have been more than 100 reported bomb threats against Jewish community centers, Jewish day schools, Jewish organizations and institutions in more than 38 states;
Whereas, in 2017, Islamic centers and mosques have been burned in the states of Texas, Washington, Florida, and Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated in the states of Missouri and Pennsylvania;
Whereas, in 2017, there has been harassment and hate-based violence against individuals who are perceived to be Arab or Muslims, including members of South Asian communities in the United States, and Hindu and Sikh Americans have been the target of hate-based violence; Whereas, February 28th,”
ooh, that’s very precise,
“Whereas, on February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump, before a joint session of Congress, acknowledged threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, and stated that, ‘we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.’”
End quote. So, that’s the “whereas”. So, from that we gather, let’s see, Muslims, Jewish people, Black people, African American people, South Asian people, Hindu people, Sikh people, are to not be discriminated against. We’re not to have any form of “hate crime, racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”; and these are the groups that the senate find most assaulted. That is the “whereas” part. That is standard for all resolutions, but now we come to the “resolved” part. And this is the part that makes this resolution a little bit different than most resolutions. This says,
“Resolved that the senate affirms that the United States stands united in condemning hate and evil in all forms.”
Well, they took that from the president’s speech. Number two:
“Rejects hate-motivated crime as an attack on the fabric of society of the United States and the ideals of pluralism and respect.”
“Condemns hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the Un…,”
There’s that word again, I don’t like that word (animus),
“…in the United States.”
Here’s the differentiating part: Not only are they voicing their opinion now, they are now giving directives to federal agencies. Number four:
“Calls on federal law enforcement officials, working with state and local officials, to expeditiously investigate all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against minorities in the United States; to hold the perpetrators of those crimes, incidents, or threats accountable and bring perpetrators to justice.”
So, now we have three levels of government enforcement; those on a crime, those on an incident, and those on a threat. How do we invoke due process on an incident or a threat if they are not a crime? Crimes, incidents, or threats; state and local and federal law enforcement agencies; expeditiously investigating all credible reports, and to hold the perpetrators of those incidents accountable and bringing them to justice. How do you bring someone to justice over an incidence? What is the element of an incident? What is the criminal due process for an incident? See, the deviations here, are very disturbing and very alarming. We need to pay attention to the language.
See, we not only have an expansion of federal power into the state and local officials, but we have now the senate of the United States directing the Executive agencies to direct our state and local officials, to expeditiously hold perpetrators of incidents accountable, and to bring the perpetrators of incidents to justice. This is statism; this is how this works, this is “minority report”; this is the abandonment of due process.
The senate also encourages the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to “work to improve the reporting of hate crimes,” and, ”to emphasize the importance of the agency’s collection and reporting of data, pursuant to federal law.” There’s this thing; they keep talking about hate crimes. Nobody goes to prison for hate. There is no such thing as a hate crime; why do they keep using this language over and over again, describing a crime that does not exist? There is no crime to hate; you do not go to prison for hating. Hate crimes are not really crimes, they’re sentence-enhancements. So, if you murder someone, and the prosecutor intends to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your murder of that person was motivated by hate, the criminal justice system has then determined that you are now subject to, what we call, sentence-enhancements. You can receive a stiffer sentence for your murder because it was motivated by hate.
That should be really, really disturbing to us, as a civilized society, on many, many levels. First and foremost, the murder is the taking of someone’s life; that should be, I mean, that is a crime, obviously. That is a crime; you cannot take someone else’s life, without; of course. Self-defense aside, okay. You cannot criminally take someone else’s life. So, how does hate make the ending of that life worse? “Oh, I loved you when I murdered you, so I get less time in prison?” What if there is no recognized hate of your societal position? Nobody hates your people. Maybe, they hated you as an individual. Well, is that a hate crime then? I hate you because you’re a bad person; I hate you because you have something that I want; I hate you because you won’t give me what I want. I mean, what other kind of murder is there? And, why is it that certain lives would be valued above others?
See, that’s why I don’t like these hate crime sentence-enhancements; it creates even greater division in society. It says your life is more important than mine. So, if somebody kills you, they must go to prison for life, but if they kill me, no, maybe twenty years. How does that not breed division and resentment in a society? So, why is it that our legislators do not understand, there is no such thing as a hate crime; why do they keep using these terms over and over again? Why do they want the people to believe that there is such a thing as a hate crime? It is not a crime to hate. It is a crime to murder someone, it is a crime to rob someone, it is a crime to beat or batter someone; whether you do that with love in your heart, or hate in your heart, there is no such thing as a hate crime. The senate also says,
“We call on the Executive branch to continue to offer federal assistance that may be available for victims of hate crimes, and to continue to carry out safety and preparedness programs for religious institutions, places of worship, and other institutions that have been targeted because of the affiliation of the institutions with any particular religious, racial, or ethnic minority in the United States.”
I wonder, does that mean they’re going to stop supporting and funding the Southern Poverty Law Center, who have become the motivators of division and hatred?
So, I find this Senate Resolution disturbing from many aspects. There are people that are upset about it because of the preference; obviously in the text given to Muslim; crimes against Muslims and discrimination against those of the Islamic faith – I see this from a broader perspective. I think that it is wrong for the legislature to choose any religion as deeming of greater importance than the rest; of greater accountability than the rest. That’s not the job of the legislature; it’s supposed to be equal protection under the law.
I forgot, one of the “resolved” form in the last segment; let’s talk about that: The senate also,
“Encourages the development of interagency task force led by the Attorney General to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities.”
First off, it’s not the Attorney General of the United States’ responsibility to protect any communities in America; that is not a delegated authority – that is a local authority. That is not a federal authority. And why wouldn’t the Attorney General of the United States be wanting to protect against crime in all communities?
Why wouldn’t states and local law enforcements, state and local officials want to protect against crime in all communities? Am I grasping for straws here? I’m just looking for equal protection under the law. The valuing of some lives over the rest, is a dangerous and dangerous, slippery slope. It drives us to see differences rather to overcome them. If all lives matter, why do some lives have more value than others?
And why is it that the senate feels compelled to create a resolution that is not only a resolution standing up, you know, “We don’t like hate; we don’t like evil.” Right? That’s great. We are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms; end of resolution. Why do we now have to have, at the end of the resolutions, directives for federal agencies to fix hate and evil? Why don’t we talk about federal agencies that are targeting certain groups because they disagree with the federal government? Why don’t we talk about Executive orders? Why don’t we talk about policies and regulations that target certain parts of our communities? To deprive people of their life and their liberty, and their ability to pursue their happiness. See, I see more division being created by government, than I do unity. And I also want to talk about separation of powers.
This is not a law. There’s been no law passed. A resolution does not have to go through the law binding process. So, it doesn’t go through the house, through the senate, through the house, through the president; it doesn’t go through that binding process. So, it’s not a law. So, how does the senate feel that it has the audacity outside of a law to issue directives to an executive agency? Do we now have Congress issuing Executive Orders, to Executive agencies? Cause this is how this reads; this does not read as a resolution. This reads as an Executive order, and for the congress, for the senate to be issuing Executive Orders to Executive agencies is a clear violation of separation of powers. We are so fundamentally out of whack in Washington DC.
I don’t think anybody over there knows what they’re supposed to be doing and what they’re not supposed to be doing. I think this is truly the epitome of a Banana Republic where everybody just does whatever they think they need to do, and whatever they feel fit to do. “Oh, well this is bad, and this will look good on our voting record if we come out against hate. If we come out against hate and we come together and we say ‘we hate “hate”, and we hate animus, and we want to stand against animus, and we want people prosecuted for animus, and we want justice obtained for people who hold animus.’”
You know, maybe that looks good on a voting record, but it is a very, very disturbing thing, when it comes from a legislative body as a directive on the Executive branch, over whom they have no authority outside of the creation of a law, that is done pursuant to the Constitution. And, by the way, this resolution isn’t even; if it were a law, is not pursuant to the Constitution because there is no constitutional authority delegated to the federal government to outlaw animus.
“To encourage the development of interagency task forces led by the Attorney General; to end animus in America.”
It is that word, it is that word, animus, that really, really bothers me. It’s the slipping degrees; the steps that we take further and further from liberty. And now, because we have this resolution, what happens as a result of this resolution? How are we to hold the Executive agencies accountable for what they do here? There’s no law directing them to do this. I wonder now, if this resolution will be taken into consideration by the federal courts as they are, I don’t know, interpreting the Civil Rights Act, or interpreting any regulation, or whatever, as legislative intent. See, that’s how laws become expanded beyond their borders, because the federal court system then looks at what they define as “legislative intent” to expand the meaning of the written word.
Actually, not just simply to expand – to make it elastic – into whatever they want it to mean, for whatever the times demand. So that we no longer are operating under written law. You can never know if you’re actually breaking the law or not because it’s really not a written law, it is a form of opinion that is enforced by the judiciary, based on extrapolation and inference. What kind of inference do we now get from the senate, wanting the Executive agencies and federal law enforcement to expeditiously investigate and to hold perpetrators accountable for animus.
This should be even more concerning to us. now that the Chicago police and federal agents have teamed up to, quote, “end gun violence” in Chicago. This is the testing ground. You see, if the federal government uniting with Chicago police, will “actually end gun violence” in Chicago, how many other cities are going to ask for federal agents to come police them? And then, how many cities will be policed by the federal government? This is a standing army.
And this is where Donald Trump is wrong. As a candidate, Donald Trump mentioned shootings that claimed hundreds of lives each year, and when he became president he tweeted on Twitter, “To send in the feds”, if local authorities didn’t stop the “carnage”. And now, Trump has announced a program to deploy more federal agents to address Chicago’s gun crime. Trump wrote on Twitter,
“Crime and killings in Chicago have reached such epidemic proportions that I am sending in federal help.”
He is wrong. And I know this will probably make people upset with me, but we are liberty over security here; principle over party, and truth over personality. This is not returning power to the States by sending in federal troops to police local people. This is not restoring the Constitutional Republic by sending in federal troops to patrol city streets. They’re creating a Chicago Crime Gun Strike Force, comprising agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as federal prosecutors, police officers, and Illinois state troopers. The team will include about 20 ATF agents, 20 members of the Chicago police department, and it was described by federal authorities as the first – listen to me – the first permanent unit of its kind in the country. Did you catch that? Permanent! Chicago, the feds are never leaving you now; you are now permanently occupied by federal troops. “The first of its kind in the country.” Does that not tell us that they’re waiting for more; that they plan on making more? “The first of its kind.” We should make it the last of its kind.
White House spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said, during an off-air briefing, what the problem is. She says,
“I think the problem there; pretty clearly it’s a crime problem,” She said, “I think that crime is probably driven by morality more than anything else, so I think this is a law enforcement issue.”
I wonder, now that we have this idea that this is a morality issue, and now a gun control problem becomes a morality issue and the federal troops are now a permanent part of law enforcement in Chicago, what does that mean for the rest of America? This is expansion of federal power to the extreme; to an extreme. That the designers of our Constitutional Republic were very most literally, in writing, hoping to prevent for us. This is what they actually lived through; this is why they created the Constitution in writing, and signed and sealed it as the supreme law of the land so that the federal government could not come outside of its designated boundaries. But they also knew that the Constitution was just a document of writing, and that if the people did not secure their own liberty, limit their own government, then liberty could be destroyed.
The attitude of those in Chicago is very, very disturbing; inviting federal rule over their community.
Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago’s spokesperson said that, “we welcome – we welcome additional federal support. We appreciate the federal agents that are now arriving.”
Shari Runner, the president of the Chicago Urban League, said, “If it reduces the amount of guns flowing into this city, I’m all for it. Let’s do it.”
Why would we invite our own servitude through a standing army? Because we don’t know our history, and we do not know where this leads. When we can know. History and experience already writes the end of this story, and their own statements tell you what they want. “The first – the first of its kind in America.”
Let’s make a prediction, that this joint task force, these federal troops in Chicago will be a huge success. In the first year you’ll see huge reduction in shootings and gun crimes and, I don’t know, maybe even hate, in Chicago (sarcasm). Which will encourage other cities and other places to ask for federal troops in their streets. If the federal government can expand its authority in this way then there is no Constitution left at all. Because if the people can’t defend their own homes… You think it gets crazy when local officials – local law enforcement – become destructive of society. Think what it’s going to be like when federal troops do; how are you going to hold federal troops accountable when they become abusive to the people? It’s time for us to get educated so that we can procure our own security and limit the federal government to its original boundaries.
God bless. See you tomorrow.