All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
RSS feed for comments on this post.
27 Responses to “Rep. Virginia Foxx being attacked for telling the truth about Matthew Shepard’s murder”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Since when do facts have anything to do with lib/leftist “arguments”?
And when will prosecutors start prosecuting gays every time a gay whups (verbally or physically) on a straight?
Don’t look for it to happen anytime soon. Or ever.
During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the pair’s then-girlfriends) testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man. McKinney and Henderson then went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard as their target. McKinney alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home. After befriending him, they took him to a remote area of Laramie where they robbed him, beat him severely (media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his smashed skull), and tied him to a fence with a rope from McKinney’s truck. Shepard begged for his life. Both girlfriends also testified that neither McKinney nor Henderson was under the influence of drugs at the time. The beating was so severe that the only areas on Shepard’s face that were not covered in blood were those where his tears had washed the blood stains away.
I’ve read both sides of this issue – and both are extreme. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. What is sad is that hate crime does exist – period. The media-ratzi are caught up in the semantics of who said what about whom – busy pointing fingers. Perhaps focusing on the real issues instead of the damn politics might get things done in DC. Ha! Not with media like this fueling the fire.
When is any crime anything but hate for abiding by the rule of law?
How then do you explain McKinney’s letter to the Sheriffs Department, printed in the Rocky Mountain News in 1999, that stated Shepard “said he was gay and wanted a piece of me… Being a verry (sic) drunk homofobick (sic) I flipped out and began to pistol whip the f– with my gun.”?
Foxx is being berated for her insane pretense that Matthew Shepard was a simple robbery victim. The two life sentences being served by each defendant argue otherwise, as do the fact available in the public record. That demonstrated liars changed their stories when interviewed years later by Vargas on 20/20 should hardly be surprising.
“The two life sentences being served by each defendant argue otherwise”
Er, what? How? Do people who kill other people to feed a drug habit get lenient sentencing, in your world? Do you only serve life if you killed your victim because he was gay?
I’ve read up on this a lot, and I also believe the primary motivation was simple robbery. But its beside the point. The idea that it is -more- evil to kill someone because “they are gay” than because they want to feed their drug habit is outrageous. Ever hear of equal protection? If someone kills me, I don’t give a shit if they killed me because they thought I was gay or because they want my money – I’m still dead, and I still want them to pay. The attitude of “Oh, they didn’t actually hate him because he was gay, they just killed him for drugs, so it’s okay, lighter sentence” is so revolting on its face that I’d prefer to see people who support such a blatantly vile idea receive tougher sentencing, just because their own worldview is obviously deeply hateful.
Qwinn
This is how the dems operate now. Hell, it got them the White House and Congress, so why not continue doing it.
Are you pro-immigration enforcement? You hate Mexicans.
Are you pro-life? You’re a fascist, controlling tyrant.
Are you pro-Christian? You’re a dangerous religious fanatic.
Are you anti-hate laws? You hate minorites and gay people.
Are you against the ridiculous budget? You hate the poor.
It’s their M.O. and with the media firmly in their pocket, its working.
Obama and his buddies are taking us down a very slippery slope. Hang on to your wallets and watch what you say!
One story telling the truth.-you,sis
dozens calling foxx every name in the book at memeorandum.
it’s no wonder we live in the kind of country we do when the odds of anyone hearing the truth are so stacked against us.
Why did they use the “gay panic” defense at trial if the only reason they attacked was for robbery? Of course, you are relying on a news report from the supposed “librul media” in which the people directly involved completely contradict what they originally told investigators AND testified to. Why is their change of heart in 2002 all of a sudden the truth? Oh, that’s right – Republicans like to “fix the facts” around the conclusion.
Price, in her interview with Vargas, ultimately openly remarked: “I do not think it was a hate crime at all. I never did.” This statement contradicted Price’s first interview with 20/20 in 1998, in which she said (of McKinney and Henderson’s attack): “They just wanted to beat him bad enough to teach him a lesson, not to come on to straight people, and don’t be aggressive about it anymore.”
Retired Police Chief of Laramie, Commander Dave O’Malley — who was also interviewed by ABC and criticized the 20/20 report — pointed out that the drug motive does not necessarily disqualify the anti-gay motive
Right, because the democrats have been the very definition of truth and honesty.
I think the whole point of this incident is that it doesn’t matter if they did it because he was gay. What they did was inhuman and they deserve the chair whether it was a robbery or whether it was anti-gay. Murder is murder. Murder isn’t “more wrong” because the motives were anti-gay, nor is it “less wrong”.
I agree NC, as if being anti-gay should have your whole seed wiped off the face of the Earth?? You murder a gay man and your parents and children should be punished too. Isn’t that special.
The “gay panic” defense was used to put the burden on the prosecution to disprove a sexual assault on the part of Matthew Sheppard. What these two men did was absolutely wrong, even tho I wish this upon no one, they should have owned up to their murder after the deed was done, but so few criminally minded people ever do.
The interesting thing is, even tho the left hates these two men for what they did to Matthew Sheppard, they still want them to vote for the Democrat party while they are in prison.
Yes Sissy, politics and war make very strange bedfellows. – Lorica
It was a hate crime plain and simple do some more research look at the time lines yourself and think about it. get facts not some blog or info-tainment article and honestly ask yourself what motivated this, but thats not the point you should take away from this. the result is sickening despite the motivation, and justice should be served equally. but looking at this from purely what her comments were and her motivation for saying them (I’m not pretending to know them so don’t accuse me of that) what purpose did it serve? if you have a problem with the bill make it about the content. taking issue with the name and calling something like THAT a hoax is coldhearted and sick. as a parent i praise Judy Shepard for not reacting instantly and violently to something like that because I’m not sure I would have been able to contain my rage. what I am trying to say is from this perspective this is not about politics… this is about decency.
You’ve made a hugh mistake linking these 2 stories. While your facts are accurate Shepard’s attack had nothing to do with his sexual preference and that Byrd’s murder’s were punished to the fullest extent of the law for their racist attack, your motives will be questioned by the lunatics on the left. And they will use this to promote fear in an attempt to bring the two groups together to protect each other from racist, homophobic people which they will label you as with no cause.
I see our hate crimes supporters here today are doing their usual liberal best when it comes to logic, well reasoned argument, and spelling/grammar/readability. Jeez guys, buy a shift key and a period key, your writings show how poorly organized and unintelligent your thought processes are.
But, hey now, Thought Crime laws are doubleplusgood! Doublethink and groupthink rule!
OK guys, now get back to your 2 minute hate.
“vile, extremist liars”
Simply another case of projection, Queenie.
Sev, you have to wonder what left-wing hate site linked up here (without the customary trackback, of course) to bring all the logic-challenged ones out from under their bridges.
Well GWR, maybe our dear Sister finally made the big leagues and got a Media Myrmidons link up?
Yes because mocking the punctuation of a post is equivalent to defeating the logic… You addressed nothing instead opting to name call. If your going to have a discussion make it about the topic.
To answer your media question I read all stories from all sources right or left because I like to get a good idea for the reasoning behind both arguments, you should try it sometime.
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. – Sinclair Lewis
OK, Tax…you want to talk about the logic? Let’s start with this, from your first post:
And it should. But if you believe that, then you would agree with Congresswoman Foxx and oppose any bill that serves justice differently depending on the race/sex/religion/sexual proclivities of the victim.
So which is it? Should justice be served equally, or do you favor hate crimes bills? There’s no way you can logically embrace both positions.
Then there’s this:
Horse hockey. All so-called “hate crimes” bills are about politics. They are about setting up special voting blocs as entitled to special privileges that other people do not get, in return for which the privileged groups are supposed to vote for the party that passed them. Oh, and they’re also about criminalizing what you think. And if you don’t think that has strong political implications, your thinking is more muddled than your writing.
By the way, don’t go braying about name calling if you’re going to imply that patriots and Christians are fascist, as Lewis did.
And Severian’s point is well taken about the lack of writing ability. When you go off on a run-on, incoherent rant like that, you sound as clueless as Obama does without his teleprompter.
Stop using the snarky signature line. Lewis never said that.
LINK
As for your “debate my logic, please” appeal.
We will, once you provide some logic.
Apparently Sinclair was wrong. Fascism is coming to America wrapped in an expensive suit and carrying a teleprompter.
Tax, since when does following the Constitution mean “justice should be served equally”? What you are advocating is abrogating the Constitution, not enforcing it. The underlying concept of the Constitution is that justice should be served (which it was in both the cited cases), not that it should be served “equally”.
Since when are you, Cohen, Schultz, Luna or anyone else so morally superior that you can impose your own idea of “justice” (which, to me, doesn’t appear just at all) on everyone else? Special pipeline to God, maybe?
And if you “read all stories from all sources right and left”, 1) how do you have time to do anything else, like blog, and 2) do you even pay attention to the logic of arguments given by the right on most subjects or the lack thereof given on nearly any subject by the left?
I never said I favored hate crime bills and my post was not about legislating them, my post was about her comments calling the Sheppard case a hoax when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
To answer your question there is a good reason for hate crimes to be looked at differently in some cases because they can incite violence against entire groups of people as well as promote organized hate in the form of extremist groups such as the KKK or even Muslim terrorist groups.
I cannot say I have studied the bill in question and know everything about it since that’s not i was taking issue with, but to ignore them completely instead of being proactive and trying to identify things that lead to groups of Americans being terrorized seems foolish to me.
Now if you would be so kind as to enlighten me on how this bill would criminalize what people think, examples please. like i said i don’t pretend to know everything about the bill so this is an honest request for information.
I did not imply patriots or Christians are fascists when I quoted Sinclair that would be a generalization made by the interpreter, the quote seems to point out that when fascism comes to this country it will be shrouded in deceit…
and for the love of god lets drop this teleprompter business it has zero relevance to the topic.
And there seems to be ample evidence that the case was NOT about gay-bashing.
That “hate crimes” need to be “looked at differently” is to say that there is no need for law or laws, only that some privileged people should make arbitrary decisions on a case-by-case basis and that what is legal today may or may not be legal tomorrow, and what may be illegal today may be perfectly legal tomorrow. “Hate crimes” legislation is simply codifying what has not been tested by social convention and practice, all on the basis of making some groups “more equal than others.”
As far as certain groups being “terrorized”, tell me which group or groups have been “terrorized”, sir, on the basis of anything contained in the legislation? Even blacks in the days of Jim Crow were not “terrorized” except in specific (generally) KKK cases, and if not punished locally should very well have been pursued by the feds (both the crimes themselves and the ones appointed to solve them but didn’t). That would have led to “justice” without the sophistry of the left clouding the issues.
And finally, as far as christianity and fascism go, when the country was founded there was ample opportunity to create a theocracy. The founders chose not to, and out of respect for the founding principles no religious sect has tried it since. No such thing can be said about the religious fervor of the left in regards to their “solutions” to any “problem” that comes along.
Tax, if you read ST’s original post, you’d see there’s just as much evidence that the murder was not about homophobia, as Carlos also pointed out. So what’s your point – that someone’s feelings got hurt?
Take a look north of the border. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have already been dragged before government tribunals not because of anything they’ve done, but because of what they said – and the justification was so-called hate crimes legislation. And yes, it can happen here, especially with hysterical people like you who go off on an incoherent rant for reasons you still can’t completely explain.
As for the rest of your last remarks, go back and re-read Carlos’ last comment. He’s laid every one of your points to rest quite well.
And since you brought fascism into this thread, for reasons only you know, consider this: the “progressives” of the 1920s and 1930s were absolutely enchanted with Mussolini and Hitler right up until the latter invaded the Soviet Union. And why not? Look at some highlights of the fascist program in Italy or the Nazis in Germany: minimum wage laws, a progressive tax system, very strict separation of the church and state, free health care, vast spending on public education, support for abortion, strict gun control, anti-smoking campaigns, hatred for the free market, and strict racial quotas and speech codes in their universities.
Now, does that sound more like the average Christian patriot, or the average leftist today?
That doesn’t mean all your average liberals today are crazed lunatics looking to conquer the world. But it does mean that NC Cop hit the nail squarely on the head. You on the modern left have the same intellectual roots as the fascists of 80 years ago.
And, I might add, they have the same self-congratulatory sense of the moral high road, no matter the actual real-life harm they do to their intended beneficiaries (who, by the way, are, according to the actions of the morally superior left, unable to make decisions for themselves; in other words they are incredibly deficient and untrustworthy).