Boy, the internet is full of stuff; chock full.

The name of Representative Conyers, Jr., ranking Democrat in the House Judiciary Committee, has been fluttering around in my consciousness, nagging. So I looked up some of his pet projects to see in what direction the Rep. Conyers, Jr. might steer said Committee.

Let's set aside the resolution after resolution and lawsuits targeting Cheney, Bush, et. al.

Lessee... hate crimes looks like a recurrent bug-a-boo:

H. R. 2662

This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005'.

...

Congress

(that is, Mr. Conyers, Jr.)

                                    makes the following findings:

... this goes on for awhile, until we get to parts 10 and 11:

(10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

Assuming Mr. Conyers, Jr., is restricting himself to United States history, I'm having trouble understanding the breadth of his definitions of "race, color or ancestry" — perceived or real. Any race, any color? Huh!

(11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

What are we saying here, Mr. Conyers, Jr., and whom are we talking about?

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

`( A ) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`( B ) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

"Actual or perceived race, color, religion or national origin..." that should about cover the motivation spectrum, eh? Well — not so fast:

( 2 ) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

Whooo, wee! we missed the "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability" categories in part (1). But — and this may be the fatal, glaring error in a Democratic committee — what happened to the "race" and "color" categories in this part? Or — why the overlap in "religion" and "national origin?"

dot, dot, dot. Naturally, any bill worth its salt in Washington has to drone on, although I will give Mr. Conyers, Jr. points for (relative) brevity. But do we really need any more latitude in penalizing "perceived or real" motivations for crimes?

Sweet mother of pearl! Can I be first in line to play the "gender identity" card?

Well, maybe that was just a fluke. What else does he work on? Hmm —

H. Res. 288.

Text of My Resolution Regarding Religious Intolerance

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both those supporting and opposing my actions. I continue to believe that given recent events, it is worthwhile for the Congress to actually express its support for the freedom of religion. The resolution was drafted to oppose all religious intolerance. To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion.

Anyway, below in the extended entry is the full text of H. Res. 288. I hope you agree that read in its totality, it is a fair and appropriate resolution.

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both...

I'm beginning to tear up a little bit, but let's soldier on, shall we? Here's the text in entirety:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.

Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;

Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;

Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;

Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;

Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

I guess if I'm going to buy that gun to stick in my mouth, now would be a good time.

ISN'T THE GUY IN CHARGE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUPPOSED TO HAVE, AT LEAST, A NODDING ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE?