Capitol Link: SEANC, GOP Want Executive Oversight of State Health Plan

Edwards' Nonprofits Also Under Investigation

WRAL: Edwards Investigated for Misusing Funds

Why Not Punish Thoughts?

As hate crimes legislation is being debated anew on Capitol Hill, now is a good time to revisit why conservatives and Republicans have opposed punishing thoughts in our nation's laws.

What is a hate crime? It is a crime that is motivated by bias against a victim who is a representative member of a disfavored or minority group. Should we punish hate crimes? Of course we should, and we do under existing laws. Should we punish certain criminals more harshly because of the identity of their victims? That's where the debate is happening in D.C. this week.

The first reason why we should refuse to punish thoughts is First Amendment principles. Although the freedom of speech and thought has been under siege in recent years and it seems that the real estate where true freedom can be found shrinks more each day, we have consistently stayed out of the brains of Americans and allowed them to think what they like. Even if the thoughts a person has are despicable, distasteful, and unfit for any decent human being, the answer is not to legislate those thoughts away. Hate must be defeated by love, not by law.

If we were to punish criminals for their thoughts, how would we ascertain what they were thinking as they committed a crime? If a person is beat up and robbed and that person is gay or black or a Muslim, how can we know if the true motivation was financial gain or hate-based? Don't all crimes involve hate? Hate for society, hate for our laws, hate for fellow human beings. Can we really expect judges and juries to make appropriate decisions on what was going through a criminal's mind as the offender committed a crime? We cannot punish what we cannot know beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is the suffering any less real no matter if the victim is black or white? Does the family mourn the loss of life any differently regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim? Is the act committed any less of an evil and injustice regardless of what religion the victim practices? Why then should we punish the actions differently depending on who was victimized?

Under current law, if a criminal picks out their victim based on their identification as belonging to a certain group, the criminal targets this person and commits a premeditated offense against the victim then the criminal is punished to the harshest degree under the law. Under current law, the motivation behind the crime is not the determining factor as to what the punishment will be. Financial gain or hate-based bias, criminals are punished regardless of who they choose as a victim.

When a criminal is treated differently based on who they choose as a victim, we call it injustice. We don't make it law.

Myrick Votes Against Budget Conference Report

Press Release
April 29, 2009

(Washington, DC) – US Representative Sue Myrick (NC-09) has released the following statement on today’s vote on the Fiscal Year 2010 budget conference report:

“I voted against this budget for the same reason I voted against it the first time. It’s still based on out-of-control spending, tax increases to pay for it, and debt that our kids and grandkids will be responsible for paying back for years to come.”

Jones Votes "No" on Big Spending Budget

Democrats’ budget would nearly triple the national debt over the next 10 years.

Press Release
April 29, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today U.S. Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) voted against the conference report for S. Con. Res. 13, a bill setting the congressional budget for the U.S. government for fiscal year 2010 and the budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014. The more than $3.55 trillion budget passed the House by a party-line vote of 233 to 193 and is expected to be signed into law by the President.

Congressman Jones’ statement on the Democrats’ budget follows below:

“During difficult times, American families and small businesses make sacrifices and do what they can to tighten their belts and reign in spending. Most people expect the federal government to do the same. Sadly, Washington has chosen to go on a spending spree and ignore the pressing demand for fiscal discipline. Rather than scale back wasteful spending, this budget resolution is projected to nearly triple the national debt over the next 10 years.”

“The spending in this budget resolution calls for a $1.23 trillion deficit for 2010, which will lead to unprecedented borrowing from China, the Middle East, and other foreign countries that own our ballooning debt. Problems that have been caused by too much spending and too much debt simply can’t be solved by more government spending and more federal debt. The fact that April 26^th was already “Debt Day” – the day in the fiscal year when federal spending surpasses revenues – obviously hasn’t registered in Washington. This Congress needs to wake up and realize its moral obligation to avoid passing on a mountain of debt to America’s future generations.”

“While our nation continues to suffer amid a faltering economy, this budget includes $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years. It not only imposes new taxes on corporate businesses but raises income taxes, harming the most successful small businesses that pay taxes at the top two individual rates. This budget also includes a new national energy tax that will cost every American household. Hiking taxes during an economic downturn will only hurt small businesses and slow job creation.”

“With its fast-track ‘reconciliation’ procedure to push through sweeping policy changes like government run-health care and its expansion of the federal government through huge increases in spending, taxes, and deficits, this budget resolution will plunge our nation further into debt and keep us from getting back on the right economic track.”

NCGOP in the News: Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam on WRAL's Headline Saturday

House Republican Leader Paul "Skip" Stam was the featured guest on WRAL's Headline Saturday over the weekend and spoke about Governor Perdue's plans for taxing and spending.