Disgusting Democrats Demonstrate Deviant Devotion.

Published on May 3, 2006 By Moderateman In US Domestic

Democrats led by Harry Reid again proved their unwillingness to address real problems in the United States Senate.

They have blocked a critical child predators protection bill, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which is designed to give law enforcement and parents better tools to combat child predators and keep young people safe.

Introduced by Senator Hatch, this bill has 33 bipartisan cosponsors and was unanimously passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s also supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Boys and Girls Club of America, to name a few.

Dems won't allow floor action on this bill because it would make the GOP look good in an election year to pass this bill.
Only way dems will agree to a vote on this bill is if GOP agrees to a bunch of gay hate crime laws.

Only dems could make sexual predators a partisan issue. Only dems could say we won't have a vote on this bill without blackmailing you.

Apparently Reid conferred with ted Kennedy on the strategy to this.

I am sick of these traitors to this country.

Kennedy and Reid keep putting their pathetic party before the children of the united states.

More good news from the party of the 'PEOPLE" I guess kids do not count since they don't vote.

Democrats? you disgust me!"

Comments (Page 2)

Gideon MacLeish

on May 03, 2006

You're misinformed about this bill, mod. This bill was introduced to create a national registry for child abusers, not necessarily sex offenders. Part of the problem I have with it is that it would put parents who have NOT been found guilty in ANY criminal court of law of any wrongdoing on the registry because of their involvement with CPS. It's a very bad idea, and until it is strictly restricted to CRIMINALLY CONVICTED sexual PREDATORS (and not including "sex offenders" such as a 19 year old who got his 17 year old girlfriend pregnant), it SHOULD be shot down.

So, even though it was for the wrong reasons, it was the right result.

Moderateman

on May 03, 2006

#17 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006

You're misinformed about this bill, mod. This

I am only reporting what I have read gid, but if I am reporting from several sources wrongly I stand corected.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 03, 2006

Well, here it is as O'Reilly reports it: Link

It's entirely possible O'Reilly's reporting could be wrong. I don't know. And there are some important legal issues I have with the bill. If we're talking about a registry for CONVICTED sexual PREDATORS, I have no problem with it.l But there's a legal differentiation even between a sexual predator and a sexual offender, and I think that should show up in the bill.

Moderateman

on May 03, 2006

#19 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006

It's entirely possible O'Reilly's reporting could be wrong. I don't know. And there are some important legal issues I have with the bill. If we're talking about a registry for CONVICTED sexual PREDATORS, I have no problem with it.l But there's a legal differentiation even between a sexual predator and a sexual offender, and I think that should show up in the bill.

is this semantics gid? What exactly is a sexual ofender? how does it excuse a 19 year old from boinking someone not legal to boink?

Moderateman

on May 03, 2006

I just read your link and although that IS NOT where I got my info from, it's right on the money.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 03, 2006

is this semantics gid? What exactly is a sexual ofender? how does it excuse a 19 year old from boinking someone not legal to boink?

I'm not saying that it should excuse a 19 year old from boinking someone not legal to boink, mod, I'm saying it is a ridiculous waste of time and resources to track that 19 year old the rest of his life with the same fervor we would track a sexual PREDATOR (someone who is a habitual pedophile rather than a stupid teenager caught up in a preventable mistake). Make that 19 year old pay the price, and certainly don't wipe that record clean quickly, but don't treat him with the same heavy hand that you treat animals like the one that killed Jessica Lunsford (who should, by the way, never even see the light of day again, in my opinion).

But the O'Reilly report indicates that it would create a registry for ALL alleged abusers, including those who are "convicted" by the kangaroo court of CPS, and NEVER have been afforded due process. This would mean we'd track the mother whose utilities were shut off because her minimum wage job couldn't pay the bill with the same intensity as we rightly track sexual predators. There's a HUGE difference here, mod, and if we create such a sweeping net, we stand in danger of letting a lot of the real criminals slip through because we're too busy pursuing red herrings.

97% of the families whose children are removed because of alleged abuse or neglect are NEVER criminally proven guilty of that, moderateman. And many CPS advocates readily concede that over 70% of their cases are entirely unfounded. Are we really ready to throw those millions of innocent Americans on a list that includes the worst of the worst?

Gideon MacLeish

on May 03, 2006

One other note, Mod. I know you oppose the death penalty on the pretense that it is wrong if even one innocent person is put to death. Isn't this registry equally wrong when thousands (possibly millions) of Americans could be wrongfully imprisoned and denied basic liberties because of false allegations?

It's simply too much authority to give our federal government, in my opinion.

Moderateman

on May 03, 2006

#22 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006

I aM NOW IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU GID, YOU HAVE EXPLAINED AND i HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. THANK YOU.

DJBandit

on May 03, 2006

I aM NOW IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU GID, YOU HAVE EXPLAINED AND i HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. THANK YOU.

I second that. Thanx for the explanation Gid. That's all I asked that that's what I got.

Now you see, that wasn't so hard to do. If only we could get Col to do the same maybe he would get thru at least some of his opinions...... Nah.

foreverserenity

on May 03, 2006

In other parts of the world, and even HERE not long ago, these "children" were getting married and starting families in their mid to late teens. My own maternal grandmother was only 13 when she married, and my parents were only 16 when they tied the knot.

True, and I found some things out that I didn't know because of a blog I'm working on. I didn't realise how young some girls were allowed to get married in some states! Some really, really too young. Times have changed so the laws should really be revised.

I think the statutory rape laws need to be revised, perhaps making it a crime only if the age difference is greater than say...three years or something like that.

I agree under the circumstances that your nephew was in. And a few other people who happened to be one or two years older than their girlfriends.

These Democrats should not forget that the parents do vote, even if they are in the same party, this doesn't sit well with me at all!

Moderateman

on May 03, 2006

#26 by little-whip
Wednesday, May 03, 2006

My nephew should not have had to risk imprisonment and being labeled as a 'sex offender' (rapist) for life because he continued to boink his girlfriend of three years after his 18th birthday.

here we agree {imagine that?}But still by LAW and I do not agree with this in his case, he is breaking the law.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!