This law does not protect people who are committing a crime. That’s absurd. Pedophilia is a crime – there is no consent from one party (the child). It is not an “orientation” under the law.

As to Channon Christenson and Chris Newsome’s murders – were they “hate crimes?” Were they attacked solely because they were white and to send a message to them that whites aren’t wanted in that neighborhood? I see no reports indicating that after a cursory review. If so, Tennessee state authorities did not properly investigate the crime. Federal investigators, under the new hate crimes legislation (AND the one that has existed for ages since the crime is allegedly race based) would apply. The federal government could step in and take assist or take over the investigation as they would have jurisdiction by way of Bias Crime Legislation. If there’s an indication of it, contact your senators – tell them to send help *IT’S THE LAW*

Hitting someone with a purse because he/she exposes him or herself to you is not a hate crime. Defending yourself from a lewd act is not a hate crime.

Hate crimes are serious and are essentially a form of terrorism against a group of people.

Please stop perpetuating the myth that any kind of crime against a minority is a hate crime. It’s not true.

So why is Congress still trying to appropriate $1.75 billion to build more of them?

Almost from its conception, the F-22 has been “too big to fail.” With subcontractors in more than 40 states and jobs in many congressional districts that depend on their continued production, even when the defense secretary has made clear that he would like to end the program, funding for F-22s still turns up in the annual defense authorization bill. In the Senate, an additional $1.75 billion for more F-22s was put into the Armed Services Committee markup of the bill, and in the House, funding for 12 additional jets has already passed.

President Obama has made his position clear: If funding for these unwanted F-22 fighter jets is included in the Defense Authorization Act, he will veto the bill. As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has repeatedly pointed out, this money isn’t appearing out of thin air. It is being carved away from programs that are necessary and used to fund something the department has explicitly said it does not want or need. As Mr. Gates put it, “A dollar for something we don’t need is a dollar taken away from something we do need.”

On this Mr. Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agree; Mr. McCain and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), Armed Services Committee chairman, co-sponsored an amendment that would remove the additional F-22 funding from the Senate bill.

Doing so would not shortchange America’s military structure or industrial complex. Mr. Obama is committed to preserving American air superiority. But preserving air superiority does not mean continuing to fund a project that shows few signs that it is aiding this cause at all. And the same bill that takes funding from needed programs to fund F-22s would also impede production on the Defense Department’s preferred aircraft, the F-35; it is a jet that can be used across the branches of the armed forces and whose design is more than 10 years ahead of the F-22s.

Saving jobs is a laudable goal. But continuing to support such a flawed project simply because it preserves jobs is self-defeating.

“If you want veterans’ benefits, you have to support an interactive corn museum!”

“Want to fund the war for another three months? Then I get a resolution declaring National Elbow Awareness Week!”

“Repairing a bridge? Not until we agree to sell the Chrysler Building for scrap metal first!”

Every bill really needs to stand or fall on its own merits. And that’s a long-standing, bipartisan problem.