Coming to America -- Reparations

One June 18, 2009, the U. S. Senate did what it seemingly does best: engaged in inanity and tripe. A resolution was passed that officially apologized for slavery and the Jim Crow laws that followed it. The measure was then sent to the House of Representatives. It is the typical emotion-driven symbolic nonsense liberals are known for. This apology will be heralded as some significant accomplishment and will give the sanctimonious Left (as well as some Republicans) the moral superiority they believe they possess.

This purely symblolic gesture will do nothing and is pointless. It is akin to someone around the block from me raping someone's daughter and the apology coming from me. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) knows this to be true because they refused to endorse it. In their thinking, an apology lets whitey off the hook. Only monetary reparations -- introduced yearly by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) since 1989 -- will wipe the slate clean.

However meaningless this apology, it is still a dangerous propostion. Such an apology could be used to open the doors to the ultimate goal of the those shakedown artists within the civil rights/grievance/racism industry: a cash settlement. When you apologize for something, you are admitting guilt. Though I could be wrong, I don't believe Sen. Harkin (D-IA) or any other denator ever owned a slave. Nor do I think any member of the CBC was ever a slave. So why an apology? My guess is to get the admitted wrongdoing on record and in writing so some sort of class-action lawsuit could be thrown together by the race-hustlers. The sad part is with President Obama, who loves to apologize for America and truly loves to spend money, reparations could happen. Nevermind that the entire issue is ludicrous on so many fronts.

I have never owned a slave, nor have I ever oppressed anyone of color. Born 96 years after the end of the Civil War, how in the hell am I even remotely responsible for an institution in which I (nor any of my family) never participated in? I had nothing to do with it. Should I even apologize? Not "No," but "Hell No!"

Legally, the entire reparations movement has no leg to stand on, though this will not stop the parasitic legal eagles with the movement from twisting the law and torturing logic and the language surrounding the issue.

First, slavery was not illegal in the United States until 1865 when the 13th Ammendmant was passed. There is not legal argument to be made for reparations because not a single law was broken.

Secondly, the current U. S. Government didn't exist until June 21, 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. Therefore, the government can't be held for liable for a situation created by Europeans.

Thirdly, the statue of limitations for filing a lawsuit has long expired. Courts can't grant relief because any suit brought forth is illegitimate.

Lastly, there comes the formula for any reparations. Who gets how much from whom? Many blacks are of mixed heritage. Our beloved leader is as much white as he is black, though he oddly prefers to claim the heritage of the deadbeat Kenyan father who abandoned him as opposed to the white Kansas mother who dumped him into her parents' lap to raise. In President Obama's defense, it is tough to decide which deadbeat you want to claim. Should whites who arrived in the country after 1865 be forced to pay also? Should blacks who are descended from black slave owners both pay and receive reparations? Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire through her won efforts. Should she get a check too?

Reparations is a hornet's nest that I am afraid will be opened before Obama leaves office. It could be the lynchpin that starts a culture war -- possibly a shooting one -- like we've never seen before.

In 2001, former Communist David Horowitz enraged the Left when he purchased ads in college newspapers across the nation. The ad, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks Is A Bad Idea and Racist Too," destroyed the entire argument for reparations. Here are Mr. Horowitz's ten reasons:


Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too
By: David Horowitz
Wednesday, January 03, 2001



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

One
There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Two
There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits

Three
Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Four
America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

Five
The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

Six
The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

Seven
The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.

Eight
Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Nine
What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Ten
The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom

For his explanations, the link is below.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24317

A Gutter Culture

Outside of coarsening the culture further and celebrating the most negative of black stereotypes, rap -- "Drive-by music," as I call it -- adds nothing to Americana. The one benefit, I guess, is that it keeps potential criminals engaged in activities other than crime -- but then again, maybe not. The list of rappers who have run afoul of the law is a long one. In decades past, singers and musicians paid their dues by honing their talent in any venue that would allow them to play, often for little or no money. The road to rap stardom appears to be selling dope, getting shot and belonging to the Crips or Bloods. Take 50 Cent -- please -- for example. Curtis Jackson's path to mega-stardom included selling cocaine and getting shot nine times, something which gives him "street cred," a much valued commodity in the thug...er...I mean...hip-hop community.

One of the sadder aspects of rap's ascension has been the demise of "real" black music, one of the greatest things Black Americans have given the world. Black music -- "soul" or "R-n-B" -- has provided the entire world with some of the most talented people and greatest songs in the history of recorded music.

Rap has given us a soundtrack for prison.

I came of age in the 1970s, the "golden age" of black music. I loved the sounds of Earth, Wind and Fire, The Commodores, Al Green, Marvin Gaye and far too many others to list. This sort of music and these sort of stars are no more, replaced by the drive-by shooters in rap.

Sad.

At one time, American black music meant this --



or this --



Since the early 1990s, American black music has meant this --



or this --



Where is the dignity or class? Sorely lacking.

On Boxing -- Part 2

The best fight I ever saw (not live, of course) was in 1985 on closed circuit television (the pre-pay-per-view way for regular folks to see top fights) at the Ellis Auditorium (or was it the Cook Convention Center? Never mind. Both are right next to each other) in downtown Memphis. A fighter myself at the time, I got some comp passes to the fight. It was the mostbrutal two-plus rounds of fighting I had ever seen. The atmosphere was electric. One could tell the crowd was expecting something special,and they got it. When Round 1 began, both Thomas Hearns and Marvelous Marvin Hagler met in the center of the ring and threw bombs. It was apparent the fight would not go the distance. I got tired just watching these two go at it. Round 1 has been called the "best single round" of boxing ever. Rightfully so, I might add.





In the third, Hagler had to go for the KO because the fight was in danger of being stopped on a cut that he had suffered at the hands of Hearns's monster shots. It was a great fight that neither man deserved to lose. The "Hit Man" was born in Memphis, so many of the locals were pulling for him. I wanted Halger to win. I actually hated to see either guy lose this one. It was an outstanding fight.

The best fight I ever saw live was the Edison Miranda-Kelly Pavlik fight in Memphis in 2007. I had heard of Pavlik, but I had no idea he was the fighter he was. Miranda, I had heard, was a heavy-handed puncher, but he paled in comparison to Pavlik in either power, conditioning or toughness. Kelly has it all, and it was on full display on this Saturday night in Memphis, as the "Ghost" stole the show from the headliner, Jermain Taylor, who would lose his title to Pavlik a few months later.

The Marketing and Selling of Homosexuality

Homosexualists and their supporters like to present their "movement" as a grass roots movement, much like the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The movement is always presented as a "strugle" that ocurred as a natural repsonse to the bigotry -- or the word they invented, "homophobia" -- heaped upon homosexuals by a viciously-bigoted straight (read "normal") community.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The illegitimate homosexual rights movement is based on a lie (Kinsey's "10 percent" theory) that was further advanced with threats, intimidation and violence directed at the APA in the early 1970s.

The efforts and strategies of the last two decades have been nothing but a contrived and calculated propaganda campaign orchestrated by very smart and skilled opinion-makers in the homosexual community. It has been a very successful effort, one that has thousands of years of common sense and morality on its ear. But it has worked -- there is no doubt.

Dave Kupelian wrote in

The Marketing of Evil

in 2005. The premise of the book is that the political left, in order to get normal people to buy its ideas and policies, must repackage, market and "sell" their agenda to people because if their true intentions were known, no thinking individual would buy into it. Therefore, abortion becomes "family planning," and "atheism" is merely a "separation of church and state." No fetish of the Left has been morphed into normality and hard-sold to the public like homosexuality.

"There was a time," writes Kupelian, "when most Americans knew that homosexuals were not 'born that way' but rather had their normal gender-identity development disturbed and redirected through early childhood experiences. There was a time when we recognized on some level that unhealthy relationships with mothers and fathers could cause girls and boys to grow up with gender confusion...if not dealt with properly."

Of course this "time" Kupelian writes of was "a time when Judeo-Christian morality inspired the culture and the law of the land." Those days have disappered under a deluge of rhetoric and media-blitzes about "equality," "diversity," and "fairness."

While the Stonewall riot may be the beginning of the disturbing movement, it took, oddly, a catastrophic epidemic to "change" Americans' minds on homosexuality: AIDS. Homosexual activists cynically used this deadly disease to advance its agenda by painting homosexuals as "victims" of oppression.

ACT-UP, a homosexual group founded in the early days of the AIDS crisis, was the face of homosexuality for most of the 1980s and early 1990s. Their radical "in-your-face" tactics -- throwing condoms in packed church pews during Sunday services -- reviled most Americans. Traditional America understood that the message of ACT-UP was not merely one of tolerance, but one of forcing acceptance of homosexuality. "We're here, we're queer, and we're in your face!" was a common cry screamed by ACT-UP members and other homosexuals during the "street theater" they often performed. The implied meaning of the chant could not have been more clear: "You will accept homosexuality, whether you like it or not."

Of course, angry cross-dressers, transvestites, and leather-clad sado-masochists are not the best spokesmen to deliver a message of "We're just like everyone else." With AIDS still very much a mysterious disease in the mid-1980s, many Americans were scared to death of contact with the disease, and these sort of "ambassadors" did little to garner any sympathy for homosexuals. In fact, such people likely accomplished the opposite: scorn.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, two Harvard-educated homosexuals, understood that angry, radical, and militant homosexuals might not be the best messangers to have as the face of homosexuals in America.

In February 1988, Kirk and Madsen held a homosexual summit, of sorts, in Virginia, much like the politically active homosexual community did in Chicago in 1972. The purpose was to devise a strategy for the "movement." One hundred and seventy-five activists gathered to discuss a new "civil rights" approach, one that would move homosexuality into the mainstream. The efforts resulted in the 1989 book

After the Ball: How American Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s.

While most homosexualists saw AIDS as a disaster for the movement, Kirk and Madsen saw an opportunity: "As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of American's special protection and care...How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?"

Sounds like Kirk and Madsen are from the Rahm Emmanuel school of thought -- take advantage of every crisis.

Kirk and Madsen's book became the Bible for the movement, literally brainwashing America inside a decade. Kirk and Madsen understood incremental change; one might not get everything they demand in one sitting, but stay in the battle for the long haul, and eventually you will have everything you desire: "When you're very different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do:

first

you get your foot in the door, by being as

similar

as possible; then and only then -- when your one little difference is finally accpeted -- can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one.

You hammer in the wedge narrow end first.

As the saying goes, allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.

In other words, the freak-a-zoids of the tallywhacker political culture must be kept out of sight until the sales job is complete. Once you get a seat at the table, only then do you day, "Oh, by the way, I brought these people with me too."

Using the word "gay" was very purposeful and beneficial for the homosexual movement. "Gay, after all, is a synonym for happy," and it, in the words of Kupelain, "masks the controversial behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity..."

Kirk and Madsen also felt it important to emphasize "rights" instead of "acceptance." By using the term rights, the movement could plant the seed that homosexuals were somehow victims, denied basic rights of the Constitution. After all, the American people are very fair-minded group and will fight for everyone who is fighting for their full citizenship. The issue of homosexuality gets lost in the language of the debate.

Using their training -- Kirk, a researcher, and Madsen, an expert on persuasion tactics -- the two devised a three-step strategy to rid the nation of its fear of homosexuals: Desensitize, Jam, and Convert. In other words, propagandize the entire movement.

The strategy was a brilliant one. Densensitization means flooding the market with "gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, then they may at least eventually get used to being wet." Desensitization also means talking up homosexuality, to the point that it becomes "boring." If homosexuality becomes, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, a "shrug of the shoulders," then the battle is half won.

Once homosexuality is a "shrug of the shoulders," the "jamming" ocurs. "Jamming," writes Paul E. Rondeau of Regents University, is "psychological terrorism" designed to silent any and all opposition. Americans are, by now, used to the protests that accompany any person saying anything critical of homosexuality. Carrie Prejean, Miss California, is just the latest person to invite the wrath of the homosexual community (and the Left) and their "jamming" (an accurate term to use with homosexuals).

"Convert," the final step in the process, is nothing more than converting people to your side. Once you convert, an enemy has been transformed into an ally.

Of course, the "conversion" of Black Californians didn't take, as in November 2008, they voted 70% in favor of Propostion 8. Black Americans are largely a church-going group of people. They are socially conservative on many issues, homosexuality being one of them. I imagine Black Americans are also a little tired of hearing the homosexual movement compared to their "real" movement." Apparently, Black Americans don not believe that being born with dark skin is akin or equal to the urges of one man to sodomize another.

How did this transformation occur in America in such a short period of time? Simple. Traditional Americans have been too busy to fight back. When your political activism is merely going to the polls on election day, it leaves 364 days of the year when you're not engaged. Homosexual activists are politically active every minute of every day. While the majority of Americans are busy with families, careers and personal lives, the homsexual is not. With no children and family to dominate his or her time and money, homosexual activists, armed with time, money and energy, wake up each and every day to work on the movement. And they won't stop until they have a decisive victory.

Dave Kupelian warns of where this movement is headed: "Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut-up, discredited, and utterly silenced."

The future is clear, Homosexuals want a world where preachers are arrested on Sundays for hate speech when they deliver a sermon. Homosexuals want hate crime laws enacted that actually punish thought. How long before we hear demands in Congress for homosexual quotas in the work force? You know, every school, college, and business must look "like America," or, at least, San Francisco.

Diversity and Empathy Over Competence

President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is a perfect example of the Left's lust with diversity -- only as it relates to ethnicity. Liberals and diversity-nuts view race as an accomplishment, even though the individual had nothing to do with it.

Ms. Sotomayor's nomination has been lauded by all the usual suspects in Obama's lap-dog media. Ms. Sotomayor's appointment has been heralded as a truly great thing by the Left. The "First Hispanic Woman" on the court reads headline after headline. She, it is said, will bring "empathy" to the court's decisions. Though the Constitution has been dead since it was written in 1789, I am certain Judge Sotomayor believes it is a "living, breathing document" that will shape her decisions, the type of document that say's discriminating against a black man is unconstitutional, but it is somehow okay to discriminate against a white male, like, say, Frank Ricci, a Connecticutt firefighter who spent $1,000.00 of his own money to study for a promotional examination. Despite having dyslexia, Mr. Ricci and seventeen other people passed the exam and earned the right to be promoted. However, no black applicant passed the test, so all of the passing scores were tossed out and no one got a promotion. A thinking person might come to the conclusion that the black firefighters shouldh have studied harder. That person would be wrong in this day and age where diversity trumps all standards and qualifications.

Ms.Sotomayor and her colleagues on the Second Circuit Appeals Court issued a one-paragraph opinion in rejecting Mr. Ricci's (and others) claim that he was discriminated against due to his white skin. Sixty percent of her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court, though not by the like-minded leftists on the court, including David Souter, who she will replace.

Welcome to 2009 America where every company, church, business, school, college and sandbox should "look like America" with carefully crafted quotas of every shade of humanity and every type of sexual deviance. Qualifications? That sort of nonsense is a white-Christian-hetereosexual-thing. Diversity is all that matters to the cultural Marxists of the Left.

Once confirmed -- and she will be confirmed -- expect Judge Sotomayor to render decision after decision to stick it to whitey whenever possible. After all, a "Latina woman" is much more capable than a white male.

The Bogus Homosexual Rights Movement

Question: When, pray tell, did the whims and thoughts of a godless thing like this above --

-- take priority over that of a Christian young lady?



Question (Part 2): How in the hell did America get to this point?

Answer (to both): Thirty-plus years of a relentless and savage assault on tradtional America by those in the homosexual mafia. Period.

There was a time when those fond of partaking in the "love-that-dares-not-speak-its-name" kept their heads low, stayed mute and lived in the shadows (and public restrooms) of society. But no more. Eight and a half years into the new millenium, the homosexual lobby has political clout far beyond its actual numbers in the population. It is an emboldened, brazen and extrememly vocal partcipant in the political process. Run afoul of angry homosexuals -- these people are anything but "gay" (i. e., happy) -- and run the risk of losing your livelihood.

Look no further than the reaction of homosexuals (and many other liberals) to the passage of Proposition 8 in California in November 2008. It was, and has been since, "Queens Gone Wild." The homosexual Lefts's "tolerance" has been on full display since the November 4 election when Californians dared to keep marriage as a union between one man and one woman (duh!): physical assaults, verbal attacks, blacklists, intimidation tactics, economic boycotts. Since the passage of Prop. 8, private citizens, businesses and churches who supported the measure have been targeted for intimidation, violence and boycott.

Examples of homosexual intolerance have been many, but none so blatant as that of El Coyote, a popular Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times
reported of homosexual activists goal of destroying the business because Maggie Christofferson, the restaurant's former manager and a Mormon, had donated $100.00 to the "Yes on 8" campaign. An angry gang of homosexuals, the newspaper reported, showed up one evening shortly after election day, creating mayhem and shouting "Shame on you!" to anyone who entered the restaurant. It took police in riot gear to quell the disturbance and disperse the "tolerant" liberal mob.

I was not the least surprised by such violent and intimidating tactics, for such have been the signature brew of homosexuals since the dawning of their bogus movement.

Possibly the biggest victory for the "Lavendar Mob" was the American Psychological Association's 1973 "vote" to remove homosexuality from its DSM -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I place the word vote in quotations to illustrate that this vote in no way indicated a full vote by the full membership of the APA. It was not. In fact, a distinct minority of psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the list; just 16% of its membership changed the DSM. There was no new medical/scientific research or breakthrough. The decision was purely political, brought on by the threats of violence and intimidation tactics of homosexuals.

The first attacks on the APA came in 1970, when the organization made the mistake of holding its annual convention in the homosexual capitol of America: San Francisco. The conference was continually disrupted by homosexual activists. Speeches were shouted down, and psychiatrists were ridiculed if they uttered one syllable against homosexuality.

Homosexuals would up the attacks in 1971, 1972 and 1973. Whenever the APA met, you could rest assure that Frank Kameny, a radical homosexual, and a horde of his like-minded deviants would show up also. In 1971, credentials for the conference were forged, allowing homosexuals access to exhibition areas and entry into panel meetings and discussions. Anyone who dared say "cure" and "homosexual" in the same phrase were pounced upon by the tolerant. The APA tired of the loud, unruly types so defined by Kameny, so they relented in December 1973, removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

Dismissing decades of actual research, the APA bowed to the political pressure of the homosexual lobby, giving it a victory it uses to this day to advance its agenda. Dr. Charles Socarides, an APA member critical of the decision, wrote in 1981 that the 1973 "APA decision served as the Trojan Horse" for the homosexual movement, "...opening the gates to widespread...change" and the ultimate goal of homosexuals: "normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status."

Americans are familiar with this newly acquired status: ludicrous hate crime legislation and othe anti-discrimanatory laws aimed at protecting the supposed sane man who dresses like a woman or opts to become a pseudo-woman.

Amid the various raids on the APA in the early 1970s, a collection of homosexuals gathered in 1972 at a Chicago church to design and lay out a platform of demands to present to the -- who else -- Democratic National Convention. Some 200 individuals from 18 states and representing some 85 organizations concocted 17 Federal and State "demands," many of which have already seen passage in parts of the country. Though the platform would be altered in 1987 and 1993, it has, remained largely intact. Demands dealing with discrimination in housing and employment are present on the list. Federal demand number seven was aimed at children: "Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality." Oddly, or not, this demand sounds eerily like "Goal #26" of the Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 by Rep. A. S. Herlong: "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity ans 'normal, natural and healthy.'"

Ironically (or once again, not), number seven of the platform's State demands involves children also: "Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent." This litte tidbit certainly makes it clear the lust which homosexuals have attacked the Boy Scouts of America. They so want to lead pubescent boys on long weekend camping -- with no parents -- trips in the woods.

It is often stated that "10%" of the population is homosexual. This number comes from the "studies" and "research" of Alfred Kinsey, the zoologist turned "sex-scientist." Kinsey's work resulted in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, a tome based upon his alleged research. Kinsey conducted thousands of interviews for the book. Much of his work has been discredited since the book's release in the late 1940s. Scholar Judith Reisman began exploring Kinsey's work in 1981. She was particularly interested in "Table 34," a table on "toddler sex." Ms. Reisman looked deep into Kinsey's research and found it lacking. Kinsey's claim that "10-37%" of men had experimented with homosexuality was based on interviews with great numbers of homosexuals and ex-cons. The entire theory was skewed from the start, yet the 10% figure has become lore for homosexual activists and the Left. Meanwhile, the real percentage of those locked into the homosexual lifestyle is at 2-3% of the population, which makes the political victories of homosexuals all the more impressive.

Contrary to what homosexual activists and their liberal allies say, the homosexual movement is based on bad science, political intimidation and a cynical twisting of the language used by Martin Luther King. It is what it has always been, with one twist: a sexual deviance protected in many cases by federal law. Disturbing.

The Political Left -- Thought Police

Mel Brooks' 1974 classic "Blazing Saddles" could not be made in today's hyper-PC-sensitive environment. America can thank the political Left for this, for it is they who created political correctness and all its limits for speech and thought. Frankly, this hyper-sensitivity and PC worldview is the lone accomplishment of liberals the last 30 years. These people, like the title of a Tammy Bruce book, are the "new thought police." A person, especially if that person is a white heterosexual male, cannot think or say anything that runs contrary to the Left's social worldview. A person's entire life can be uprooted and destroyed by these despicable people if that person utters anything the liberals-in-charge-of-thought deem unacceptable. You are a racist, a sexist or their latest criminal-du-jour, a homophobe.

"Blazing Saddles" nearly violates each of the three in its opening scene alone, with the use of the "nigger" (a word so vile, it can't be said, but only referred to by it first letter -- the "N-word")and "faggots." Madeline Kahn plays a sexy German bombshell sent into the town to tame the new black sheriff. Of course, feminists (ulgy women and lesbians) would object because Kahn was using her feminine wiles instead of being some leader of industry -- or a lesbian.

The stifling culture we live in now, the one where everyone, but especially white males, fears discussing anything but the weather in mixed company is a creation of the cultural Marxists, the thought-control-crowd, also known as liberals, those supposedly open-minded sorts.

I long for the day of the First Ammendment: the right to say whatever you want. To the perpetually aggrieved, I simply say, "Grow up you pussys!" Oops, did I just commit a hate crime by addressing a protected "victim group?" My bad.