Albeit, Hate Crimes originally were first enacted in 1968 under the Title I of the Civil Rights Act, it’s purpose was to mitigate and lawfully act against anyone who "willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with ... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin". There’s a lot of ambiguity in that definition, especially when considering what defines attempts to injure, injury, intimidates, or interferes with individuals on social platforms and public discourse. During the 1960s there was great upheaval to our society. Our existing immigration laws that screened for integrating highly skilled individuals of Western descent and faith was forever drastically changed when the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act was enacted. Three years later Title I of the Civil Rights Act is passed and enacted. This is when the slippery slope of our Bill of Rights began to erode in earnest.

By definition, Hate crimes are based on the perpetrator's motivations, which are intrinsically unknowable unless the perpetrator announces them, which means United States Hate crime convictions by definition always involve United States free speech exceptions. Hate crime do not violate First Amendment protections **(see Wisconsin v. Mitchell)** because they do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of motivation, which is constitutionally permissible. In the United Kingdom, Hate Crimes are just as consequential and maybe more. In the case of a personal Tweet, this theologian lost his job at the Methodist college for pointing out biblical verses that homosexuality is sinful. In his dystopian vision of the future, Orwell would have expressed this as ‘Wrong think’.

Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded to uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration. To get a sense of the tangled mess and ambiguity of what “limited speech” is Go Here to make your head spin. It’s a land mine field designed specifically for any lawyer’s financial benefit.

Then in 1994 the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed that increased the penalties for Hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or ‘perceived’ race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. Whenever the word “perceived” is used, it refers to understanding, not necessarily by evidence, but by the senses, rightly or erroneously. Not many people know this, but in the same year the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed and was enacted into law. A little later on, I’ll explain why this law relates to Hate crimes, but first I’ll continue to show the ever expanding definition of Hate crimes through laws. In 2009 the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was enacted, which which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to apply to crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity. There are at least 23 States that have added gender identity to their Hate crime laws. Apparently, misidentifying by using the wrong pronoun may now be classified as a Hate crime.

Most recently in 2022, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was passed and enacted. This Act expanded existing United States federal Hate crime law to apply to the crime of ‘lynching’, defining it as an act of two or more people in a conspiracy to maim or kill a person based on real or perceived traits of a victim as protected under federal law. There’s that word “perceived” being used again. Who gets to perceive this violation?

The list of Acts are even more expansive, including two States that passed laws considering acts against Police and Firefighters as Hate Crimes. Data collection of Hate crimes was encoded through the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997.

All of this has been set up from the 1990s to target all of our political and public speech. The implementation of all of these laws were sold to the American public under a much different set of pretenses. In the vast majority of cases Hate crimes are speech crimes. If you noticed, most of these Hate Crime Acts make these category of people protected classes of people. In essence, they are ‘wards of the State’.’ More on this later.

A more appropriate name for Hate laws should be “’Fear’ crimes” or “Feeling unsafe” laws. Hate laws have redefined law to which it is now permissible for anyone to anonymously allege being in ‘fear’ or ‘feeling unsafe’ simply by some other individual or individual’s presence or speech. It doesn’t matter if the allegation is real or fraudulent, nor does it matter if the individual is mentally competent, the authorities are to act by the ‘perceived’ intent. And this is not based on the authority’s perceived eye-witness account either, but rather the anonymous person making the complaint. How far can Hate crimes be exploited? The extent is ever-expanding and I believe it is beginning to overlap the domain of Terroristic threats. Why do I say this? It’s because both Hate crimes and Terroristic acts rely on perceived ‘fear’ and ‘feeling unsafe’. Terroristic threats is obviously ‘perceived’ acts of terrorism.

What specifically constitutes 'terrorism'? Who is a terrorist?

Terrorism is not ever really defined. It can be anywhere, anyone, at anytime. The root word for 'terrorism' is 'terror' and is defined when a person or people feels "intense, sharp, overmastering fear", whether real or not. In other words, it is a psychological state of mind. Yet, President George Bush publicly announced shortly after 9-11 in 2001 a 'declaration of war on terrorism'. It is impossible to declare war on an psychological state of mind. Yet, this is precisely what has occurred. Like Hate crimes, the word ‘terrorist’ is constantly evolving and now can mean a person or thing that is especially annoying or unpleasant to an opposing party. Doesn’t this sound like what a Hate crime is. Recall that a Hate crime is based on the perpetrator's motivations, which are intrinsically unknowable unless the perpetrator announces them and that typically falls under the free speech limitations, to which I talked about earlier. Hate laws do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of its motivation, To me, this sounds Orwellian and applying ‘Right Think and ‘Wrong Think’ to the criminal code. Some of the areas of ‘perceived’ Hate speech motivations are ‘Incitement (one to which we are all familiar with the Trump J6 trials), Incitement to suicide, False statements of fact, (misinformation and disinformation), Fighting words (as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight). As a general rule, the government can itself say whatever it wants to, even if this "favors one viewpoint over another"(73). Did we witness this in the censorship of conservative views on Twitter, Facebook, Google,and YouTube during the 2020 election? Did the government use operatives and other assets to limit free speech on J6 as defined above? These are several examples, but there’s actually more on free speech limitations.

Earlier I mentioned the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and how it relates to Hate crimes and it uses ‘fear ‘and ‘feeling unsafe’ as justifying subduing and incriminating the people of the United States. We should recognize by now that the 'war on terrorism' is actually a PsyOp being used on the American people. The war on terrorism may have its origins in the divorce industry used by lawyers to weaponize parental custody battles. Yes, you heard me right. As incredible as this sounds, there is a huge payoff for lawyers and anyone involved in this industry. As it so often turns out, following the money leads us to the source.

Many years ago I stumbled across this revelation reviewing State statutes on domestic abuse. The Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) has institutionalized the State's issuance of ex parte orders of protection by the mere allegation whether real or fraudulent. Sound familiar? As a result, a male is required to prove his innocence if a female accuses him of any type of domestic abuse or harassment. Long ago, feminists, many being militant lesbians, took over the State-funded battered women’s shelters. These advocates for the battered women’s shelter, serve primarily to promote the expulsion of men from their homes without due process of law. This is the first step in taking children away from the father and granting of custody to the State approved 'guardian-ward'; the mother. Under the legal doctrine of ‘Parens Patriae’ and strengthened by VAWA women and children are considered ‘wards’ of the State and a protected class. These centers also serve to promote abortion, divorce, and the prevention of reconciliation between husband and wife. The affidavit forms have become entirely automated for women to file and be processed. All a female needs to claim is that she 'fears for her safety'. An ensuing exparte order will be signed by a judge or administrative officer to remove the accused male from his home and prohibiting further contact with his wife and children. Evidence for physical abuse is not required and the only female rationale needed is being ‘fearful’ of the male to trigger domestic abuse laws. As part of domestic abuse law is 'Terroristic threats', which legally means to "threaten, directly or indirectly or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such ‘terror’ or ‘inconvenience’". A 'fear' crime is ambiguous and extremely difficult to be vindicated of. It is estimated that 66% of all domestic abuse charges are false. Incarceration is quite common for the male. After his release, he is always expelled from his own home and ordered not to return. A magistrate will hear the case, but he will not be able to return to his house unless she allows him too. Doesn’t this sound familiar with Hate crimes? Evidence of physical harm is not required and the only rationale needed are the words or presence of the individual causing ‘fear’ to trigger a Hate crime investigation.

Nobody is ever prosecuted for these perjured affidavits, even where the proof is abundant.

It is a weaponized system to prevent reconciliation and to criminalize an entire demographic of males, Christians, and patriots. So successful has this PsyOp been, an entire multi-billion dollar industry legal industry has been institutionalized. The word ‘Hate’ is a psychological emotion opposite of ‘Joy’ and ‘Love’. Emotions are fluid that exists in everyone. When words become criminalized, especially due to truth being told and expressing one’s beliefs that others do not like, then freedom is lost. Remember the leftists, who insisted on ‘safe spaces’? This all relates to selling ‘fear’ as justification for government to take freedom away from people. The lawful protected classes of people now far outweigh the rights of males, Christians, and Constitutional patriots. We find that the word 'terror' and 'Terroristic threats' are ambiguous, but is lawfully imposed by simply saying- 'fearing for one's safety'. Just as divorce attorneys coach their clients to say these four words, Hate crime lawyers are advocating the same. It's been very successful for lawyers and their law-fare, so much so that profiting off from ‘fear’ and 'terrorism' has since expanded to other demographics, such as MAGA supporters, military, Constitutionalists, Christians, and patriots, while Antifa, BLM, satanists, pedophiles, and radical communists are not considered 'terrorists'.