POLICE STATE IN CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS
By Rev. Ted Pike
29 Jun 08
On Tuesday July 1 in Champaign, Illinois, promising Christian
athlete Brett VanAsdlen will observe his 19th birthday. I do not
say "celebrate" because that is the day of his preliminary
hearing before a judge and militant state attorney. Brett must defend
himself against charges of the "hate crime" of pushing
over a homosexual, Steven Velasquez, who was accosting him. (See, “Illinois
Pursues Hate Crimes Charges Against Teen”)
What does Brett have to lose if he and his lawyer do not persuade
the judge of his innocence? Only three years of his life behind bars.
This 19-year-old is under the jackboot of a perverse system of
law and ethics much more distinctive of a police state than a constitutional
republic.
Here are some characteristics of police state law and their presence
in Champaign.
- In a police state, government begins miscarriage of justice
by passing an unjust law. The state of Illinois approved the Anti-Defamation
League's hate law that mandates up to three years in prison for
uttering the word "fag" in association with a misdemeanor.
Any law that sends a man to prison for three years for a word is
a cruel and oppressive, unjust law. (See Video, “Hate
Laws: Making Criminals of Christians”)
- In a police state, there is no freedom of speech -- not where
it matters, in religion and politics. People are punished for the
thoughts (biases) that lead to "politically incorrect" speech
and action. ADL teaches that biased thought (especially against
Jews, blacks, women, or homosexuals) is "hate." If bias
motivates a crime, small or great, it becomes a hate crime.
- Under our traditional English law the punishment must fit the
crime. In a police state, however, there exists a whole category
of crimes of "political incorrectness" against the values
of the state. A policeman, DA, and court can take the original
crime, small as it may be, label it a "political crime," and
magnify it into an offense against the state; it then carries vastly
greater penalties. The original misdemeanor becomes the pretext
to remove an ideological opponent from society through years of
prison or even death.
A "hate crime" charge, such as Brett labors under, is
thus not proportional to the original "offense." The purpose
of its vastly increased penalties is "to send a strong message
that hate will not be tolerated in our community!" To accomplish
this supposed "good" of ending hate, victims are selected
by the police state for extraordinary, disproportionate punishment.
Police: Preliminary Judges
Who does ADL think should determine when a hate crime has occurred?
A judge and jury? ADL does not think so. In testimony before Congress
in 1988, ADL insisted that privilege be given to the arresting police
officer. If there is evidence of bias motivation behind a misdemeanor,
ADL recommends that reporting officers on the street have discretionary
powers to pronounce it a hate crime in their police report.
Because ADL teaches police that bias is very, very bad, most state
hate laws mandate triple penalties. Misdemeanors are heightened into
felonies. ADL insists that the police officers they educate
are qualified to make hate crime judgments. ADL makes it very simple
for police to identify a hate crime: Look for bias motivation.
Things aren’t so easy for those branded a hate criminal by
arresting officers. Brett's parents had to put up $10,000 bail and
hire the best lawyer they could find, probably costing another $10,000.
Brett has little defense until trial from the stigma of the "hate
criminal" accusation.
Hate laws thus empower the arresting officers in their police report
to do much more than simply judge that a law has been violated. Hate
laws encourage police to recommend radically greater punishment.
The on the scene influence of investigating officers goes a long
way to persuading the judicial system to pursue a hate crimes charge.
Hate laws allow biased officers on the street or police chiefs
and state attorneys in backroom discussions to transform what would
otherwise be a relatively small incident into a very serious life-damaging
charge.
No one in the justice system should have the right to radically
elevate penalties according to their perception of the defendant’s "bias." They
should not be able to do this before trial or at its end. 1 The
accused should be tried, convicted, and penalized only for committing
a physical tangible crime as defined by traditional (not hate crime)
law. Only by following this rule can our legal system remain uncontaminated
by the police state mentality. That mentality says the defendant’s
personal beliefs can greatly influence his fate.
In police state fashion, the two officers who interviewed the homosexual
Velasquez decided to magnify the charge. They labeled Brett a hate
criminal in their police report. Two other officers who interviewed
Brett and his friend decided Brett had done nothing wrong. They assured
him he was within his rights to push Velasquez away, since Velasquez
assaulted him. When these officers discovered Brett was arrested
for a hate crime, they were incredulous. But their testimony was
ignored. State attorney Julia Rietz saw this incident’s potential
for prosecution as a hate crime; she authorized police to describe
it as such in their summary report released to the public.
Enter the Media
The word of the police state is law. Media accepts it as reality
and trumpets it to the public. Police are not the only ones ADL has
educated over the past decades. Through vast educational programs,
ADL constantly reminds big media that an "epidemic of hate" ravages
America. This Jewish advocacy group has worked for decades to make
media the watchdogs of possible hate crimes. Little wonder
the media leap to follow any allegation of a hate crime. ADL always
stresses the special targeted status of Jews and homosexuals; thus
TV crews hasten to interview any Jewish or homosexual individual
or organization that seems threatened through "hate speech," graffiti,
or extremist literature.
This is what happened in Champaign. The police reported
a hate crime as fact. Immediately, a
local TV station broadcast that Brett VanAsdlen was a hate criminal.
The police state had spoken.
Though the alleged crime took place April 12, media made no effort
to contact the VanAsdlen family until May 6 when they attended the
first preliminary hearing. I phoned WCIA-TV news and complained. Their
news department representative snapped back, "We can only go
by the police report!"
Several days later, a different representative fielded my objection: "In
any situation like this," he said, "We make every effort
to give the other side of the story." I told him I had
interviewed Mrs. VanAsdlen two and half weeks after they had produced
a biased telecast and internet report and she had never heard from
them. All he could say was, "Well…"
Whatever happened to the journalistic ethic that reports of arrest
be prefaced with caution that the accused is an "alleged" criminal
and only "suspect?" WCIA-TV's May
9 article about a campus gunman repeatedly describes him as "the
suspect." But hate crimes are treated differently. ADL has drilled
into media that crimes of bias are so bad and the testimony of the
police/state so informed, that it was easy for WCIA-TV to dispense
with traditional journalistic restraints. WCIA-TV and police state
authority legitimized a rush to judgment of him as a hate criminal.
Guilty until Proven Innocent
A traditional trial may await Brett in a few months. Yet as ADL
helps reinvent the ethics of both law and journalism, this teen is
effectively found guilty in the court of public opinion. For
many in Illinois who have now made up their minds against him, a
traditional trial almost seems superfluous.
This was the kind of "due process and justice" that prevailed
in 1789 during the French Revolution. It also held sway during the
darkest decades of Soviet Communism. If even a plastic icicle was
reported in a tenement building in Moscow, it implicated the occupants
as Christians secretly celebrating Christmas. The testimony of a
neighbor, arresting officers, and the state was dramatized by media;
nothing more was needed to send that family to the Gulag.
Our traditional Constitution-based government and judicial process
was carefully designed to interrupt and prevent a police state system.
Our legal system demands that the accused are presumed innocent until
proven guilty by rational public presentation of evidence before
a judge and/or jury of their peers.
Hate laws encourage the opposite. Before trial, hate laws empower
the police state to threaten staggering penalties and require huge
bail and attorney fees. This oppression and inconvenience of
those indicted for politically incorrect crimes subverts America's
foundation and values.
Our traditional legal system also presumes that a free press will
respect Constitutional protections; it should publicly accuse only
in keeping with judicial findings of fact.
These safeguards have been turned upside down by the police state
system and TV reporting of Champaign, Illinois .
But is Champaign the only police state hierarchy in America? No.
ADL-indoctrinated police and state attorneys in 45 states can enforce
ADL state hate laws. After at least 18 years of ADL instruction,
these "upholders of the law" stand ready to spring into
action - as soon as a homosexual screams "hate crime!"
TAKE ACTION! Call the Champaign County state attorney,
Julia Rietz, (217-384-3733) and urge her to drop the biased felony "hate
crimes" charge against Brett VanAsdlen. She should know
that countless Americans are angry at her trumped-up charge and she
has much more to lose than gain by continuing her prosecution (persecution)
of an innocent Christian teen. CALL NOW!
Endnotes:
1. The state of Wyoming, which does not have an ADL hate
law, gave the "biased" murderers of homosexual Matt
Shepard double life sentences. This certainly makes the point
that states are quite capable of punishing hate crimes without need
of a state or federal law. Yet, the Wyoming court was out of line
in magnifying the penalty because of bias. This set the precedent
that, if prosecutors cannot obtain heightened penalties before a
trial through a hate law, they are entitled to do it afterwards by
decree of the judge. Again, this asserts that the ideology
(biases) of a defendant can greatly increase his punishment -- a
prominent characteristic of police state law. (See, “Top
Eleven Reasons YOU Should Fight Hate Laws”)
Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative
watchdog organization.
Let the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith teach you how they
have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.
Learn how ADL took away free speech in Canada and wants to steal
it now in the U.S. Congress. Watch Rev. Ted Pike's Hate
Laws: Making Criminals of Christians at video.google.com. Purchase
this gripping documentary to show at church. Order online at www.truthtellers.org for
$24.90, DVD or VHS, by calling 503-853-3688, or at the address below.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this
topic. Call (503) 631-3808.
National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas,
OR 97015
