Charlie Daniels

A longtime popular country music star says the “hate crimes” plan in Washington, dubbed by critics as the “The Pedophile Protection Act,” is an issue that Americans should be ready to “rumble” over.

“Now I know it sounds trite and jingoistic to say there’s a battle for the heart and soul of America,” wrote Charlie Daniels on his website’s Soapbox.

“It’s not a new phrase and has been used many times to describe many different situations that have come to pass in our history. But the battle I’m describing may well be worthy of the description,” he wrote.

Daniels, who has used his “Soapbox” postings to rage about problems in America and praise patriotism, ends each commentary with a “Pray for our troops.”

But in this one, posted recently but undated, he said, “Regardless of how liberals try to twist it, the soul of America is based on Judeo-Christian values.”

Then he wrote: “There is a bill currently working it’s way through [Congress] that purports to be about hate crimes but it is a thinly masked effort by politicians to take away another facet of our freedom and if passed by both houses could well inhibit any minister of the gospel from preaching the word of God as he or she interprets it.”

His worry over S. 909, now pending in a U.S. Senate committee, is shared by others. Before it was approved 249-175 in the U.S. House, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, proposed an amendment, “The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.”

Send 100 overnight letters to all 100 U.S. senators in protest of “The Pedophile Protection Act” for only $10.95

But majority Democrats refused to go along, sparking its designation as the “Pedophile Protection Act.”

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, a former judge, explained that statement of intent from representatives would go a long way towards providing pedophiles with the protection they would want from the law for their sexual proclivity.

“Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words,” explained Gohmert. “The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they’ve committed a misdemeanor, you’ve committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.”

In fact, one supporter of the “hate crimes,” Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., confirmed that very worry, saying: “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘ism’s’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are.”

Daniels warned, “If a preacher preaches against homosexuality that preacher could face time in prison, because under this law it would be considered a hate crime.”

Speaking only for himself, he wrote, “I think that for too long we have misinterpreted Jesus’ statement to turn the other cheek. I don’t believe he meant to let evil seep into every crevice of America because of it.

“I believe that the day of the passive Christian is over if we are to hang on to our faith. I believe that if Christians don’t band together and stand up for what we believe in, the current administration and Congress will leech away our right to preach the gospel unimpeded. And then what will be the difference between the old Soviet Union and the United States of America?”

He said what Congress doesn’t impose, federal judges will.

“Well I for one will not go down without a fight,” he said. “Are you ready to rumble? It’s coming.”

Just one day earlier, WND reported that three U.S. senators had written constituents opposing the “hate crimes” plan.

Today, a similar letter from Sen. James Inhofe said he shares that opposition.

“H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, defines a hate crime to include a crime in which the perpetrator willfully causes or attempts to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. On April 29, 2009 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1913 by a vote of 249 to 175. H.R. 1913 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee along with the Senate version, S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” he wrote.

“I am opposed to any sort of violent offense and believe that a crime motivated by prejudice or hate is particularly reprehensible. However, I think that the provisions in H.R. 1913 and S.909 are unnecessary and constitutionally questionable,” he said.

He expressed alarm that Democrats working for a “hate crimes” plan voted against an amendment that stated, “No prosecution under this act may be based in whole or in part on religious beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh, or the Quran.”

“Many are concerned that should this legislation pass, it will have a ‘chilling effect’ on speech based on religious beliefs,” he said.

Other opposition has come from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

As WND reported earlier, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., also confirmed he will fight the “hate crimes” legislation pending in the U.S. Senate and, if necessary, will launch a filibuster against the “Pedophile Protection Act.”

The most recent strategy to push the so-called “hate crimes” plan through the U.S. Senate is to attach it as an amendment to another proposal, according to The Washington Blade, a homosexual publication.

The Blade reported HRC official Trevor Thomas said, “We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle.”

That is what Senate leaders believe is “the most efficient way” to advance the issue to President Obama, who has expressed strong support, the report said. The Blade cited a Democratic aide who spoke on condition of anonymity saying that has been the plan for some time, specifically to prevent amendments from being attached to the “hate crimes” plan.

The proposal also has been targeted by a letter campaign in which constitutes can send 100 overnight letters to all 100 U.S. senators in protest of “The Pedophile Protection Act” for only $10.95

The protest letters are the result of an effort led by Janet Porter, a WND columnist and head of Faith2Action.

Sources working with senators opposing the legislation say the Fed Ex letter-writing campaign has shaken up the dynamics of the debate.

“This bill was supposed to sail through the Senate, but it suddenly has become much more controversial as a result of all these letters,” one source said.

Gohmert and King said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.

“If you guys don’t raise enough stink there’s no chance of stopping it,” Gohmert said on a radio program with Porter. “It’s entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country. If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don’t want to have our names on that.”

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose “victims” were chosen based on an “actual or perceived … sexual orientation, gender identity.”

Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

“You can’t talk like that once this becomes law,” he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there’s an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

“When you base a law on lies, you’re going to have a bad law,” he said. “This ‘Pedophilia Protection Act,’ a ‘hate crimes’ bill, is based on the representation that there’s a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago.”

He said he fought in committee and in the House to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as “sexual orientation.”

Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

“I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance,” he said.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

“That’s how ludicrous this situation is,” Gohmert said.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.