Police State in Champaign, Illinois - NCCG.ORG Ning Network Archive 2008-10

By Rev. Ted Pike

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, Stephen 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 subject. Call (503) 631-3808.

Purchase the WHOLE Website by clicking here