Did you think the Matthew Shepard Act is merely about adding sexual orientation to the list of federal hate crimes? If you did (as I did), then you are in for a rude awakening.

To back up a bit, over the weekend, I was appalled to discover that the federal government had assumed jurisdiction over and actually criminalized illegal wood. What I found especially disturbing was that the wood regulating provisions (consisting of amendments to the Lacey Act) had gone unreported, and were simply buried in a 663 page atrocity called the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill itself received limited attention, and seemed to be of media interest only because Bush's veto of it was overridden.

The latest piece of federal legislation to receive such deceptive attention is called the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The conventional media spin is that this would add sexual orientation to existing hate crimes categories. I had been following the debate, and was so distracted by the arguments pro and con that I missed the bigger picture.

OK, let me stop and reiterate that I oppose all hate crimes legislation -- whether for blacks, gays, Jews, Christians, Muslims, the blue-eyed devils, the homeless, or any other conceivable identity group (of which there are many more). What has bothered me the most about this debate is to see a number of Republicans argue that hate crime laws are OK for some identity groups, but not for gays. Whether they realize it or not, such a mindset looks like anti-gay bigotry, and will be perceived that way by gays and their supporters, and thus helps fuel the continuation of identity politics.

Anyway, I say this not so much to argue the merits of my position (which finds little support among either Democrats or Republicans), as to illustrate that like most people, I assumed that I at least knew what was being debated and voted on. The issue (so I believed) was a simple one: whether gays should be added to the already long federal hate crimes list.

That this was the issue was confirmed in numerous headlines. "Hate crimes bill set to become law" is typical. So is a headline from today's Detroit Free Press -- "Congress extends hate crime protections to gays":

WASHINGTON -- Physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation will join the list of federal hate crimes, in a major expansion of the civil rights-era law that Congress approved Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama.

A priority of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to cover crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student who was murdered 11 years ago.

To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680-billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.

Many Republicans, normally staunch supporters of defense bills, voted against the bill because of the hate crimes provision.

"The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., disagreed: "It is highly appropriate for this law to be part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The values our men and women fight for include tolerance and freedom from hate-inspired violence against our citizens."

Especially in light of this sentence later in the piece:

But it does broaden the narrow range of actions that can trigger federal involvement -- such as attending school or voting -- and allows the federal government to step in if the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on an alleged hate crime.

The whole thing smelled fishy, so I thought it was time to check out the actual bill in its entirety. Once again, I was appalled to find another monster. The Defense Policy bill is 1192 pages long, and is so unreadable that I find myself wondering whether the hate crimes provisions might have been tacked as a way to avoid debate on whatever else might be in the bill. As to what else might be in there, God only knows.

However, narrowing my inquiry to the hate crimes provisions was a real eye opener, because there is a lot more involved than simply adding a sexual orientation category to the list.

It is no exaggeration to say that this is a whole new law which substantially broadens and expands the definition and federal jurisdiction of hate crimes. The previous law specifically stated that the victim has to be engaged in a federally protected activity.

Quite predictably, Senator Kennedy called the requirement that the victim be engaged in a federally protected activity a "loophole."

Interestingly, members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission were so concerned about the potential prosecutorial abuses of the law that they urged a no vote:

Four members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission urged Congress not to pass the federal hate crimes bill (LLEHCPA). In an April 29 letter to Congressional leaders, they point out that it would circumvent Constitutional protections against double jeopardy, giving the federal government the power to reprosecute people in federal court even after they have been found innocent of rape and other "hate crimes" in state court...

[...]

We wrote earlier about how backers of the federal hate-crimes bill want to use it to reprosecute people who have already been found innocent, and to prosecute people whom state prosecutors decline to charge because the evidence against them is so weak. Supporters of the bill have given only lame rationalizations for why state not-guilty verdicts should not be respected. (Some of the bill's supporters have even made the strange claim that the defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case, whom the North Carolina attorney general later admitted were actually innocent, should have been reprosecuted in federal court).

Are you beginning to see why they spun it the way they did?

What I find much more monstrous than the addition of gays to the list is the way federal jurisdiction is being redefined to include anything.

Until fairly recently, all federal legislation contained a recital of what gave rise to the federal jurisdiction, and this often took the form of a boilerplate recital along the lines of "of or in or affecting interstate commerce."

This act describes interstate commerce in such a way that virtually everything that happens and anything that anyone does in the United States is interstate commerce:

Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

Federalism is gone.

This is of course reflected in the new description of the circumstances defining hate crimes:

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

Anyway, I think I have made my point, and I don't want to belabor it to death.

To say that this grotesque expansion of federal jurisdiction is not what the founders had in mind is extreme understatement.

So is the claim that it's all about sexual orientation. Or all about a "must-pass $680-billion defense" bill!

I'm getting so tired of all this federal false flag fraud that I thought it was time to unfurl my favorite fake but real "Culture War" flag again.

As my earlier photoshop design left a lot to be desired, reader Carl Henderson helped out with a rebel rainbow redesign pretty enough to be the envy of any Tea Party: