Hillary Clinton Spreads Rachel Maddow's Story of Ending Lunch Breaks for Child Workers
Poll Shows the Democrat Base Is Unmarried Women
Squatter in Detroit Explains How She's Put a Lot of Work and Money...
WUT? Days After Gutting Title IX, Biden Says Trump Has Taken Women’s Rights...
In an Example of a Complete Lack of Self Awareness, Chris Christie...
New York Magazine Profiles Will Stancil, 'One of Politics Twitter's Most Inescapable Power...
DEADLY DEI: UCLA Med School Docs Say 'Obesity' Is a Slur, Weight Loss...
Biden Simp Harry Sisson Says Biden's Ban on TikTok Will Hurt Black-Owned Businesses
Prosecutors in Trump’s New York Trial Prove Their Witness is a Lying 'Pecker'...
Rep. AOC Wants to Know Where Are the Journalists on the Mass Graves...
'Redacting Reality': WH Transcript Runs Cover After Joe 'Ron Burgundy' Biden's Teleprompte...
FOX News: President Biden Forgives Violinist's $250,000 Student Loan
Paging Dr. Freud: Biden's Slip of the Tongue Is the MOST Honest Thing...
Try Not to Roll Your Eyes at the United Nations' New Ally in...
NYU Protester Describes the Ordeal of Her Arrest, Assumes Cops Are White Supremacists

Spartacus Booker finally addresses the scourge of lynchings in this country

In a bold declaration that has all the markings of grandstanding legislation, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have co-sponsored a bill to make lynching a federal hate crime. It would seem this was a major oversight in the history of the Senate.

Advertisement

Despite a noted lack of a rash of lynchings taking place, many had wild praise for the Senator taking a bold stance against a not-very-prominent problem.

“Have to”. Because the concept of lynching being illegal was unclear to many people?

Needed? Have there been cases recently of people commiting lynchings who have gone free? Uh, nope. It was largely symbolic legislation, to make a statement regarding the past instances. Booker himself attests to this.

Advertisement

“We do know the passage of this bill, even though it cannot reverse irrevocable harm that lynching was used as a terror of suppression, the passage of this bill is a recognition of that dark past.”

If you are confused by the fact that murdering another person is already considered a serious crime you are not alone.

So if it is unneeded, and admittedly a mostly symbolic bill, what was the purpose of bringing this up in the first place? Could it possibly be to see what politicians from the opposition party might vote against it, and use that vote as a political tool? Not just cynics are thinking this way.

Advertisement

Annnnnnnd there it is. Most of the time a new law gets passed to address a serious problem. This one seems at least equally designed to create one. Republican Tim Scott, in a posssible bid to stem that effort, was also a co-sponsor on the toothless bill.

We are eagerly awaiting the next proposal from Booker, making the hijacking of stagecoaches a federal crime.

 

 

 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement