FLASH SALE: Get a 3-Month-Supply of long-term storage food for $647, VERY limited-time offer.
It’s election season so Republicans in Congress are jumping-on the political correctness bandwagon to keep from giving their November ballot opponents reason to accuse them of being racist. An example of this is the Emmett Till Antilynching Bill that passed the House in February with only four opposing votes and is now in the Senate where it has 45 recorded co-sponsors, 16 of whom are Republicans. It has been reported that 99 senators support the bill so passage seems almost certain.
This is far from the first time anti-lynching legislation has been brought up in the Congress and you have to give the proponents props for tenacity because bills have been introduced no less than 200 times. That’s 1.3 attempts per year since the end of the American Civil War.
Anyone with a sense for detecting political correctness would not be surprised by seeing the names of failed Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Bernie Sanders, (I-VT) on the list of sponsors. But what would really peg the needles of their PC detectors is seeing the name of Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. On the one hand Scott’s support seems logical because he is the first black person ever elected to the Senate from that state and his support will likely make him look more attractive to black voters. On the other hand, Scott has been vocal about the need to stop letting racial issues divide us. He supported the First Step Act that does things like reduce the length of sentences imposed on non-violent offenders so fewer blacks will be sent to prison for long periods.
Why is Sen. Scott supporting the anti-lynching bill 52 years after the last time anyone was lynched? He’s pandering for votes so he’s willing to play along with the current racial fever in America enough that he can’t be accused of being against blacks.
Don’t get caught unprepared as things go south. Order a case of five life-saving antibiotics prescribed directly to you by board certified physicians. Use promo code “RUCKER10” for $10 off. Having an emergency supply of antibiotics is crucial before the crap hits the fan.
Still, emotions flashed hot in the Senate on Saturday when the bill was brought up for debate and Sen. Rand Paul voiced his concerns that the language in the bill was too broad and non-specific so it needed to be refined. That quickly drew sharp criticism from other senators including Harris, Booker and Scott, who delivered impassioned speeches assailing him and sometimes tearfully arguing that it was necessary. But in an Op-Ed in Monday’s Louisville Courier-Journal Sen. Paul said he was not blocking the bill but trying to enhance it by keeping it focused on lynching instead of other offenses. He wanted to prevent over-zealous prosecutors from using it to coerce innocent defendants into pleading guilty because they could be sentenced to up to ten years in prison for an offense where the penalty is far shorter. To illustrate he cited the case of Tiffany Harris, a black woman from New York who was arrested in December and charged with misdemeanors after slapping three Jewish women and using a racial slur. The misdemeanor charges could get her up to one year in jail, but Sen. Paul argued the vague language in the anti-lynching bill would allow prosecutors to turn her misdemeanor into a felony just because their victim was the member of another race and if the bill became law someone like her could instead be facing up to ten years in prison.
One of the justifications listed in the language of the bill is the claim that 4,742 blacks have been lynched in America since 1800. The murder of George Floyd has ignited a fire of passion on racial issues so the bill is expected to be passed in the Senate. The question is if it will be modified and have to go back to the house for the language to be reconciled.
The anti-lynching bill is just the latest in what Sen. Paul said was a 50 year-long history of hate crimes legislation in America. The concept of hate crimes laws is that offenses committed by persons of one race (whites) against another (blacks) is because of historic animosity and thus an additional penalty is justified. However, there are some significant problems with that concept.
First, if it becomes law the bill would create a legal inequality based on race when the foremost and greatest objective of the civil rights movement has been the elimination of racial inequality in the law. Equality does not exist if new laws are written with animosity or favor toward one race but not everyone else.
Second, lynching is a historic problem, not a current one. Civil rights advocates use lynching as an emotional “hot button” that gets hit with great regularity to preserve the illusion of risk to their people and justify more government protections. In doing that they’re like Pumbaa in “The Lion King” where his friend Timon is counseling him to put his past behind him but Pumbaa reverses the mantra and begins repeating he needs to “put my behind past me.” Focusing on the past prevents addressing the present or planning for the future.
Third, using hate as the basis for adding up to ten years to a person’s prison sentence is a useless duplication in the law because most states give judges a range of penalties and they are already expected to consider extenuating factors such as racial animosity when deciding how severely to punish an offender. Adding another ten years is just political correctness given the force of law.
Fourth is the illusion that an additional risk will dissuade anyone from committing a crime. If that was true we wouldn’t have as many people committing crimes or returning to crime after being released from prison. So thinking anyone will be deterred from committing a crime against a person of a different race is taking popular illogic to the extreme.
Today we are being bombarded with all sorts of politically-correct claims about how America must be changed if we are to resolve racial tension when the real solution requires not one new law. We simply need to follow the “golden rule” given to us by Jesus: Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Check out the NEW NOQ Report Podcast.
American Conservative Movement
Join fellow patriots as we form a grassroots movement to advance the cause of conservatism. The coronavirus crisis has prompted many, even some conservatives, to promote authoritarianism. It’s understandable to some extent now, but it must not be allowed to embed itself in American life. We currently have 8000+ patriots with us in a very short time. If you are interested, please join us to receive updates.
[yikes-mailchimp form=”1″]
Will America-First News Outlets Make it to 2023?
Things are looking grim for conservative and populist news sites.
There’s something happening behind the scenes at several popular conservative news outlets. 2021 was bad, but 2022 is proving to be disastrous for news sites that aren’t “playing ball” with the corporate media narrative. It’s being said that advertisers are cracking down, forcing some of the biggest ad networks like Google and Yahoo to pull their inventory from conservative outlets. This has had two major effects. First, it has cooled most conservative outlets from discussing “taboo” topics like Pandemic Panic Theater, voter fraud, or The Great Reset. Second, it has isolated those ad networks that aren’t playing ball.
Certain topics are anathema for most ad networks. Speaking out against vaccines or vaccine mandates is a certain path to being demonetized. Highlighting voter fraud in the 2020 and future elections is another instant advertising death penalty. Throw in truthful stories about climate change hysteria, Critical Race Theory, and the border crisis and it’s easy to understand how difficult it is for America-First news outlets to spread the facts, share conservative opinions, and still pay the bills.
Without naming names, I have been told of several news outlets who have been forced to either consolidate with larger organizations or who have backed down on covering certain topics out of fear of being “canceled” by the ad networks. I get it. This is a business for many of us and it’s not very profitable. Those of us who do this for a living are often barely squeaking by, so loss of additional revenue can often mean being forced to make cuts. That means not being able to cover the topics properly. Its a Catch-22: Tell the truth and lose the money necessary to keep telling the truth, or avoid the truth and make enough money to survive. Those who have chosen survival simply aren’t able to spread the truth properly.
We will never avoid the truth. The Lord will provide if it is His will. Our job is simply to share the facts, spread the Gospel, and educate as many Americans as possible while exposing the forces of evil.
To those who have the means, we ask that you please donate. We have options available now, but there is no telling when those options will cancel us. We just launched a new GiveSendGo page. We also have our GivingFuel page. There have been many who have been canceled by PayPal, but for now it’s still an option. Your generosity is what keeps these sites running and allows us to get the truth to the masses. We’ve had great success in growing but we know we can do more with your assistance.
Thank you, and God Bless!
JD Rucker
