There's too many coincidences for this to not be a staged event:
February 27, 2019
Democrats' 'Anti-Lynching' Law Makes a Mockery of Real Lynching Victims
By William Sullivan
When most Americans think of lynching, they summon images of the horrific murders of American blacks, particularly in the years of the Jim Crow South. To describe such murders as "bias-motivated acts of terror," as Cory Booker has, would certainly be accurate. "This bill," Booker says, "will not undo the damage," but it "will acknowledge the wrongs in our history. It will honor the memories of those brutally killed."
So, when Senate Democrats offered their proposed new law, the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, I had assumed that it would be a symbolic congressional action to recognize these injustices that took place and to honor the victims. Considering that the act passed the Senate unanimously, that's likely what most senators also believed.
Here's something interesting to consider. The alleged attack against Jussie Smollett would certainly not, in the commonly understood definition throughout history, be considered a "lynching." But it would fit the definition of a "lynching" in the Democrats' newly proposed law.
The act appropriates for the federal government the right to completely remove the most basic requirements for a crime to be defined as a "lynching," now declaring that a "lynching" is any act where "2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person." According to this definition, a Hasidic Jew being punched by two black guys is now to be defined by the same word we've used for decades to describe a mob of racist whites hanging an innocent black man.
The language of the act then becomes very careful. It continues with a separate clause defining lynching to include attacks based upon the "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person." That language mirrors, verbatim, that used in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The only difference is that one or more people committing to such an attack is a "hate crime," according to the previous legislation's description of the crime. Now, when two or more people do the same thing, it's a "lynching."
Some Americans took notice of the illogical inclusion of attacks against gays or transgenders as an example of "lynching." After all, isn't this bill ostensibly meant to "honor the victims" of the actual travesty of lynching in America? And there is not one cited historical precedent in the bill of lynching suffered by homosexuals or transgenders.
Activist Tariq Nasheed went so far as to suggest that the attack against Jussie Smollett, a black gay man, aligns too perfectly with these added non sequiturs to address the "lynching" of gay Americans. He suggests that Kamala Harris was involved in Smollett's orchestrating the hoax, ostensibly to justify the inclusion of language defining any attack "meant to do bodily harm" by "2 or more people" due to the victim's sexual orientation as a "lynching."
Democrats' 'Anti-Lynching' Law Makes a Mockery of Real Lynching Victims
By William Sullivan
When most Americans think of lynching, they summon images of the horrific murders of American blacks, particularly in the years of the Jim Crow South. To describe such murders as "bias-motivated acts of terror," as Cory Booker has, would certainly be accurate. "This bill," Booker says, "will not undo the damage," but it "will acknowledge the wrongs in our history. It will honor the memories of those brutally killed."
So, when Senate Democrats offered their proposed new law, the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, I had assumed that it would be a symbolic congressional action to recognize these injustices that took place and to honor the victims. Considering that the act passed the Senate unanimously, that's likely what most senators also believed.
Here's something interesting to consider. The alleged attack against Jussie Smollett would certainly not, in the commonly understood definition throughout history, be considered a "lynching." But it would fit the definition of a "lynching" in the Democrats' newly proposed law.
The act appropriates for the federal government the right to completely remove the most basic requirements for a crime to be defined as a "lynching," now declaring that a "lynching" is any act where "2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person." According to this definition, a Hasidic Jew being punched by two black guys is now to be defined by the same word we've used for decades to describe a mob of racist whites hanging an innocent black man.
The language of the act then becomes very careful. It continues with a separate clause defining lynching to include attacks based upon the "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person." That language mirrors, verbatim, that used in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The only difference is that one or more people committing to such an attack is a "hate crime," according to the previous legislation's description of the crime. Now, when two or more people do the same thing, it's a "lynching."
Some Americans took notice of the illogical inclusion of attacks against gays or transgenders as an example of "lynching." After all, isn't this bill ostensibly meant to "honor the victims" of the actual travesty of lynching in America? And there is not one cited historical precedent in the bill of lynching suffered by homosexuals or transgenders.
Activist Tariq Nasheed went so far as to suggest that the attack against Jussie Smollett, a black gay man, aligns too perfectly with these added non sequiturs to address the "lynching" of gay Americans. He suggests that Kamala Harris was involved in Smollett's orchestrating the hoax, ostensibly to justify the inclusion of language defining any attack "meant to do bodily harm" by "2 or more people" due to the victim's sexual orientation as a "lynching."
