Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 231: Prepare for the ‘Office of White Supremacy’ if Dems win in 2020

Beto White Supremacy
What exactly is a hate crime? The question isn’t as stupid as it sounds, considering, logically speaking, most crimes -- at least the nasty, violent ones -- involve some degree of animus, strong dislike or even, gulp, “hatred”. It’s been a long time since law school but they used to call it motive, I believe.

There’s a fancy legal distinction for the types of crimes, too. “Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.”

The concept was excellently differentiated in the movie classic “Legally Blonde” -- proving it’s not that hard to explain the difference.

If you light up a cigarette in a no smoking zone, for example, it’s merely prohibited. But today’s liberals might argue you’re still trying to kill others (though slowly) by blowing tobacco smoke -- so who knows, maybe such an action would come under the definition of “hate” as well. These days if you merely shoot a dirty look at someone deemed a member of a protected class, you could end up on the working end of a federal firearm.

As if it weren’t obvious, Democrat senator and presidential candidate Cory Booker sees “hate” all around him, and if elected president he intends to eradicate it by employing the law enforcement might of the United States government. David Sherfinski reported at The Washington Times, “Mr. Booker wants to create a new White House office on hate crimes and white supremacist violence to better coordinate federal agencies and responses and set up an external advisory group of community stakeholders to help share information with the federal government.

“’Dr. King once said that ‘It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me.’ So in my administration, we will use the full force of the presidency to combat hate crimes and root out white supremacist threats wherever they arise,’ the New Jersey senator said.

“He would also require the Justice Department to publicly report on threats posed by white supremacists every year, direct the FBI to move away from the ‘racially motivated violent extremism’ threat category to reinstate a ‘white supremacist’ designation, and make lynching a federal crime.”

One can only speculate who Booker would tap to oversee this “Office of White Supremacist Violence.” Former Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch immediately come to mind, but there are so many good candidates. Why not Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson? Maxine Waters anyone? How about “Beto” O’Rourke or Elizabeth Warren (Cory would want to give them some juicy federal patronage position, right?)? Hillary Clinton? She was cheated out of being president, so this might be a good nugget to end her career in “public service.”

What level of proof would be required? Is a single witness’s testimony -- He’s a racist! -- enough?

Further… isn’t lynching already a crime? Not being intimately familiar with the federal statute books, perhaps lynching’s not considered a “national/federal” offense, but if someone is brought up and charged, convicted and sentenced at the state or local level, isn’t it the same thing? And how many lynchings still take place anyway? A quick Google search revealed the last one in the United States occurred in 1981. The last hanging (an execution) was in 1996. Perhaps the internet doesn’t always provide updated and accurate information, but it certainly looks like lynching is a thing of the distant past and Mr. Booker is simply using this issue as a crutch to frighten and agitate folks.

It’s a different type of blowing smoke than the one mentioned above, but the effect is the same. It gets people up in arms -- but in the end there’s not much substance to it. On a philosophic level it’s exceedingly dangerous for a government to criminalize someone’s thought patterns, no matter how abhorrent and wrong they might seem to the vast majority of decent citizens.

It used to be citizens could be as ignorant and anti-social as they wished as long as they didn’t cross the line into physical acts (or mental abuse) or believable threats. It’s a whole different ballgame now, however, as Democrat politicians go to extreme lengths to show how much they “care” about stuff and if elected, they’re gonna do something about it, doggonit! This isn’t even mentioning the potential snags with proscribing otherwise protected free speech.

For those in need of a refresher, the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I’m no lawyer… well, actually I am (non-practicing)… but if Congress would be prevented from passing a bill making “hate speech” a crime, then how would the executive enforce something that isn’t a law? And sure, there are exceptions to free speech, but they involve things like libel, slander and imminent dangers. If some nut says “I’m gonna go kill a black guy” it would likely already be actionable under current criminal laws. Why tack on an extra degree of punishment for failing to be politically correct?

And would this “hate” office also delve into the terrorizations (real and otherwise) made by radical leftist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter? Or is it okay and accepted to “hate” white people?

Sherfinski additionally reported that Booker would direct the DOJ to expand the list of “sensitive locations” where immigration officials try to avoid enforcement actions, such as schools, hospitals and churches. His plan also calls for collaboration with social media and online platforms on initiatives such as “civil rights audits.”

In other words, there’s a totalitarian aura surrounding Booker and his henchmen -- and he alone would decide what types of thought would be prohibited! No doubt he’d regularly hang out in the White House office on hate crimes and white supremacist violence and personally monitor every single electronic communication to determine the level of culpability in each instance. Picture the future president (at least according to Joe Biden!) reviewing a stack of flagged messages and assessing the degree of wrongdoing -- until he finally gives up, tosses the papers in the air and shouts, “Forget this, they’re ALL guilty!

Lastly, how would the new anti-hate, anti-“white supremacy” police force determine what constitutes a violation? Would simply posting a negative, critical message on Facebook relating to a person of color or feminist or transgender or homosexual be enough? Would the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hater inventory become the basis for federal monitoring? Would Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council) be the first name on the watch list as hater # 1?

How about a “red flag” law for haters? Say a nuanced “wrong” thing at the office or the store and you’re barred from speaking for x number of days or until cleared by a liberal magistrate. It’ll be retroactive, too. Whatever you tweeted or posted years ago is fair game for contemporary assessment. Sooner or later every white guy will find himself in trouble with the law!

Would sports writers be immune? Are there exceptions? Tell us Cory, we need to know!

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised someone like Booker would propose such a thing. After all, stupid and impractical ideas typically find a home in his party. To further demonstrate, last week Cory’s Democrat colleague, “Beto” O’Rourke, thought he could get his campaign going with a race-based “relaunch” too. Jonathan Easley reported at The Hill, “Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) … described racism and gun violence as existential threats to the U.S. and said he would resume his presidential campaign with a focus on visiting immigrant communities he said have been ‘terrorized’ by President Trump.

“O’Rourke has been off the campaign trail to comfort residents in his hometown of El Paso, Texas, since the Aug. 3 mass shooting at a Walmart left 22 people dead. The Texas Democrat has explicitly blamed Trump for the deaths, saying the president’s rhetoric toward immigrants inspired the alleged shooter.”

The unemployed Texas pol also cited guns and Congress’s lack of action on gun control as the reason he’s continuing on the presidential campaign trail instead of getting out of the race and merely settling for running for senate again (against Sen. John Cornyn). He couldn’t win. He knows it.

Here’s thinking “Beto” was planning to suspend his campaign in any case (because his poll numbers were sinking like a stone). Then the El Paso shooter wacko injected new life into Beto’s all-race-all-the-time message and he’s now the happiest guy in the Lone Star State because it all transpired in his political backyard -- so the media had to pay attention to him.

There’s more. “Beto’s” no longer bothering with trying to convince Iowa white people to vote for him -- no, he’s going to chill with illegal immigrants in Mississippi and other places instead. O’Rourke probably figures his only path forward is to raise his national poll numbers -- so he’s hunkering down with Hispanics hoping for a miracle! He also intends to amp-up his anti-Trump “racist” rhetoric. Talk about someone who can “bring the country together” and “unite” us!

Thanks to Booker and “Beto” the 2020 campaign just got that much nastier. We’re still over a year away from the fall general election contest and it promises to be the ugliest one on record. Democrats aren’t holding back anymore -- anyone who supports Trump is a “racist.” And you could end up on a watch list in the White House.

Share this

Natural born citizen

Booker sounds more like he wants to be a Communist dictator! Who in their right mind would vote for this sick ideology?