Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court’

After Schools, Leftists Try To Remove God, Atheism Becomes Largest Religion in US


Reported By Joe Saunders | Published April 7, 2019 at 3:50pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/schools-leftists-try-remove-god-atheism-becomes-largest-religion-us/

More than 50 years after the Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, the percentage of Americans who claim no religion is slightly higher than the two largest religious faiths. (Anna Nahabed / Shutterstock)

The Freedom from Religion Foundation and the ACLU must be high-fiving each other.

In a development that can’t be heartening to the millions of America’s faithful, new survey data shows the percentage of Americans who profess no religious belief is actually higher those who are part of the country’s largest faith traditions. The trends might not be looking good right now, but there’s a reason to hope.

According to the General Social Survey, which has been tracking American social trends since 1972, Americans who claim no religion — or “nones” — now outnumber Roman Catholics and evangelicals.

“’Nones’ have been on the march for a long time now,” Ryan P. Burge, a professor at Eastern Illinois University, told the National Catholic Reporter.

“It’s been a constant, steady increase for 20 years now. If the trend line kept up, we knew this was going to happen.”

According to the NCR, the percentage of American “nones” is now 23.1, up from 21.6 percent in 2016. That’s only slightly ahead of Catholics, at 23 percent, and evangelicals, which were 22.5, down from 23.9 percent in 2016. The percentage is so small, considering the millions of individuals involved, it’s probably statistically insignificant. The NCR calls the results “statistically tied.”

But there’s no denying it represents a change in American life — and the kind that could have a direct result on the country’s politics.

NCR cited exit polls from the 2016 elections that white evangelicals made up 26 percent of the voters even if their share of the voting population wasn’t that large.

“Evangelicals punch way above their weight,” Burge said told NCR. “They turn out a bunch at the ballot box. That’s largely a function of the fact that they’re white and they’re old.”

That’s one way to put it. One could also look at it like they’re patriotic, committed, intelligent and aware that — as Americans — they’re part of the rich history of a nation that’s truly exceptional in world history. In other words, they’re pretty much the opposite of the millennial America that is embodied by progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Democrat freshmen representatives.

So let’s just stipulate that a future where the American electorate is made up of a lot fewer people like the voters who pushed Donald Trump over the top early on Nov. 9, 2016, and a lot more fans of AOC is likely to be a trying one for the country overall. But this has been coming for a long time. The General Social Survey numbers are almost to be expected if several factors are taken into account.

First and foremost, public schools have for decades been in the hands of an education establishment and leftist teachers unions that scorn traditional morality.

Secondly, our nation is saturated with an entertainment culture that celebrates individual narcissism and immorality while mocking virtually every expression of religious belief.

Finally, America’s political culture is such that one of its two major political parties has been virtually a religion-free zone.

Combine these factors with the lawfare practiced by the likes of the ACLU and the cranky atheists of the Freedom from Religion Foundation — which target even the most innocent endearing expressions of religious faith in public life – and it’s a wonder that numbers like this didn’t show up ages ago.

And as Michael Knowles pointed out at The Daily Wire, it’s probably no coincidence that the country is experiencing a level of social ills that it hasn’t seen before.

“As religiosity has declined, social ills have abounded. Nearly one in five American adults suffers from anxiety disorders, which now constitute the most common mental illness in the country,” Knowles wrote.

“One in six Americans takes antidepressant drugs, a 65% surge over just 15 years. The problem is particularly acute among younger Americans. While depression diagnoses have increased 33% since 2013, that number is up 47% among Millennials and 63% among teenagers. Coincidentally, suicide rates among American teenagers have increased by 70% since 2006. American life expectancy declined again last year, as Americans continue to drug and kill themselves at record rates.”

Does anyone think it’s just a coincidence that that happens when religious faith is failing? (And does anyone think it’s a coincidence that all of this happening less than 60 years after the Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. Three generations of Americans have grown up in the world that helped create.) Now, no one can believe the members of the American Civil Liberties Union wake up in the morning wondering how they can contribute to more American suicides than they did yesterday. And no one thinks the Freedom from Religion wackos in Wisconsin are consciously setting out to increase the mental and spiritual health of their fellow citizens. (Though at Christmas time, it can be hard to tell.) And one might even be able to give the benefit of the doubt to the American education establishment (though Hollywood and the teachers unions will never deserve it).

But even the most willfully obtuse, deliberately blind individual member of the cultural elite has to see the wreckage that’s being strewn across society by the large-scale abandonment of faith. And that might be a reason for hope.

The numbers might not be looking good at the moment, but it’s the job of conservatives to try to turn that trend around. The election of President Donald Trump was a start in that process — and the developments it made possible, like the gradual return of sanity to the United States court system, will help.

But this is the long fight — the longest fight there is — and conservatives have to be willing to get into it. If they are in the fight — heart and soul — a setback or two in the numbers of the faithful are largely irrelevant in the long run. Conservatives have taken on long odds before and won — the news out of the White House every day proves it. They can do it again.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Joe has been with Liftable Media since 2015.

America Needs To Hear Judge’s Words in Pro-High Capacity Magazine Decision


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published April 4, 2019 at 3:51pm

A federal district judge in California recently knocked down that state’s ban on firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition as being an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The liberal media hasn’t really said too much about the ramifications of this ruling, and for good reason, as it undermines a major argument put forward by the anti-gun crowd in support of their confiscatory gun control schemes.

NBC News reported U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban on possession of “large capacity magazines” that hold more than 10 rounds, in large part due to the commonality of such ammunition feeding devices. Benitez also slammed the lawmakers who think they know what citizens need to defend themselves and their families or protect their homes and property from common armed criminals.

The judge’s 86-page ruling began by declaring “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” and compared three stories of home invasions in which a woman used a firearm to defend against her assailants. In two of those cases, the victim ran out of ammunition prior to the end of the criminal assault against them, while in the third case, a woman dressed in only pajamas with a large capacity magazine managed to fend off three attackers because she had the extra ammunition in the large capacity magazine.

Benitez wrote that the woman “held a phone in one hand and took up her pistol in the other and began shooting. She fired numerous shots. She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911. After the shooting was over and two of the armed suspects got away and one lay dead, she did get through to the police.”

California first instituted a ban on so-called large capacity magazines in 2000 but allowed those who already possessed such magazines to keep them. However, the law was changed in 2016 to no longer grandfather those previously possessed magazines. Benitez had issued an injunction in 2017 to block the implementation of that law, which would have required all such magazines be turned in or else risk a felony charge for unlawful possession. The reasoning behind the added confiscation and penalties for possession was to reduce death counts in mass shootings. However, Benitez noted that while incredibly tragic, mass shootings were also “extremely rare,” and the law-abiding citizenry shouldn’t be infringed upon with a “solution” to a relatively small problem.

Citing the prevalence of common crimes versus mass shootings — and the fact that it wholly depends on each individual incident to know how many rounds will be needed to defend oneself — the judge decried the limit of 10 rounds to be a significant burden on the Second Amendment-protected right of all law-abiding Americans to possess “arms” necessary for self-defense. The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s monumental District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, as well as other cases similarly couched on that precedent, which guaranteed the right of Americans to possess “common” arms. Benitez ruled that standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds fell into the category of being arms in common use. He also gave a nod to the “militia” clause in the Second Amendment later in the ruling by noting that, in the unlikely but still possible event a citizen militia would need to defend the country in the future, they would likely have to do so with firearms and magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

“Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech,” Benitez wrote.

“Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law,”he added.

The judge also took on the leftist trope that firearms holding more than 10 rounds were “too lethal” for the average citizen to possess. After noting that all firearms of any capacity are “dangerous” and “lethal,” he followed the faulty logic to conclude that, if the 10-round limit were allowed to stand, it could eventually be reduced by the state to as few as one allowable round — a ridiculous notion that would completely undermine the entire premise of armed self-defense.

Judge Benitez concluded that California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds could not survive any level of legal scrutiny, nor was it historically acceptable prohibition, and thus was unconstitutional as it placed an unfair and severe burden on law-abiding citizens.

This judge is exactly right. Nobody knows how many rounds will be necessary to defend against an unknown number of assailants, and arbitrary limits imposed by the state — with criminal liability for non-compliance — only serve to burden law-abiding citizens while having no effect on criminals who are already violating existing laws.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Illegal Immigrant Detention


Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published March 19, 2019 at 10:47am | Modified March 19, 2019 at 10:52am

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that immigrants with criminal records can be detained and held indefinitely while they await deportation proceedings.

In the 5-4 decision, the high court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2016 that immigrants with criminal records can only be detained by federal authorities if the detention occurs soon after he or she is released from jail, The Hill reported.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the ruling.

“In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail,” Alito wrote.

“If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,”  he continued.  “Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

The case centers around the interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants ‘when the alien is released’ from criminal detention,” according to Reuters.

“Civil rights lawyers argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime,” the news outlet added.

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit against the government, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions, which were deportable offenses. He completed his jail time for these crimes in 2006 but was detained by federal authorities in 2013 after being released from jail for non-deportable offenses.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the dissent — in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — that the Constitution did not intend for people who have already served their sentence for crimes committed to be deprived of their liberty indefinitely.

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” he said reading his dissent from the bench, the Washington Examiner reported.

Breyer warned the “greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.”

“It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,” he said.

Cecilia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton applauded the decision, saying the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.

He tweeted, “U.S. Supreme Court gives @RealDonaldTrump victory on immigration detention. Actually, court upholds rule of law on immigration in case dating back to Obama administration.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Mike Huckabee: SCOTUS Just Made Landmark Ruling That Reins in the Power of Government


Authored By Mike Huckabee | Published February 22, 2019 at 3:16pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/mike-huckabee-scotus-made-landmark-ruling-reins-power-government/

Supreme Court justices

Supreme Court justices (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

The particular case involved someone who was convicted for dealing drugs. Indiana authorities seized and auctioned off his Land Rover, even though it was not purchased with drug money, on grounds that he used it to commit crimes by driving it while dealing drugs (with that kind of tenuous connection, they could have seized his sneakers, too.)

He challenged the seizure, but the state Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court never explicitly said that the Eighth Amendment applies to states, too. Well, now they have. Talk about things that should have gone without saying!

Asset forfeiture laws were originally well-intentioned and meant to ensure that criminals didn’t profit from their crimes. But over the years, some places started abusing them as a method of raising revenue by seizing and auctioning private property that had little or no connection with criminal behavior, leaving citizens with scant recourse or financial resources to fight it.

As this story notes, the lack of Eighth Amendment protections on the state level also led to abuses such as heavy fines for tiny infractions, such as using the wrong house paint colors or Halloween decorations.

During oral arguments of the case, Justice Breyer got Indiana’s solicitor general to admit that the state could conceivably seize someone’s car for driving five miles over the speed limit, which sparked laughter in the court.

This is a welcome and long overdue ruling. Too many young people (some of them recently elected to Congress) have no concept of the foundational importance of property rights. They seem fine with the idea of government being able to take as much of the fruits of other people’s labors as it wants, as long as it promises to “redistribute” other people’s money in the form of free stuff.


They need to learn the wise old saying that a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

Recent Posts Contact

Mike Huckabee is the host of “Huckabee” on TBN Sat/Sun 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, a Fox News contributor, author, former Arkansas governor, bass guitarist and grandfather to six of the cutest kids in world! He’s also a special contributor for The Western Journal.

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh



Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed


Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Teacher Learns Harsh Lesson After Calling for Kavanaugh Assassination


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 9, 2018 at 6:58am

A Minnesota teacher who called for the death of Brett Kavanaugh on Twitter has been suspended with pay after the threat was reported to the FBI, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. The unnamed teacher, who goes by the Twitter handle @lookitsSammm, got her fifteen minutes of viral infamy after the minatory tweet on Saturday, according to the Star Tribune.

“So whose (sic) going to take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?” @lookitsSammm wrote.

As expressing political rage goes, this wasn’t a particularly great idea, particularly when it happened just hours after Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate:

The not-good-idea-iness factor of this whole thing was significantly heightened by the fact that the tweeter was a Rosemount, Minnesota, educator — and there are bigger issues with that than the fact a teacher doesn’t know the difference between “whose” and “who’s.”

“The teacher, listed as an instructor at the Intermediate School District 917’s Alliance Education Center, has since deleted her Twitter account but her tweet was captured and shared by scores of users who said they reported it to the FBI and U.S. Secret Service,” the Star Tribune reported.

As an aside here, I can understand deleting a tweet after it becomes clear you’ve said something cretinous (or possibly illegal). No, it’s not going to stop the whirlwind of problems you’ve invited upon yourself, but I suppose it at least shows some good sense. Deleting your account, however, just makes you look very guilty. For every soi-disant Twitter politics expert who could see themselves typing out something this addle-pated in the future, please keep this in mind when you eventually decide to say something profoundly asinine and/or felonious.

So, back to @lookitsSammm. Mark Zuzek, the superintendent of Intermediate School District 917, acknowledged they’d received a complaint regarding her social media musings and that she was “on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation,” according to a statement on the center’s website.

“Pursuant with the data practices act, we are limited to providing additional information regarding this matter,” Zuzek added in the statement.

In an ideal universe, that “investigation” would consist of this:

Superintendent Zuzek: So, uh, did you tweet this garbage?

@lookitsSammm: That depends on what the definition of “tweet” is.

Superintendent Zuzek: Is there any possible way I can verbalize an ellipsis? No?

@lookitsSammm: [heavy sigh] I have my First Amendment rights, Superintendent Zuzek. I, for one, believe all survivors, and you should, too. I was merely–

Superintendent Zuzek: Good luck with your next job.

My ideal world, alas, is one where teachers unions aren’t 100 percent insane and that clearly isn’t going to exist anytime soon. That being said, one can likely guess that once the wearisome process concludes, it’ll probably conclude with @lookitsSammm @lookingforanewjob.

Of course, our unidentified educator has a bit more to worry about than her employment status. There’s also a law enforcement investigation to consider.

“It is unclear whether the teacher will be charged with a crime or what law enforcement agency is responsible for investigating the tweet,” the Star Tribune noted.

“While Twitter users wrote that they reported the tweet to the FBI and Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for protecting the federal judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court also has a small federal police force in Washington, D.C.”

An FBI spokesman for the Minneapolis office said that the bureau was aware of the remarks, the Star Tribune reported. While this could end up resulting in absolutely nothing, I’ve found it’s generally not good to have federal authorities aware of anything you happen to be doing, particularly if it involves encouraging assassination.

Regardless, the federal attention is going to make a harsh lesson in itself. Combined with complications at work, it all just might be enough to teach this teacher something to remember.

Yes, I get that this was supposed to be a joke and that nobody is likely to be goaded into taking a shot at a Supreme Court justice in 280 characters or less, especially from a random Minnesota teacher.

With that in mind, nobody finds jokes about murdering people particularly funny. Much more importantly for @lookitsSammm, that includes both her employer and law enforcement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: