Violent and angry Democrats are unhinged, violent, and a danger to our republic

    We’ve now had almost two years of unremitting violence against Republicans perpetrated by Democrats and various Democratic political action groups, along with the Democratic paramilitary wing, Antifa. Amazingly, Democrats seem to be very proud of all the beatings they’ve been administering to Republicans.
    We’ve just been through a judicial confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh that was an absolute circus. Democrats paid protesters to scream and shout down senators and congressmen as they tried to do their jobs. Many were threatened, and armed guards became the order of the day. During all the commotion one congressman ended up with a bruised wrist from women barging into his office. A Democratic staffer published home phone numbers and addresses of several Republican senators on the Internet.
    When Democrats found they were not going to be able to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation they released a bogus rape claim that they had been keeping secret for almost two months. The Democrats knew the claim wasn’t true; that’s why they kept it secret instead of allowing it to be properly investigated. By sitting on it they could spring it at the last minute to delay the confirmation; of course, then they wailed that Republicans weren’t allowing enough time for it to be properly investigated, the purpose being to delay, not find the truth.

Angry Dems attack Supreme Court

    The result was what we all saw on television or on Internet news feeds, with hired shills running up and down the halls of Congress haranguing key Senators and threatening their families. Following Kavanaugh’s confirmation a mob of angry Democrats actually tried to break down the doors and storm the Supreme Court, something I don’t believe has ever happened in the history of our republic.
    From the moment Donald Trump was elected various celebrities and members of the press started spewing vitriolic rhetoric that stopped just a millimeter away from urging violence against Republicans or Trump supporters. Sometimes they crossed the line, and from time to time assassination of various politicians was suggested, after which we would hear a “just kidding!”
    The Democratic base apprehended the message. Across the nation Trump supporters have been savagely attacked and beaten by Democrats on a regular basis. Sometimes they haven’t been beaten, just shoved and had their MAGA hats stolen. That’s still an assault and still a crime. The Democratic paramilitary wing, Antifa, now completely controls portions of  Portland and beats or harasses Republicans on sight, but Antifa can be found throughout the West Coast and occasionally elsewhere, and wherever they are they are extremely violent. The level of violence and civil unrest being perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans is simply unprecedented.

Scalise following shooting
by Democratic activist

    The suggestion that Republicans should be assassinated led one Democrat to try. Democratic activist James Hodgkinson of Belleville, Ill., tried to take out 24 Congressmen who were practicing for the annual Congressional baseball game on June 14, 2017. In all likelihood he would have killed most or all of the 24 who were there had it not been for the fact that Steve Scalice had a top leadership position and was thus accompanied by capitol police who were able to take down the shooter. Scalice was seriously wounded but survived. The Virginia attorney general said the shooter was “fueled by rage against Republican legislators,” and while he didn’t blame Democrats and the press, it’s pretty obvious where the blame lays.
    A host of Republicans have been driven out of restaurants, theaters, and other public places, from public officials to everyday people wearing political hats or t-shirts; the Red Hen ejection of Sarah Sanders is just a very tiny tip of a very large iceberg. Elected Democrats such as Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Cory Booker have urged Democrats to harass Republicans when they see them in public. Such harassment can easily spill over into violence, and in fact it frequently does. Perhaps some Democrat somewhere, sometime has been mistreated, but never, ever on this scale or magnitude.
    The sad fact is that the Democrats in this country have become completely unhinged. Many are, if not violent, on the edge of violence, running around screaming in people’s faces; they are dangerous. And they have left mainstream America with a level of weirdness that is mind-boggling. When Democratic women started marching around with pink hats designed to look like vaginas on their heads, I thought they were freaks. This year they got rid of the vagina hats on the grounds that the hats weren’t inclusive enough,because “some women have penises.” I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. They quit wearing the vagina hats because they didn't want to hurt the feelings of women who had penises. To me, these women have just gone from being freaks to well  beyond the orbit of Planet Freak.
    Some people still vote for Democrats just because their father, mother, or grandfather voted for Democrats, but this ain’t Roosevelt’s party anymore; it's not even Obama's party anymore. It's not just a matter of Republicans being beaten up on a regular basis, although that is certainly a problem. America is under attack by a bunch of extremely violent Democrats and women with penises. If they should prevail, our republic will perish.
    To those very few normal people who still vote for Democrats, are these really the types of people you want to associate with?
_____________________

Many people have pointed out that Donald Trump urged his supporters to take action against protesters at his rallies. An undercover investigation found that the Clinton campaign hired people, often the homeless and mentally ill, to go to Trump rallies and start fights. In any event, it is a crime to disrupt a private political rally and those who do so are guilty of trespassing. Anyone disrupting a rally may be stopped with reasonable, violent force. Their coats should also be kept. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to advocate violence against criminal trespassers to the extent necessary to prevent them from disrupting the rally.

Now we know why teen girl said 'I deserve it' when pepper sprayed at Trump rally

    Back in late March I got a kick out of a video of a Trump protester starting a fight at a rally in Janesville, Wisc. It ends up with the girl getting pepper sprayed, and as she runs away she can be heard to say, "I deserved that." There were a number of reports on this.
     Although the video shows nothing of the kind, the 15-year-old girl starts screaming that an older man has groped her in the chest. The man backs away and denies touching her and tries to deescalate the situation, but the protester was having none of that. She finally ends up punching the elderly man in the face, at which point a Trump supporter immediately shoots her in the face with pepper spray.
    Her statement that "I deserved that" makes sense now that we know that the Clinton campaign engaged in an organized campaign to start fights at Trump rallies, using both volunteers and homeless or mentally ill people hired off the street. Sometimes they would provoke someone to hit them, but failing that they would simply fake an assault, as this girl apparently did. This girl knew she had crossed the line and was admitting it to herself, without realizing that she was being captured by cell phone video.

Injured officer, Chicago rally

    Hillary Clinton's dirty tricks campaign has not been without costs. Many people have been injured, and it's lucky no one was killed. A number of police officers have been hurt dealing with fights  at these rallies deliberately started by Clinton employees or volunteers. Innocent people have been arrested on false charges brought by Clinton's goon squads; some may have even been forced to plead guilty rather than risk a more serious conviction.
    These types of dirty tricks are far beyond anything Richard Nixon engaged in. In fact, all of Hillary Clinton's crookedness is far beyond that of Nixon; and yet she has the audacity to run for president.
    The criminal thug caught in the undercover video admitting that he helped to organize this Brownshirt brigade said Hillary Clinton was fully aware of the project and that he was working closely with her campaign. If so, this is just one more crime for which Hillary Clinton should be tried, convicted, and locked up.
    Anyone who has been injured at one of these rallies because of one of these fights needs to sue not only the Clinton campaign, but Hillary Clinton herself. Ultimately she is responsible for all of this.

When I saw this photo of Austin Barbour I immediately thought of Cam Brady

    He's a bit younger and fresher of face, but the minute I saw this photo of Austin Barbour at a recent press conference I thought of the Cam Brady character played by Will Ferrell in the Movie "The Campaign."
    In that movie Ferrell played a politician who would stop at nothing to get re-elected, much like Thad Cochran, or his handlers.
    Barbour, by the way, is the one on the left.

   

Illegal immigrant protest urges lawful citizens to pay more taxes to give criminals more benefits

A Roma man holds a sign reading "More taxes for you = more benefits for us"  during a demonstration on 'International Roma Day' at Republic Square in Paris, on April 8, 2014.

    The Gypsy, or "Roma" man on the right certainly has figured out how welfare and the politics of entitlement work, even if his appeal isn't very effective. An illegal immigrant to France, he was a participant in "International Roma Day" in Paris.
    The sign translates to read as follows: "More taxes for you = More benefits for us." What the sign fails to explain is why law-abiding French citizens should tax themselves to provide benefits for Gypsy criminals in the country illegally.
    The sign is a clear statement of what is in store for nations that fail to police their borders and control illegal immigration. The lawful citizenry will face higher and higher taxes as the dregs of society pour in to claim the free goodies.

New York Times article reports problems with Stephen Hayne testimony, need for review

    The New York Times reports tomorrow on the need for a review of Mississippi criminal convictions based on testimony of Dr. Stephen Hayne.
    The story begins:

     JACKSON, Miss. — For a long time, if a body turned up in Mississippi it had a four-in-five chance of ending up in front of Dr. Steven T. Hayne.
     Between the late 1980s and the late 2000s, Dr. Hayne had the field of forensic pathology in Mississippi almost to himself, performing thousands of autopsies and delivering his findings around the state as an expert witness in civil and criminal cases. For most of that time, Dr. Hayne performed about 1,700 autopsies annually, more than four for every day of the year and nearly seven times the maximum caseload recommended by the National Association of Medical Examiners.
     During the past several months, in courthouses around Mississippi, four new petitions have been quietly submitted on behalf of people in prison arguing that they were wrongfully convicted on the basis of Dr. Hayne’s testimony. Around 10 more are expected in the coming weeks, including three by inmates on death row.

    I've already said what a disgrace I think this is. These cases need to be reviewed. Better some guilty people go free then to have lots of innocent people locked up.

Pardon final step in rehabilitation, but many want only punishment

    I admit to some surprise over the massive round of pardons issued by outgoing Mississippi's Gov. Haley Barbour. Yet the outrage also raises another question: Do we want our penal system to rehabilitate prisoners or merely punish them?
    Historically we wanted our penal system to do both. Yet the comments I've read in social networking and news sites suggest that most people want punishment, and after that more punishment. And then more. They aren't interested in rehabilitation.
    We all know that in many -- maybe even most -- cases rehabilitation isn't possible. A lot of the people who go to prison are just bad eggs. They can't be rehabilitated. Yet most of the people pardoned by Gov. Barbour seem like prime candidates for rehabilitation. In fact about 90 percent of those receiving pardons were already out of jail. Some had been out for 20 years or more. They are, by definition, rehabilitated. All the pardon did was allow them to hunt, vote and perhaps get a professional license.
    One of the things that is most troubling to all of us is to see a murderer go free. Yet the fact is that there is a fine line between murder and manslaughter, and many murders are the only crime a person ever commits. They become enraged and act out. Someone who is in prison for a first offense of murder, said murder not being committed for the primary purpose of theft, and who behaves as a model prisoner, is one of the least likely people in the jail to commit another crime.
    The Florida Bureau of Prisons produced a report on prisoner recidivism. I didn't study it at length, but it appears to have some interesting statistics. I've reproduced below a chart from the report showing factors affecting, both positively and negatively, male (but not female) recidivism rates. Note that the female chart is different. For example, black males have a higher-than-average recidivism rate but black females have a lower-than-average rate. More time in prison increases the recidivism rate for males while lowering it for females. (Yes, I know I've misspelled "ameliorating" in the chart.
    Our of Barbour's more than 200 pardons, my guess is that after the dust settles there will only be a dozen or so that really rankle. It just doesn't bother me for someone who has been out of jail for many years to get a pardon.
    This doesn't mean I'm not scratching my head over some of these pardons. I am. In some cases I disapprove.
    But this ought to give us a chance to ask ourselves some questions about our penal system and what we want it to do. Do we want it to rehabilitate prisoners or merely punish them. We ought to want both. But if we refuse to allow fully rehabilitated prisoners to return to society then we've decided that all we really want our penal system to do is punish and not rehabilitate.
    We need to do both.


(Click to enlarge chart)

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, Part 2 (Britain crime rate)

    I recently pointed out that one of the reasons that Norway mass-murderer Anders Breivik was able to shoot so many people at a leisurely pace was that virtually no one, including police, in Norway has a gun.
There was simply no way to stop the guy.
    Make no mistake, the proliferation of guns in our society has costs. We have a high murder rate, although many of these murders are hooligans shooting each other, not innocent citizens. But researcher John Lott, for example has found very strong evidence that when law-abiding citizens are allowed to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons there is a dramatic decrease in crime. Criminals are loathe to commit burglaries or assaults against those who might be armed and dangerous.
    Great Britain has gone the other route. They have followed the advice of the liberals who advocated banning handguns altogether. After a deadly school shooting in Dublane, Scotland, claimed the lives of 15 students and a teacher, Britain banned all handguns by refusing to renew virtually any handgun license. As a result the violent crime rate has skyrocketed. It is the most violent country in Europe with a violent crime rate that is five times higher than that of the United States, and higher than that of South Africa.
    It should be noted that handgun ownership wasn't widespread in Britain to begin with. Generally, only people who needed guns, such as shopkeepers, were allowed to have them. But Britain disarmed every law-abiding citizen in its society. Of course, criminals kept their guns and now use them to victimize the citizenry with impunity.
    Adding to the problem is the attitude of British police and prosecutors towards those who try to defend themselves with so much as a knitting needle. Have you noticed that during the current chaos those who have tried to defend their neighborhoods from violence have been called "vigilantes"? A vigilante isn't someone who tries to protect his property; a vigilante is someone who administers justice outside the law. These people are merely defending themselves or their neighborhoods. They aren't vigilantes.
    But this criminalization of those who try to defend themselves is part of the British mindset. And the criminals know it and act on it. Consider the following, from Reason Magazine:

In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and was been granted 5,000 pounds of legal assistance to sue Martin.

    People ask me why I hate liberals. Now you know.
    The same thing has been going on in France. In fact, police there often refuse to make arrests even when they see a violent crime. And the liberal judges tend to believe that the criminal is the victim, having suffered a childhood of too few peas and carrots. You owe it to yourself to read The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris, a 10-year-old essay, but just as good today as it was then.
    In America, many states still have the English common-law Castle Doctrine (the poor blokes used to have some sense). A citizen is entitled to use deadly force to protect his home if he believes his life is in danger. Unlike the common-law version, most states with a Castle Doctrine have expressly removed the "duty to retreat." It's your home; stand your ground.
    Britain has disarmed its citizenry and empowered its criminals. America allows its citizens to carry arms and has issued everyone a hunting permit to be used to protect themselves and their homes. It has an amazing effect on the crime rate, doesn't it?

More Memphis Home Invasions

Home invasions have become commonplace in Memphis. Here's the latest from the Commercial Appeal: 2 Overnight home invasions, one man shot

Shelby County Sheriff's Deputies are searching for two suspects who shot a man last night after breaking into his home near Raleigh.
It happened at about 10:30 Monday night in the 4100 block of Allendale cove, in the Laurel Hills subdivision.
According to investigators, the men broke down the front door and saw two children, a 12 year-old girl and a 13 year-old boy, watching television.
The children’s father, Ray Perry, 39, heard the commotion and confronted the two men, who shot him in the stomach and leg.
He remains at The Med in stable condition.
Perry’s two children were not harmed during the incident....
Another home invasion robbery occurred at about 2 a.m. today in the 5200 block of Castleman Cove, near Cottonwood and Mendenhall.
An unidentified number of armed and hooded men broke into the home and stole a number of items....

Now for the Mississippi connection. The DeSoto Times Today and the Memphis Daily News report that while home sales were off in 2007 from the record 2006 levels, the DeSoto County housing market remains relatively strong as buyers continue to flood out of Memphis. So DeSoto County may not be completely recession-proof, but it may be immune from the housing slump that the rest of the country is having.

Unfortunately, one day the criminals are going to start coming into DeSoto County to live. Then Tate County will get to be recession-proof for a while.

New York Times takes note of Mississippi Justice system

The Jan. 20 edition of The New York Times had a long feature on the Mississippi justice system and the saga of Dickie Scruggs and friends. Boy is this a mess. Everyone wondered why Trent Lott resigned suddenly from the Senate, but clearly the mess his brother-in-law is in must have weighed heavily on his mind. Here's the link: The Legal Trail in a Delta Drama.

Scruggs's defense may rely on the fact that the judge who was offered a bribe was repeatedly told that the bribe was not from Scruggs and that Scruggs did not know about the offer. Prosecutors apparently failed to inform the judge of this fact when getting an order for a wire tap, a tap which eventually gave them enough evidence to get guilty pleas from former state auditor Steve Patterson, New Albany attorney Tim Balducci and Booneville attorney Joey Langston. If this is indeed the case, then Scruggs may be able to argue that any testimony by Patterson, Balducci or Langston is "fruit of the poison tree" and not admissible in court.

Nobody wants to see anyone get off for any crime on a technicality, but after watching the Duke Lacrosse case from afar last year, I have little use for prosecutors who withhold information from judges in order to get warrants and wiretaps. I'm sure Scruggs will be well represented by counsel, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. Unfortunately, Mississippi isn't going to look very good.

Meanwhile, in the rumor mill, the FBI supposedly sent out at least 51 "target" letters to Mississippi attorneys and perhaps judges last week, informing them that they are a target of investigation. I've heard numbers as high as 100, but 51 is the number that keeps cropping up, so I suspect that number is correct. Also, we need to remember that Dickie Scruggs and some of these other lawyers got rich representing the state of Mississippi in lawsuits, including the famous tobacco suit. Just how were they picked again? This could get really interesting and really ugly before it's over.