Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label Cori Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cori Bush. Show all posts

Monday, October 11, 2021

The Power is on the Side of the Killers, Not Their Victims

October 10, 2021@ Sultan Knish Blog

At 6:11 PM, Ernest Lee Johnson, a monster who murdered three people, two of them poor single mothers, with a claw hammer was pronounced dead.

Despite the pro-crime lawfare that went all the way to the Supreme Court insisting that lethal injection would cause painful violent seizures, he died quietly.

That was more so than could be said for his victims.

On a cold day in a Missouri winter, Mary Bratcher never came home to the trailer park where the single mother lived with her three children. She was working that night as a manager at a Casey’s General Store in Columbia helping out Mable Scruggs, another single mother, making ends meet by picking up a night shift. Neither of the two women would make it home again.

An hour before midnight, Ernest Lee Johnson came in after a binge in which he bought three rocks of crack cocaine, traded one of them for a gun, put on a mask and came to rob Casey’s.

The plan had been to lock the employees in the back and have one of them open the safe. But then Johnson beat all three of the Casey's employees to death.

He stabbed Mary Bratcher repeatedly through her hand with a screwdriver, likely defensive wounds as she fought the monster for her life. Then he smashed her over the head with a claw hammer again and again. Johnson appeared to be aiming for her face, striking her mouth and nose, to disfigure her while killing her. He beat Mabel to death in the same vicious way.

That was 1994. Like every monster, Johnson never had any shortage of defenders.

He was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995, but the Missouri Supreme Court intervened claiming that the jury should have heard testimony that the crackhead was actually suffering from "cocaine intoxication delirium". The case went to a jury yet again which refrained from excusing the crackhead on the grounds that he had been high while murdering three people.

And then the liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court gave murderers on death row a gift with a decision falsely contending that executing murderers with intellectual limitations was cruel and unusual punishment. Any killer who could claim an IQ under 100 was home free.

Instantly every killer, no matter how cunning and clever, became retroactively retarded.

Johnson had plotted to rob the Casey's safe, he had carried out the crime, and then tried to conceal the evidence. He was evil and high, but not stupid. But the Missouri Supreme Court threw out the decision again and a third jury found the crackhead guilty all over again. But by then over a decade had passed since the original murders while the families waited for justice.

Two decades later, Johnson was finally scheduled to die when the United States Supreme Court intervened, complaining that the monster who beat two women to death with a claw hammer might suffer “painful seizures” when he’s executed by lethal injection because he has a tumor.

Since then he found exciting new legal stratagems to delay justice, including requesting death by laughing gas and firing squad. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan wanted to hear his plea for a firing squad.

“In addition to being near instant, death by shooting may also be comparatively painless. And historically, the firing squad has yielded significantly fewer botched executions,” Sotomayor ranted in her dissent. 

Did the court’s wise Latina develop a sudden fondness for firing squads? No more than the rest of the delaying tactics that kept the bludgeoner alive this long.

Leftist lawyers and judges wage lawfare against the law and the victims to protect killers.

But now that Johnson is out of tricks, the Democrats have come to his defense.

Rep. Cori Bush, a former organzier for the racist hate group, Black Lives Matter, co-signed a petition demanding a commutation of Johnson's sentence because it's just like "slavery and lynching". It’s understandable that Bush would take that position considering that Mary and Mabel were white women and their worthless lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter.

But Johnson’s first victim was the store’s third worker: Fred Jones.

Jones, an African-American man, had been the only caregiver for his mother and a disabled brother. When Johnson murdered him, he also took away the only helper left in their lives.

Johnson started out by shooting Fred Jones. But when the bullet didn't kill him, the crackhead beat the store employee to death with a hammer instead.

Then he began the rest of his killing spree.

Fred Jones had been in the cooler, perhaps because as the only male in the store he was seen as more of a threat. And he may have resisted or tried to fight Johnson, leading the crackhead to decide to kill him.

And everyone else.

The killer had shot Jones in the head. Then he beat him with the claw on the hammer fracturing his skull.

But his black life, like the lives of the over 5,800 black people who were killed in 2020, don’t matter to Rep. Bush and to Black Lives Matter. Only the lives of crackhead killers do.

Pro-crime lawfare had already put the families of Johnson’s victims through hell. When the Supreme Court decided to illegitimately intervene in his previous execution, the family members had already been there and waiting. Instead justice was denied to them for another six years.

Rep. Cori Bush claims that executing the killer of a black man is racist, the NAACP is rallying on behalf of the killer, not the victim, and Pope Francis has appealed to the “sacredness of human life.” Except the lives of Mary Bratcher, Mable Scruggs, and Fred Jones which are not sacred.

“This would be a crime against humanity," Rep. Bush falsely claimed.

The crime against humanity was that Mary Bratcher never came home to her three children, that Mable Scruggs also never came home to her children, and Fred Jones never returned to his mother. But that is not the only crime here. The feverish efforts to prolong the pain of their family members in order to keep the monster who killed them alive is a crime against humanity.

And a crime against justice.

Every dirty trick, every fashionable legal trend, from mental disability to the supposed risk of side effects from death penalty drugs, had been enlisted in the crackhead killer’s defense.

"These death sentences are not about justice,” Bush and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver whined in their pro-killer petition. "They are about who has institutional power and who doesn’t."

They’re right.

Which House members have spoken out on behalf of Mary Bratcher, Mable Scruggs, and Fred Jones? Do Bush and Cleaver even know their names? Does Pope Francis? I doubt it.

The institutional power that allowed the killer to escape justice for 27 years is on his side.

This is not about justice, it’s about who has institutional power. And it’s the killers who have all the power and their victims who have none. After Johnson got through beating three people, poor people, to death with hammers, lawyers and judges took up what he had left undone.

Even Rep. Cori Bush and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver took a turn swinging the claw hammer.

Hollywood, the media, and politicians keep pushing the big lie that criminals are helpless victims of the system. And yet they provide the best evidence of the vast institutional power that even the lowest and vilest killer can summon against justice and the families of his victims.
 
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: , ,
Author Image

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Thursday, October 7, 2021

The Power is on the Side of the Killers, Not Their Victims

What Rep. Cori Bush’s racist defense of a black man’s killer tells us about power. 

Thu Oct 7, 2021 Daniel Greenfield 12 comments

On a cold day in a Missouri winter, Mary Bratcher never came home to the trailer park where the single mother lived with her three children. She was working that night as a manager at a Casey’s General Store in Columbia helping out Mable Scruggs, another single mother, making ends meet by picking up a night shift. Neither of the two women would make it home again.

 An hour before midnight, Ernest Lee Johnson came in after a binge in which he bought three rocks of crack cocaine, traded one of them for a gun, put on a mask and came to rob Casey’s.

The plan had been to lock the employees in the back and have one of them open the safe. But then Johnson beat all three of the Casey's employees to death.

He stabbed Mary Bratcher repeatedly through her hand with a screwdriver, likely defensive wounds as she fought the monster for her life. Then he smashed her over the head with a claw hammer again and again. Johnson appeared to be aiming for her face, striking her mouth and nose, to disfigure her while killing her. He beat Mabel to death in the same vicious way.

That was 1994. Like every monster, Johnson never had any shortage of defenders..............But now that Johnson is out of tricks, the Democrats have come to his defense.  Rep. Cori Bush, a former organzier for the racist hate group, Black Lives Matter, co-signed a petition demanding a commutation of Johnson's sentence because it's just like "slavery and lynching". It’s understandable that Bush would take that position considering that Mary and Mabel were white women and their worthless lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter.............To Read More....

 

 

 

Thursday, July 8, 2021

Far-Left Radical Rants on Social Media Historically Hazy

By: Dave Patterson Articles, Liberty Rewind, Opinion, Politics

To celebrate Independence Day, Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) launched a Twitter rocket, exclaiming: “When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this: the freedom they’re referring to is for White people. This land is stolen land, and Black people still aren’t free.” She was not alone. Former MSNBC anchor Touré explained in his tweet: “F— Independence Day. Not only were we not free, the whole reason the Colonies wanted independence was because Britain was moving toward abolishing slavery. Why would Black people celebrate a day so wrapped up in our enslavement?”

Most others think what is celebrated on July 4 is “[t]he unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America” adopting the Declaration of Independence in 1776. This codified the vote of the Continental Congress two days earlier, on July 2, to “dissolve the political bands which … connected them” to Great Britain and the tyranny of the king. And the first Independence Day celebration took place in Philadelphia four days later, on July 8.

Discussing the congresswoman’s views on Fox News America’s Newsroom, Representative Byron Donalds (R-FL) explained:

“First of all, yes, July 4 Independence Day is to celebrate the freedom of this nation from British tyranny. That’s the purpose of the celebration, and we should all celebrate that. Number two, black people are free in America. That is what has happened since 1865. That is the state of play in 2021 America. So, I look at her tweet; I shake my head, and I don’t agree, and to be truthful, most black people don’t agree with that, and most people don’t agree with that. We live in the greatest country in the world. More black people have accomplished and achieved more while here in the United States than any other country in the world.”

Cori Bush

Cori Bush

Picking up on Donalds’ point, Bush’s views on Independence Day seem to attack the very freedoms and liberty that allow her to express her interpretation of July 4. Touré’s assertion that the “whole reason” — no other possible reason, bar none — that the Colonies wanted independence was “because Britain was moving toward abolishing slavery” is not borne out in the Declaration’s precisely listed 27 grievances against Britain and its monarch. And consider this historical point: Great Britain did not abolish slavery until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, nearly 60 years after the vote on the Declaration. It’s not likely that the representative from Delaware, the First State, would have had Britain’s slavery policy uppermost in his mind when signing the Declaration of Independence.

The fact is, there was no unanimity of views on slavery among the 13 early states. Thomas Jefferson, the primary writer of the Declaration, was against slavery. According to the staff of Founding.com, a project of the Claremont Institute, among the grievances Jefferson favored for the Declaration was “a long passage condemning King George for having failed to suppress the slave trade to America,” something  Touré apparently overlooked.

 And on the website The Grio, he exclaimed, “F— Fourth of July: The only independence day I recognize is Juneteenth.” As it turns out, Juneteenth commemorates when federal troops arrived in Galveston, TX, in 1865, two years after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery was still in place in Texas “until U.S. General Gordon Granger stood on Texas soil and read General Order No. 3: ‘The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.'”

With the broad canvas of social media catering to dissenting voices on the left, there will be no shortage of historical revision. Two years ago, Liberty Nation author Jeff Charles identified these folks accurately, in his word portrait, “The Social Justice Warrior’s Guide to Independence Day.”  However, the best course is sticking to the facts and applying the truth. Take the prudent advice of Donalds: “I just shake my head and move on.”

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.

~

Read more from Dave Patterson.

 

Monday, December 21, 2020

Police Defunding, Like Communism, Can’t Fail

December 20, 2020 @ Sultan Knish Blog

 “I guess you can use a snappy slogan, like ‘defund the police.’ But, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it," Barack Obama complained.

Obama was pretending that there had never been a serious push to get rid of the police, and after spending eight years mainstreaming black nationalism and the pro-crime politics of police defunding was trying to pretend it was just an edgy slogan calling for “criminal justice reform”.

That would have come as news to Minneapolis residents, the birthplace of the third wave of Black Lives Matter riots, where the city council had embraced police defunding, before backing off as the city tottered under an unprecedented wave of murders, assaults, and robberies.

"It’s not a slogan but a policy demand," Rep. Ilhan Omar, the antisemitic Islamist adultress accused of marrying her brother, snapped.

“With all due respect, Mr. President—let’s talk about losing people," Rep. Cori Bush, the latest member of the socialist squad, ranted. "It’s not a slogan. It’s a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the police.”

The year isn’t over yet, but murders in Minneapolis are up 62%, twice as many people, over 500, have been shot this year as in 2019, and the city is on track for 5,000 violent crimes.

A women’s shelter opposed police defunding proposals and described women sleeping with their feet to the windows out of fear that a stray bullet will strike them in the head.

“I have relived that night many times, hearing the sounds of the bullets hitting my radiator and drywall spraying everywhere,” a South Minneapolis resident told councilmembers at a hearing, and called police defunding a, “sociology experiment that obviously doesn’t work.”

But you can say the same thing about virtually any left policy from soda taxes to Communism.

Councilman Jeremiah Bey Ellison, the son of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, argued that police defunding wasn’t working because it had never been tried. His father had previously suggested that police shouldn’t respond to rape calls. But police defunding has indeed never been properly tried because the Minneapolis City Council failed to formulate any kind of plan.

Ellison blamed the huge surge in crime, including a 537% increase in carjackings in the birthplace of police defunding, on “conventional wisdom” and the “century-long failure to create a public safety system that is not police-only.” The public safety system isn’t ‘police only’. It already includes a huge component of social services. The reason we have the police is that the billions that are already thrown at social services rarely stop crime. Billions more won’t fix it.

The obvious problem with police defunding or abolition is that its proponents have no plan for dealing with crime beyond telling victims to suck it up and offering the perps social services.

Real police defunding calls for getting rid of the police, prosecutors, and prisons, before replacing them with therapy sessions for criminals under the name ‘restorative justice’. When the godmother of police defunding tried it out with a Black Lives Matter rapist, he kept on raping.

When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender who would respond to an active shooter, after repeatedly talking about replacing the police, she and her colleague responded that it would be the job of the police. There’s still no better answer.

Police defunders insist that crime is caused by an unjust society and will go away when enough money is invested into the welfare state, affirmative action, and critical race theory training.

Minneapolis Democrats can’t answer who would deal with an active shooter because their ideology tells them that active shooters won’t exist once they finish reforming society. This is a familiar enough argument from leftists explaining how Communism was going to function. Those same theoreticians would then go on to explain that real Communism had never been tried.

The Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, and Maoist China, were never true Communism.

The advocates of police defunding will go on holding up their imaginary utopia as an ideal while claiming that like Communism, it never failed because it had never been properly implemented.

Even if some city is insane enough to actually abolish the police and prisons, and put the entire budget into social services, it still won’t be enough because the entire system will still be centering whiteness. Get rid of all the white people and there’ll be internalized whiteness.

And defunding advocates, like Omar, Tlaib, and Bush, will go on arguing that it was never tried.

But no city will go that far. There are police union contracts and chambers of commerce to contend with. Instead police budgets will be cut leading to limited enforcement and crime spikes. That’s already underway in Minneapolis and in cities across the country. The police will keep their heads down until, as in Minneapolis, public outrage leads politicians to ask for their help.

America has been living on this policy seesaw for seventy years, as cities switched between permissive pro-crime policies to crackdowns on criminals without learning from the past. Once crime is under control, the pro-crime arguments about brutal police and the cost of mass incarceration start sounding reasonable to people who forgot what living with crime is like.

But the idea that crime springs from an unjust society, instead of a tainted mind, will never die.

Police defunding shows why a fundamentally stupid idea that is at the root of our social problems won’t go away because, like most utopian nonsense, it can’t be disproven. Or at least it can’t be disproven to the satisfaction of the sorts of lefties who look at millions dead in Russia and China, or a double-digit rise in homicide rates in major American cities, and shrug.

It hasn’t really been tried. Not properly. This time it’ll work.

Criminal justice is one of those areas where there’s a fundamental philosophical difference about the nature of humanity that translates into completely incompatible policies. The fundamental question here is the familiar one of free will. Are criminals free agents or victims?

Asking Minneapolis Democrats who supported police defunding what they plan to do about an active shooter is a meaningless question within their ideological frame of reference because it presupposes that the active shooter has free will and can be stopped by direct intervention. In their holistic view of society, violence causes violence, and the active shooter only exists because we have armed police, fight wars, and let little boys play ‘cops and robbers’.

But that’s much the same answer you get when asking a leftist why there’s alcoholism, wars, or hurricanes. The messianic response in all cases is that these are problems caused by society that will go away when lefties are given enough power to fundamentally transform society.

You don’t give political power to people who think that way or ask them to solve any problems.

Abolishing the police, like abolishing rent, student loans, free speech, religion, and private property, all ideas currently being advocated by the American Left, is just another way of saying that all of our problems are caused by society and will go away when our society goes away.

Police defunding, like Soviet collective farms or socialized medicine, is only the latest lunatic leftist proposal to run aground on the shores of reality while being defended as untested.

The police can never be defunded. They must exist, if only to arrest people who erase Black Lives Matter graffiti or fill in ponds on their own property, and their existence keeps police defunding alive as an enlightened ideal that has never been truly implemented. Like abolishing private property, its absurd impossibility makes it compelling, and keeps the nightmare alive.

Every now and then another attempt will be made to defund the police, leading to hundreds and thousands of deaths, and more assaults, robberies, and rapes than even the FBI can count. Like the Soviet Union or the Minneapolis City Council, the whole thing will fall apart on its own, but its memory will linger as an inspiration to the next bunch of radicals who will try it again.

And the bodies of the people sacrificed to that experiment will linger, forgotten, in cemeteries.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Tags: , ,  

Author Image

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center