If This Is Not a Call for Violence, I've Never Seen One

Some people think the Conservatives and Trump supporters - not the same group, by the way - are unduly paranoid about the possibility of assassination.

They're probably not. The LA Times has an op-ed that slyly avoids calling DIRECTLY for violence, but clearly indicates that, if women DID use it, the action would be justified.

Look, some of these women are not all that stable. It wouldn't take much to set them off. As we saw in the Scalise assassination attempt, those involved in jobs that are in public affairs are at high risk. The threats are ongoing, and seemingly will continue.

In part, that's the fault of a news media who has no problem in whipping up "outrage" at the Right, for real or imagined sins. Proof? Who needs THAT!

Justice? No time for THAT!

Street Action? Totes Justified!

This is not just threats. Rudy Peters, running against Eric Swalwell (Yes, the same person who 'Boo-Hooed' Senator Collins' complaint of death threats), was attacked by a man holding a switchblade. He was held off by the candidate, who used a campaign sign (good use of a defensive manuever!) to keep him away. The candidate eventually wrestled the attacker to the ground. That Peters was not stabbed was due to the good luck of a malfunctioning switchblade.

The attention that the news media paid to this attack ranked far below what they provided a a local appearance by a has-been rock star. Many people, if asked about political violence, wouldn't even think of it.

One of the papers of the mainstream press - The Atlantic - believes that Kavanaugh has "The Burden of Proof". Against all American legal precedent, he is expected to defend himself against a woman's accusation that has NO evidence whatsoever that a crime ever occurred, let alone that he did it.

It's a return to the Southern Democrat stance that a 'delicate flower of Southern charm and gentility just HAS to be believed, when the accused is a member of such a VILE community'.