Image 01 Image 03

Dem Strategist: Scalise Shooting “Natural Culmination” of Republican Rule

Dem Strategist: Scalise Shooting “Natural Culmination” of Republican Rule

No wonder Tucker told Devine he was an “unbalanced person”

James Devine—the Dem strategist who tweeted #HuntRepublicanCongressmen in the hours following the shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise—was a guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show last night. Devine’s rambling and confused argument ultimately led Tucker to tell Devine that he is an “unbalanced person.”

But listen carefully to what Devine said, and you’ll detect what amounts to his justification of the Scalise shooting. He first quotes Sen. Rand Paul [whom Devine twice calls “Paul Rand”] to the effect that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to permit people to “shoot at a tyrannical government.”

Devine then argued that Republican policies have constituted “tyrannical government.” And so, repeatedly declared Devine, the shooting of Scalise constituted a “natural culmination.” Sounds much like a defense of the shooting, or at the least, as Carlson called it, rendering the shooting “understandable.”

JAMES DEVINE: One of the persons that was on that field, who spoke about what a terrible thing that was, was Senator Rand Paul —

TUCKER CARLSON: How? What does that mean?

DEVINE: — Senator Rand Paul retweeted something from Andrew Napolitano that said, the reason we have a Second Amendment is not so people can hunt deer, it’s so that they can shoot at a tyrannical government.

TUCKER: So what’s your point? That he deserved it? Is that what you’re saying?

DEVINE: No, absolutely not. But my point is that when you put up obstacles to people voting, when you secretly plot in the Senate to repeal health care that’s keeping 50,000 Americans alive, and you are otherwise erecting barriers to the democratic process, where we have elections where the people that get the most votes don’t win —

TUCKER: That you should be shot?

DEVINE: No! But that is tyrannical government. That’s the point.

TUCKER: It’s understandable when you’re shot?

DEVINE: It’s the natural culmination

TUCKER: Stop with the talking points. Just get to what you’re saying. Are saying. Are you saying that it’s understandable that someone might shoot you if you do that?

DEVINE: It’s a natural combination of the argument that was made by Judge Napolitano and Senator Paul Rand. If Senator Paul Rand would like to sit down —

TUCKER: Rand Paul.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’m sure Tucker used the term “unbalanced person” because he couldn’t properly call Devine a “f***ing nut” without getting fined by the FCC.

    Stan25 in reply to MarkJ. | June 20, 2017 at 10:31 am

    Fox News is a cable and satellite channel, so Tucker can say anything he likes. He chose not to, because Fox considers itself a family friendly entity. The FCC does not have any control over cable content, only the over the air broadcast networks regulated.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in elections.

    MattMusson in reply to Petrushka. | June 20, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    Two responses coming.

    #1. Crazies set off like firecrackers by the constant violent rhetoric will mean more lone wolf attacks.

    #2. Antifa will double down on violence to get spotlight. Coming soon – bombings and kidnappings. This group parallels the rise of
    Violent Left in 1980’s Germany. Baader Minehof.

And Tucker has a bigger vocabulary than mist leftists, whose favorite term is the F-word.

This guy epitomizes what is scary about the lunatic fringe left.

They honestly believe that a government that doesn’t give them free shit is “tyrannical.” That enforcing voting laws is “denying people the vote.” That this is a democracy and not a constitutional republic.

This isn’t going to end well for them.

    YellowSnake in reply to Paul. | June 20, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    Nope, forcing a pipeline through Native American land is tyrannical.

    Forcing women to bear children and then denying those children healthcare and other necessities of modern life is tyrannical.

      murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 3:54 pm

      speaking of lunatic fringe left…

        YellowSnake in reply to murkyv. | June 20, 2017 at 4:55 pm

        I guess it isn’t tyrannical to lock up drug users, either. Before you do your knee-jerk, I suggest you research why Nixon ramped up the drug war and why the current AG has instructed current US Attorneys to charge the highest possible charge or explain why not.

        If the Drug War is not tyranny, what is?

          murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 6:05 pm

          I guess writing EO’s in defiance of existing laws is more to your liking

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 7:30 pm

          Hey, @murkyv – R U saying that if there is a law, it isn’t tyranny? I guess Obama wasn’t involved in no tyranny, because the law was on his side and SCOTUS didn’t overturn his sheet. Or is it only tyranny when it doesn’t go the way you would like it to?

          murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 9:09 pm

          I guess you have missed the THIRTEEN TIMES was overruled by SCOTUS in 9-0 rulings.

          Even Sleepy Ginsberg wasn’t buying his crap

          murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 9:14 pm

          Try again…

          I guess you must have missed the THIRTEEN TWENTY TIMES Obama was overruled by SCOTUS in 9-0 rulings.

          Even Sleepy Ginsberg wasn’t buying his crap

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 9:22 pm

          13/20 in 8 years – so you say. I don’t see any citations. Trump is gonna rack that in a year or 2.

          murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 10:00 pm

          In the first 6.5 years of Obama’s presidency (January 2009 to June 2015), the government lost unanimously at the Supreme Court 23 times, an average of 3.62 cases per year.

          In all 8 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the government lost unanimously 15 times (1.875 cases per year).

          In all 8 years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, the government lost 23 times (2.875 cases per year).

          In other words, Obama has lost unanimously twice as often as Bush and 1.5 times as often as Clinton. Obama also passed Bush’s 8-year total in less than 5 years.

          The Justice Department’s unanimous loss rate from 2012 to 2014 was especially bad – 13 cases in 30 months – almost three times Bush’s overall rate and almost twice Clinton’s (and that doesn’t count amicus litigating positions with unanimous losses).

          For the record, here are the unanimous losses in the last four terms, so we can reminisce about the greatest hits (cases in which Cato filed marked with an asterisk):

          2012 (4 cases): United States v. Jones*; Sackett v. EPA*; Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC; Arizona v. United States
          2013 (5 cases): Gabelli v. SEC*; Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States*; PPL Corp v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue*; Horne v. USDA*; Sekhar v. United States
          2014 (4 cases): Burrage v. United States; Bond v. United States*; Riley v. California*; Noel Canning v. NLRB*
          2015 (3 cases): Mach Mining v. EEOC; Henderson v. United States; McFadden v. United States

          Lot’s of other links if you don’t like NRO.

          ps….I doubt you’ll find this info at the lunatic fringe left sites you obviously visit.

          murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm

          Cato, not NRO (although they also confirm the numbers)

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | June 21, 2017 at 12:25 am

          Give Trump a chance. He already cursed out some judges. Did Obama ever do that? Did Obama respect the decisions?

          You guys don’t like tyranny. Well, you picked a great standard bearer. I honestly wish I was wrong.

          murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 21, 2017 at 9:54 pm

          Why yes, Obama did scold and lie about SCOTUS, TO THEIR FACES in the SOTU speech where he was whining and lying about Citizens United.

      The government is artificially insemenating these yutes and forcing them to bear children? Gasp!

      And what are these necessities of modern life that you write of? Do they include air conditioning, an iPad and a free college degree for all?

        murkyv in reply to Paul. | June 20, 2017 at 6:06 pm

        Free tats and lugnut earrings for all!

        Happy days!

        YellowSnake in reply to Paul. | June 20, 2017 at 8:13 pm

        “The government is artificially insemenating (sic)” I guess you just don’t have anything constructive to say. See, the women with a little money can have an abortion; even in TX. The poor ones are being shut out. I am asking: what you going to do about their babies? The babies didn’t choose their parents. The are owed DECENT food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare until they are no longer minors.

        If the state intervenes in reproduction, then the state had better intervene for 18 years. Maybe it includes ‘air conditioning, an iPad and a free college degree’. Birth control and abortion are cheaper.

          VaGentleman in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 9:01 pm

          Now that you’ve discussed the obligations society owes them, please complete the moral analysis and discuss the obligations they owe to the society paying their bills.

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 9:29 pm

          The babies ain’t got no obligations. But if they are raised up RIGHT, they will contribute. It worked for you – or did it? Maybe that’s your problem. You were given, but you didn’t return.

          One thing I can guarantee is that if they are just left to stew in their poverty and pestilence they won’t – except you will be able to point your finger at them and claim how much better you are. I guess that is a contribution of sorts. I guess they can go to prison and create jobs for prison guards. That seems to be about the only work white trash can get.

          So let’s just kill them. Spoken like a good racist progressive eugenicist.

          VaGentleman in reply to YellowSnake. | June 20, 2017 at 10:18 pm

          Nice attempt at deflection, snake, but it won’t work. The babies will have obligations – what are they? The mothers do have obligations – what are they? You have defined a ‘right’ that requires someone else to pay for it. It is, therefore, a 2 way street. Both parties have duties. If you can’t discuss both sides, you have no moral claim and no argument.

        YellowSnake in reply to Paul. | June 21, 2017 at 12:46 am

        The babies have obligations? What obligation can a baby have? Maybe the mother is a ‘bad’ person. What about the baby you demanded had to be brought into this world?

        You don’t like abortion. Then don’t have one. Nope, lets make decisions based on imaginary super beings and force those decisions on those who don’t believe in your religion. Lets call that freedom. While we are at it, lets only force that on the weak because the strong will have their birth control and abortions. They will fly to NY or CA. You aren’t going to stop that.

        I remember when libertarians believed a woman had dominion over her body. I remember when libertarians believed that adults could ingest whatever they wished. I attended meetings and I know what libertarians stood for. But you sold your souls to the right-wing zealots for a taste of power. Don’t talk to me about tyranny. There are a million people in prison for drug offenses. The AG wants to lock up more. Hurray for freedom!

        Now you have a new worry. Left-wing nuts buying guns. Congratulations! Look around the world. Right-wing, left-wing, religious – guns don’t have a belief. It doesn’t matter who stirred the pot. Just that the pot is stirred.

The 2nd’s “well-regulated militia” clause implies to me that they did not specifically have assassinations in mind when the BoR was drafted or ratified.

In the early American conception of good government, the only consequential thing one did individually was vote. The citizens didn’t start or fight wars on their own initiative, and the political types didn’t either; that’s why not even the President can declare war by himself, or commit the entire country to a treaty. Even duels (when they were generally legal) were group efforts; the system of “seconds”, formal challenges, etc was ironclad and not subject to ad hoc improvisation. No, the 2nd was never an excuse for murder or assassination, and it isn’t now.

Those # tag warriors are pretty brave.

It’s nice of these leftist Dimocrats, putting themselves on TV, and showing everyone what they really are.

Makes election time a lot easier.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 20, 2017 at 12:37 pm

RE: “This is all a charade. No real cops are working this.”

….and never forget….Email is Forevah!

I used to scoff at the notion that liberalism is a mental illness. Not so much anymore.

    YellowSnake in reply to Merlin. | June 20, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    So, if liberalism is a mental illness, then all liberals can be denied guns? Seems like a plan.

Them Dems are skating on the edge of a scalpel to or through the penumbra zone.

When unbalanced nutcases attack Democrats, it is the fault of conservative Republicans for egging them on, drawing cross-hairs on liberal targets, and other such dog-whistle incitements to violence.

When unbalanced nutcases attack Republicans, it is the fault of conservative Republicans for driving the poor crazies into such fits of rage that they strike back at their oppressors.

Is that about right for the MSM?


    murkyv in reply to georgfelis. | June 20, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    Yellow Stain nods in agreement

    YellowSnake in reply to georgfelis. | June 21, 2017 at 12:19 am

    Nope, it is just simple arithmetic. Guns are real easy to come by. There are nuts and unbalanced types of every political persuasion – like the white supremacist who shot up a church of decent law abiding blacks. Gabby Giffords and her aides were shot up.

    Now some of the left-wing crazies are going to start coming out – maybe a lot of them. Do I condone it? No. Am I going to cry when its a right-wing congressman on the wrong end? No. Besides what can I do? By any sane standard this guy shouldn’t have been anywhere near a gun. But you guys don’t want any rules.

    People on this site were making threats when they thought Clinton was going to win. 2 Kennedys and MLK got killed and it changed history. RFK would have kicked Nixon’s butt. So please tell me why I should care. Yes, please tell me why I should care.

      murkyv in reply to YellowSnake. | June 21, 2017 at 9:58 pm

      Whatever politics Loughner espoused in his ramblings tended to lean to the left.

      To tie him to the right in any way shape or form is an outright lie and you damn well know it

Or just skip all that silly stuff, declare them inconvenient life similar to how they view the unborn and the elderly, and just deny them air to breathe. Liberalism wins again!