Quote of the Day
Let us concede that gun rights advocates have won the argument: guns don’t kill people, people do.
However, there is a certain class of people that merit a greater share of the blame for the mass casualty events our communities have endured. For lack of a more encompassing term let’s call them, “gun owners”. As well, we must acknowledge that gun owners are largely responsible (by commission and omission) for the constant blood letting since Sandy Hook.
Jude Folly
January 1, 2026
Guns Don’t Kill, Gun Owners Do – The Good Men Project
H/T to Lee Williams (The Worst Anti-gun Story of 2026 … So Far)
It is always nice to get a concession from these people. Now, with this concession, we can focus on the people problem.
Since more than twice as many convicts identify as Democrats as all other political parties combined, let’s call all Democrats criminals.
Agreed, that not entirely true, but the truth arrow is pointed in the correct direction.
Further evidence is this summary by Grok when asked for “All governors convicted of a felony in federal court, 1950–present, by party.”
Here is a list of U.S. governors (or former governors) convicted in federal court of felonies since 1950, based on reliable sources like Wikipedia’s list of state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses and compilations from sources tracking such cases (e.g., Center for Gaming Politics, cross-referenced reports). These focus on federal felony convictions tied to public corruption (e.g., bribery, extortion, mail/wire fraud, Hobbs Act, RICO, conspiracy), typically for conduct during or related to their time in office. The list excludes purely state convictions, misdemeanors, ethics violations without felony status, post-office non-corruption crimes (e.g., some bank fraud cases), or cases overturned on appeal without retrial conviction.
No such convictions appear to have occurred since around 2011 (the last major one being Rod Blagojevich), based on available records up to 2026.
The list is organized chronologically by year of conviction:
- Otto Kerner, Jr. (D – Illinois, Governor 1961–1968) Convicted 1973: Mail fraud, Travel Act (some Travel Act counts reversed on appeal). Related to accepting bribes for racetrack favors while governor.
- David Hall (D – Oklahoma, Governor 1971–1975) Convicted 1975/1976: Bribery, extortion, racketeering (Hobbs Act and Travel Act). Used influence to divert investments.
- Ray Blanton (D – Tennessee, Governor 1975–1979) Convicted 1983: Mail fraud, conspiracy, extortion. Sold liquor licenses for profit.
- Arch A. Moore, Jr. (R – West Virginia, Governor 1969–1977, 1985–1989) Convicted 1986/1990s (multiple): Extortion, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, tax fraud (Hobbs Act). Accepted illegal contributions and extorted funds.
- Edwin Edwards (D – Louisiana, Governor multiple terms 1972–1996) Convicted 2000: Racketeering, extortion, money laundering, mail and wire fraud (Hobbs Act, RICO). Schemes during tenure.
- John G. Rowland (R – Connecticut, Governor 1995–2004) Convicted 2004: Mail fraud (pleaded guilty). Corruption involving gifts and contracts.
- Don Siegelman (D – Alabama, Governor 1999–2003) Convicted 2006: Bribery, mail fraud, conspiracy, obstruction (some mail fraud vacated later). Sold board seat for donations.
- George Ryan (R – Illinois, Governor 1999–2003) Convicted 2006: Mail fraud, RICO. Corruption in contracts and licenses (Operation Safe Roads).
- Rod Blagojevich (D – Illinois, Governor 2003–2009) Convicted 2011: Hobbs Act, mail fraud conspiracy (including solicitation of bribery). Attempted to sell U.S. Senate seat.
By party summary (felony federal corruption convictions in federal court, 1950–present):
- Democrats: 7 (Kerner, Hall, Blanton, Edwards, Siegelman, Blagojevich, plus others in some lists if including variants like Hall’s timing).
- Republicans: 3 (Moore, Rowland, Ryan).
This reflects a bipartisan issue, though with more documented Democratic cases in the sources (often concentrated in states like Illinois and Louisiana with histories of corruption probes). Counts vary slightly by source depending on exact inclusion criteria (e.g., some include tax evasion add-ons as felonies; others strictly corruption statutes). No comprehensive official federal tally exists solely for governors, but these are the consistently cited cases from DOJ-prosecuted federal corruption matters.
Do you see the pattern? Again, seven out of ten are Democrats. If we want to make a serious dent in the number of criminals in political office all we need to do is ban all Democrats from political office. And we would have just as much justification as people like Mr. Folly (what an appropriate name) would have for banning gun ownership.
6 Democrats, not 7.
But three from Illinois! 1/3 of the governors convicted.
The pattern I see is 100% are politicians. Is it possible to live without a “government?”
It’s “possible” but from time immemorial, even small tribal groups had some sort of leader of WETF appellation, along with those who would do his/her bidding.
And even more recently:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –
“Let us concede that gun rights advocates have won the argument: guns don’t kill people, people do.”
Then turns around and continues on with “gun owners” (that being you and me) as the problem.
Jude’s folly, (thank you Joe!) is just another SJW trick to open the argument.
She didn’t concede anything, she just needed an opener to serve as a platform to repeat the same ignorant communist horse crap/drivel from.
Are gun owners the problem? Ya, some of them. That why we have a million laws against their CRIMINAL use.
You know, all those things Folly’s commie judges never hold the communist criminal caste responsible for. Ya those things.
But I don’t see it as a democrat thing. I just see todays brand of communist co-opting something acceptable to most of society.
It’s just some more of their word magic to hide themselves behind.
I’m a democrat.
No, you’re a communist apparatchik. Big difference.
We all need to accept a fundamental reality. There can be NO COEXISTENCE with the left. Ever. Accept it, plan for it and act accordingly. The same is true for islam.
Once you get rid of all the Democrats you’re left with the Republicans, who are busy ramping up socialism. Don’t believe me? Reason magazine’s cover story this month is dedicated to all the ways the Trump administration is going full socialist (for those of you who don’t read it, Reason is the main libertarian mag):
https://reason.com/2025/12/02/republican-socialism/
With “capitalists” like that, who needs socialists?
The reporting and results are unreliable because in “Red” states, Dems tend to run for office as Reps and lie about their true intentions while campaigning. One local Mayor where I live ran for office as a Rep, then decided to run for Gov a couple years later and changed his party affiliation to D. He lost with only single-digit % of votes, but it was a very plain example for anyone who was paying attention. I’d argue that all of the “Reps” in the list were RINOs. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like to refer to people by party affiliation, but as leftists or conservatives, just like Neocons are not conservative.
“Dems tend to run for office as Reps and lie about their true intentions while campaigning.”
True. Couple decades back Ds stopped getting elected in my state so they bought nicer suits and put an “R” after their name. Now our legislature is completely infested with Stealth Dems, aka RINOs.
Unless someone has figured out how to use DNA testing to avoid this I don’t know what the solution is.
Well, based on Devon Eriksen’s “How Do You Determine Truth from Falsity?” piece you posted (and thanks for that), it would seem the first question would be to define “Criminals.” I’d wager “Democrats” (which assumes there’s a reliable definition for them as well) would have a radically different collection of definitions for “criminals” as well as for “Democrats.”
And, yes, it would be a “collection of definitions” for both because what is defined as “criminal” must vary based on circumstances, location, time, historical reference, individual characteristics (and heritage), ad infinitum.
I doubt their definitions, however elucidated, would match up in any possible way with ours, so we’re seemingly stuck at the proverbial Square One.