Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.

Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?

Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.

And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.

On 3/1/2022 2:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.
>
> Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?
>
> Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.
>
> And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.
>

WTF? on what planet?

The first mass US lynching incident was against Italians (or
maybe Sicilians. And they were probably guilty but that was
not found at trial)

And who exactly do you imagine is planning to lynch roughly
half the population? Would you string up your neighbor?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:48:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 2:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.
> >
> > Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?
> >
> > Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.
> >
> > And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.
> >
> WTF? on what planet?
>
> The first mass US lynching incident was against Italians (or
> maybe Sicilians. And they were probably guilty but that was
> not found at trial)
>
> And who exactly do you imagine is planning to lynch roughly
> half the population? Would you string up your neighbor?

I wouldn't say that half of the population not just works for the government but has been working against the American people. The Democrat half of CONGRESS is only about 300 people. The corruption in the departments of the government is only about an additional 100 people.

Or perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. The so-called half of the population that are Democrats generally are because of union membership or close relatives being so and not because they have put any thought into the matter. Republicans have always put actual thought into why they belong to their party. I have talked to many Democrats and discovered this peculiarity.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 14:48:57 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 2:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.
>>
>> Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?
>>
>> Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.
>>
>> And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.
>>
>
>WTF? on what planet?
>
>The first mass US lynching incident was against Italians (or
>maybe Sicilians. And they were probably guilty but that was
>not found at trial)
>
>And who exactly do you imagine is planning to lynch roughly
>half the population? Would you string up your neighbor?

I'm admittedly guessing but it seems to me that designating "lynching"
as a federal crime simply gives the federal government even more
power.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/1/2022 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:48:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 2:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.
>>>
>>> Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?
>>>
>>> Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.
>>>
>>> And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.
>>>
>> WTF? on what planet?
>>
>> The first mass US lynching incident was against Italians (or
>> maybe Sicilians. And they were probably guilty but that was
>> not found at trial)
>>
>> And who exactly do you imagine is planning to lynch roughly
>> half the population? Would you string up your neighbor?
>
> I wouldn't say that half of the population not just works for the government but has been working against the American people. The Democrat half of CONGRESS is only about 300 people.

222 plus 50 = 277

The corruption in the departments of the government is only
about an additional 100 people.

You, sir, are either seriously naive or a broken soul
devsstated by optimism. Chat up the office girls at any
State agency if you want to know more.
>
> Or perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. The so-called half of the population that are Democrats generally are because of union membership or close relatives being so and not because they have put any thought into the matter. Republicans have always put actual thought into why they belong to their party. I have talked to many Democrats and discovered this peculiarity.
>

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:35:50 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:48:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 3/1/2022 2:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.
> > >
> > > Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?
> > >
> > > Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.
> > >
> > > And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.
> > >
> > WTF? on what planet?
> >
> > The first mass US lynching incident was against Italians (or
> > maybe Sicilians. And they were probably guilty but that was
> > not found at trial)
> >
> > And who exactly do you imagine is planning to lynch roughly
> > half the population? Would you string up your neighbor?
> I wouldn't say that half of the population not just works for the government but has been working against the American people. The Democrat half of CONGRESS is only about 300 people. The corruption in the departments of the government is only about an additional 100 people.
>
> Or perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. The so-called half of the population that are Democrats generally are because of union membership or close relatives being so and not because they have put any thought into the matter. Republicans have always put actual thought into why they belong to their party. I have talked to many Democrats and discovered this peculiarity.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/three-republicans-just-couldn-t-150341797.html
I saw this article today. And laughed a bit. Not at the subject. But at the opposition.

In the link above.
"Records kept by the organization counted 4,743 lynchings in the U.S. between 1882 and 1968, although historians believe the actual number of lynchings has been underreported. Most victims, approximately 72 percent, were black, but immigrants and other people of color were also victims of lynching."

This is what Tommy boy wrote above:
"Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites."

Based on my quote above from the story I linked, it appears Tommy has some of the numbers correct. About 5,000 is close to 4,743. Tommy says a quarter were white. But my link said 72% were black, and the other 28% were immigrants and other people of color. Someone else with more expertise will have to step in and say if Tommy's "white" is equal to "immigrants and other people of color". I am going to say NO. If you are hispanic and lynched, I don't think you would fit into Tommy's white category. I am sure I am racist with a capital R, but I think white usually means Caucasian with northern European genetics. Or at least that is generally what white means when used in association with lynchings. Here in the USA anyway.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:35:50 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:48:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 3/1/2022 2:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.
> > >
> > > Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?
> > >
> > > Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.
> > >
> > > And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.
> > >
> > WTF? on what planet?
> >
> > The first mass US lynching incident was against Italians (or
> > maybe Sicilians. And they were probably guilty but that was
> > not found at trial)
> >
> > And who exactly do you imagine is planning to lynch roughly
> > half the population? Would you string up your neighbor?
> I wouldn't say that half of the population not just works for the government but has been working against the American people. The Democrat half of CONGRESS is only about 300 people. The corruption in the departments of the government is only about an additional 100 people.
>
> Or perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. The so-called half of the population that are Democrats generally are because of union membership or close relatives being so and not because they have put any thought into the matter.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
"In 2021, the number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions continued to decline (-241,000) to
14.0 million, and the percent who were members of unions—the union membership rate—was 10.3
percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The rate is down from 10.8 percent in
2020—when the rate increased due to a disproportionately large decline in the total number of nonunion
workers compared with the decline in the number of union members. The 2021 unionization rate is the
same as the 2019 rate of 10.3 percent. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are
available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers. "

10.3% of USA working population, 14 million, are union members. Joe Biden got 81 million votes for President. Trump got 74 million. Joe got 5.8 times more votes than union members. So we got all 14 million union members voting for Joe. And all of their spouses. So total up to 28 million now. All 100% union members are married and all spouses vote exactly as the union member. 28 million total. All 14 million union members have 2 brothers or sisters. So that is another 28 million. Up to 56 million total now. And all 28 million sisters/brothers are married too and their spouses vote exactly the same. We are now at a total of 84 million votes for Joe. I guess we have to knock off 3 million due to some of the union members only having one brother or sister. Not the required two. Its good to know who voted for Joe.

> Republicans have always put actual thought into why they belong to their party.

I can't even come up with an appropriate response to this Tommy statement. Maybe someone else can.

> I have talked to many Democrats and discovered this peculiarity.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:03:12 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 3:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:48:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2022 2:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> Hardly a subject for a bicycle group but since they have decided to talk about anything perhaps this should be included. The Democrats have suddenly realized that they are going to be the object of lynchings and have changed the law to make it a hate crime.
> >>>
> >>> Lynchings have always be extremely rare with around 5,000 of them occurring in the last 100 years and a quarter of them whites. We had a lynching as recent as 1968 but strangely enough I can't find any good reports on this. The killing of George Floyd has been referred to as a lynching when it met NONE of the criteria and the officer who committed this atrocity was charged with murder and found guilty. Don't you find it strange that the same criteria were not followed for the police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt?
> >>>
> >>> Lynching's were usually limited to cases in which the law either did little or nothing. One thing that we can be absolutely positive of it is that the law will attempt to do NOTHING about the purposeful destruction of our country by the Democrats. And so in personal fear of their lives for their actions they have declared lynchings a hate crime. This is not to say that such an act is ever legal or necessary, but if the law will not act, given enough outrage, the people will.
> >>>
> >>> And at the moment, there is a LOT of outrage concerning governmental lies tied closely to extreme control. Even the Supreme Court has denied Biden the rights he has seized. So the Democrats see an end of their control coming and because they have placed so may infective judges in place the public may respond.
> >>>
> >> WTF? on what planet?
> >>
> >> The first mass US lynching incident was against Italians (or
> >> maybe Sicilians. And they were probably guilty but that was
> >> not found at trial)
> >>
> >> And who exactly do you imagine is planning to lynch roughly
> >> half the population? Would you string up your neighbor?
> >
> > I wouldn't say that half of the population not just works for the government but has been working against the American people. The Democrat half of CONGRESS is only about 300 people.
> 222 plus 50 = 277
> The corruption in the departments of the government is only
> about an additional 100 people.
> You, sir, are either seriously naive or a broken soul
> devsstated by optimism. Chat up the office girls at any
> State agency if you want to know more.
> >
> > Or perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. The so-called half of the population that are Democrats generally are because of union membership or close relatives being so and not because they have put any thought into the matter. Republicans have always put actual thought into why they belong to their party. I have talked to many Democrats and discovered this peculiarity.

Andrew, what do you think that "office girls" are going to say? Someone to them is corrupt if they are committing adultery. Well I suppose that is the case but it isn't in the nature of treason. This is saved for only the top echelon's of departments and perhaps a very few others since it is a firing offense in which a government worker would lose their benefits. Comey is an example and Christopher Wray a more recent example insofar as the FBI is concerned. It doesn't take much not to allow an investigation into election fraud to be carried out. So even if there WERE other members of the FBI who would willingly have acted against Trump, a serious punishment of just a small fraction of department heads for the things they did would put an immediate and COLD stop to any others even thinking of such things.