Megyn Kelly, Dumb as a Rock: Dumb Blonde Stereotype Confirmed

I saw Megyn Kelly address the Georgia death penalty/executioin situation this Tuesday, and it ws embarrassing (for her, and for me to watch). I only watched for 30-60 seconds (all I can stand these days of Megyn on the unfair and unbalanced network), but that was enough to know that Kelly accepted the CNN-type, anti-death penalty narrative on the case. That means talking about the "7 witnesses out of nine" who "recanted" (years after the trial)k, "at least in part" (whatever the Hell that means). Kelly, of course, as is almost always true of the unfair and unbalanced network and always true of the mainstream meida, was unintereseted in the actual FACTS of the alleged recantations, or that the supposed alternative "killer" was--I think, as if I would ever know from dear Meghy--safely DEAD. No mention by Kelly, or apparent intention to mention, the ridiculous (ridiculous that our system even required him to write it) 170 page (lor whatever number of pages) opinion of the Federal judge who rejected the idea that Davis (the convicgted murderer) had shown enough "new evidence" to Constitutionally require some sort of retrail (lol) or commutation of the sentence. Oh, by the way, and what are the FACTS about Davis? What kind of guy was he? What do we know about him? NO. Thsese things are not relevant as to whether he received a fair enough trial that it would be absurd to overfrule the jury, but they are sort of relevant as to whether so many people should be making a HERO out of Davis. Enough. All of this is beside the pohnint. Kely, me and everyone else knows that the ACTIVISTS behind turning this totally legal matter into a circus are not really interested in guilt or innocence. They are only intereseted in PROPAGANDA againt the death penatly. It is in acknowlegeing this point, without raising it, that Kelly showed herself to be a person who blondees should DISOWN as confirming the old stereotype.


"This has turned into a REFERENDUMM on the death penalty."


What can you say about a supposed lawyer (which I was in my former life) who would make a statement like that. Yes, she got the word "referendum" wrong--not even close. A referendum" is a VOTGE. The very essence of anti-death penalty activity is to AVOID A VOTE, and to avoid letting ordinary democracy and due process take place. That is because death penalty opponents KNOW that people in general favor the death penalty. That is why death penalty opponents SUBVERT democracy and the will of the people at every turn. still, it is absurd to refer to this Georgia case as creating a "referendum" on the death penalty. What Kelly probably meant to say, if she were not qauite so dumb, is that death penalty opponents wanted to USE this Georgia case as part of their attack on the death penalty . But no, Kelly could not quite have meaant to say that, because she did not make that point. Okay. I don't quite know what she meant to say, other than to push the death penalty opponent narrative that this kind of case raises general "questions" about the death penalty (not for me, or any other rational person).


WHY does Kelly do this sort of thing? My own explanation is the same reason this blog has advocated a BOYCOTT of any regular viewing of the unfair and unbalanced network. I believe that Kelly, and really most of the unfair and unbalanced network, more and more want to be "accepted" as "real "journalists", jsut like the people at CNN (lol) and on the New York Times (lol). This means adopting the mainstream media NARRATIVE on this kind of thing, even as you may do some stories that the mainstream media stlill will not do.


Doubt me? Never do that. Kelly went on to say (to a guest defending Georgia and the execution) that: "I thought the death penalty was reserved for crimes beyond imagination, wkhere guilt is certain." I about cried then. How can you even make a statement like that, even if you are a dumb blonde? That is not the law, and has never been the law. The Supreme Court, in the series of decisioins which made it obvious that the Court was substituting the peronal opnions of the judges for democracy just as much as Hitler or Mussoline or Stalin ever did (although, of course on a lesser scale of evil), said that a state could not simply execute every person convicted of first degree murder, as I would do, and as the Supreme court FIRST said states should do to avoid discrimination in the impositoion of the deatth penalty--before the justices of the Supreme Court recoiled in horror at the number of death sentences that resulted when the states obediently passed such laws. Rather, the Supreme Court eventually held that states had to DEFINE "aggravating factors" that justified imposing the death sentence--as the state determined to be appropraite (but not EVERY murder). One of the usual aggravating factors is the murder of a polilce officer. Guess who Davis murdered? Right. A police officer trying to protect a homesless person from a pistol whipping to steal his beer.


Davis clearly committed a murder for which Georgia has declared the death penalty appropriate, so long as the jry impses it (or recommends it--I don't know the details of Georgia law). And the "certainty" of guilt? See my previous article. "Life without parole" is a DEATH SENTENCE (just over a lifetime). It is beyond absurd, although death penalty oppponents uggest it all of the time, that the "certainty" should be DIFFERENT for the death penalty. The standard id "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is it. The jury, TWNEY YEAR AGO, found that "certainty" "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is beyond absurd--DUMB--for Kelly to suggest that some sort of highter standard is required for the death penalty. Now, is it appropriate for a "clemency borard" or governor to look at a death penalty case and decide to grant a commutation of sentence (like to "life without parole") because that board or governor blieves that there is p[otential that an irrevocable mistake could be made, even though there is no reason to believe the person innocent? Sure. But this is not a legal requirment, or even a moral one. It is a matter of the person or persons deciding upon clemency reviewing the overall facts and coming to a decision whether clemency is appropriate. Death penalty opponents want you to belive otherwise, but the OPINION of death penalty opponents is irrelevant to this process. Otherwise, we would be a government of men and not laws. That is why the AP article this morning was also abusurd, saying that the parole board made ists decision "despite the support of Davis by a former President (Carter) and former director of the FBI. The OPINION of prominent men means NOTHING, and should mean nothing. Otherwise, we truly become that tovernment of men and not laws. Now you will remember that SOME anti-death penalty governors have granted clemency to ALL people on death row--showing contempt for both democrfacy and law. That, of course, is what death penalty opponents really want, if they cannot get the Supreme Court to eliminate the death penalty altogether--as they have tried, and keep trying, to accomplish.


Nope. Megyn Kelly is a dum blonde. ONE satement, on a "referendum", was more than dumb enough. To follow it up with that absurd statment about "crime beyond imagination", with absolute certainty of guilt, makes this a Hall of Shame day for Megyn Kelly--DUMB BLONDE beyond imagination.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Now my younger daughter, who I keep suggesting would RAISE the level of intelligence at the unfair and unablanced network (and who is not blonde), keeps telling me that Megyn Kelly has a SCRIPT. That would just horrify me more, as it would still leave Kelly as a "dumb blonde", but indict numerous other people on the unfair and unbalanced netowrk as just as dumb. If Kely has a "script", she does an awfully good actiong job as a person who has no idea what stupid thing she is going to say next. Now, if you reaed this blog you will notice that I mistype words, and I jsut don't read well enough to proofread. However, occasionally, I am sure I am typing along and don't use a word quite correctly. But I defy you to find a case whhere I uesed a word as badly as thins. And I defy you to tell me what Kelly was TRYING to say. As I told you, my best guess is that she was suggesting that death penalty opponents were trying to make this case an exuse to put the entire death penalty in questin throughout the United States (true enough), but Kelly did not hagve the STONES to say that. Rather, she tried to hink of a vague way to say soometthing that sounded good to a dumb blonde. Yes, I said "stones'. If Kelly is going to act tough (if stupid), as she does, then she had better have STONES. I see no indication that she has either stones or real intelligence.