Jackson Jambalaya

Wickedness must be named. Thanks be to God, we have a wise remnant.

Posting this material is indeed a step of bravery. I'm sure you thought for awhile about the potential repurcussions before you chose to do the right thing. And you DID do the right thing. I look forward to seeing input (posts) from blacks on this topic explaining why they think the vote was as it was. Do they expect a conspiracy? If not, what?

I won't be surprised if one of them posts that "We already have too high a percentage of blacks in our prison system now without a new law that will only serve to increase that number". I hope I haven't nailed it too early.

So much for Leadership Jackson alum John Horhn's claim of enlightenment. Is that what it means John to be a JSU Certified Community Leader?

And a big, big thanks to mayoral candidate Jonathan "Its Our Time for Greatness" Lee who contributed $250 to John's recent re-election campaign. It is good to know that Jonathan is fully behind a State Senator who condones the raping of underage girls here in Jackson.

This is another example of the black self distruction. My comment does not include all blacks, to be fair, there is an increasing number of blacks who are persueing the American dream, bravo to them!
My comment is directed at the "ghetto black". A study needs to be performed on that population who repeatedly support, and willingly invent ways to seperate themselves from productive society. Naming their babys Shamekajama (insuring they will forever be associated with the ghetto),pumping fix a flat and concrete into their bodies to distort their image, encouraging sexually active preteens,drug use, embracing their failing schools, etc..etc..etc. It would be a great read to hear the science behind this, and I am sure it all comes down to money.

I'm struggling with the unintended consequences , having investigated child abuse.
The cases I most often encountered of pregnant girls were the result of incest or while in foster care.
I'm concerned the rapist , knowing this will be required, will make sure the victim will not get medical care or kill the victim.
Also, once the child is born, a DNA test is sufficient so I don't understand the umbilical cord requirement.
This bill will , however, guarantee an incest victim, however young ( and most on my caseload were 10-14) will not get abortions regardless of whether or not their life is in jeapordy.
Of course, young girls raped in cults would also have the same risks though that isn't so much a concern in MS.
I don't have the statistics but if I had 10 in one caseload over a 6 year period, it's not likely an insignificant number of victims.

I really don't give a damn about the costs.

Up close and personal, the impact of a pregnancy on a pre-adolescent is awful. The details are awful. The damage emotionally and physically are awful. Think please about the pain of narrow hip bones being pushed apart in the last trimester...one of the few things I can write about in a public forum.
Helping a child who was barely 4' tall through a pregnancy and C section and then dealing with her agony at giving up the child for adoption is not something I would wish on another.

to 8:53 am
No science involved at all only sickness

Diversity is out strength. We must stop imposing our moral beliefs on others through legislation. We cannot legislate morality. Society has been ruled by the views of old, dead, white men for too long. KF is obviously a racist who can;t stand to see strong, proud, black, (wo)man hold power.

Or something like that.......

This bill will , however, guarantee an incest victim, however young ( and most on my caseload were 10-14) will not get abortions regardless of whether or not their life is in jeapordy.

BS on the guarantee. Association is not causation.

9:40 don't get in over your head. The umbilical cord blood is the source of the DNA you mention. There is no guarantee the mother will bring the baby back to provide blood later, so this would ensure DNA is available for legal proceedings even if the mother disappears.

This is much easier than taking blood from a baby a few minutes old.

A hearty Thank You to all these Mississippians, Mississippi businesses and organizations who contributed to Senator John Horhn's 2011 re-election campaign.

Without your love, help and financial support Senator John Horhn wouldn't have been able to carry on the fight to protect the interests of rapists who pray on underaged children in our community.

Again, many thanks. You made John's vote on House Bill #151 possible!

AJA Management and Technical Services
John Calhoun
Capitol Advocacy Group PAC
Joe Collins
Bill Cooley
Noel Daniels
Vonda Reeves-Darby
Kane Ditto
Frank Dixon
ENPAC Mississippi
Full Spectrum (Old Cap Green)
Richard Hale
Health Management Associates
Clare Hester
Roderick Hill
Robert Kelly
Jonathan and Davette Lee
Betty Mallett
Marion Counseling Services
Bert Massey
Mississippi American Life Insurance Co.
Mississippi Health Care Assn PAC
Mississippi Medical PAC
Mississippi Primary Health Care Assn PAC
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Moak, Jr.
Ray and Nancy Neilsen
Office Source
Bob and Denise Owens
Carol Puckett
E.B. Robinson
Edward Saint Pe.
Venture Technologies
Telesouth Communications (the Supertalkers)
Rudy Warnock

FYI Vonda Reeves-Darby is on the Board of Trustees of ST. Andrew's now. Might as well ask them how supporting child rapists is in the interest of "social justice".

Blog land is the only place this kind of reporting could appear. Strong moral angles are foreign to the fourth estate.

I would like to see Rev. Andy Gipson introduce some equally powerful bills next year on Judicial accountability, campaign finance, and conflict of interest provisions in the many political subdivisions of the state where they are currently absent.

It would seem that someone in the Democratic party got to each one of these guys and had them dance a jig to their mass'as.

10:42, who I'm assuming is also 8:31, contributing to someone's political campaign doesn't mean you're going to agree with something they haven't even done yet. How was Mr. Lee or any of the other contributors you listed supposed to know this bill was coming up two years after they made the contribution?

10:42 is an idiot for posting the contributor's list for one man who voted a particular way on ONE bill months after the contributions were ever even thought of. Correlation is a foreign concept to 10:42. What kind of car does Horhn drive? That makes all of us who drive a similar vehicle just as culpable as he is for this vote.

They should be more careful with where they spend their money.

People have been held guilty by much looser associations.

um, after reading the list I was not surprised to see Kane Ditto's name. It can be argued that Ditto triggered the "slide" that has put Jackson on par with some third world sewer when he sold his soul to Harvey Johnson. WAY to Kane..now you can add supporting child rape to your legacy....

Guys, I realize that politics sometimes lacks logic, but this is ridiculous. You're missing the whole concept of time here. It's impossible to be for or against something that hasn't happened yet. How could contributors "be more careful with where they spend their money" when they don't have any idea the bill is even going to be written, much less whether their guy is going to vote for or against it. Political contributions are sometimes made by people like me because we care about the candidates and want them to win. Others make contributions to help with access, and often contribute to both candidates in a general election so they'll be guaranteed to be on the winner's donor list. I don't like that any more than you do, but that's the way we've allowed our system to evolve so we're stuck with it until we can fix it. Either way, these people don't support child rape - they just made a political contribution.

But if they follow your logic 3:08, they can't spend their life being assholes.

Bill, this isn't the first time the legislation has been introduced. The LBC previously killed it every time in the McCoy house. So please stop acting like this is some new approach. Elections and votes have consequences as does who one supports with campaign dollars.

If Horhn's supporters didn't know his position on this not-new legislation then shame on them. If they don't appreciate the limelight now then that is really too bad.

Mississippi is not responsible for their ignorance as to the candidate they supported and his position on sex with children.

I stand corrected. I didn't know this legislation had been brought up before. If Horhn voted for it before then caveat emptor for his contributors. My point is valid only if the legislation is new.

March 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM wrote: The LBC previously killed it every time in the McCoy house.

The mandatory reporting bill was passed out of the Senate in 2008 (52-0), 2009 (50-1), 2010 (51-0) and 2011 (50-1).

Each year Senator John Horhn covered his big political fanny by voting for the bills because he knew damn well the measures would be DOA in the House.

When the Senate bills arrived in the Donkeycrat controlled House they were assigned to Ed Blackmon's Jud A committee and deep-sixed.

There was nowhere to run for Senator John Horhn this year. He could have done the right thing but instead chose to stand with child rapists.

Senator John Horhn's campaign contributors are fair game for condemnation for a vote as egregious as the vote Horhn made yesterday.

John Horhn's vote was reprehensible.

What a bunch of moralistic hypocrites some of you posters are regarding contributors to certain candidates. Not a doggone one of you has ever donated to Horhn's or any other LBC members campaign. That said, your opinions about other contributors is is so much dribble....

I thought Haley Barbour's pardoning of pre-meditated murders of women was bad, but this stuff here is....Wait! It's bad but not as bad as Haley's actions!!! Here we got people protecting potential rapist. Haley protected convicted KILLERS...and was so nice to buy two of them cars, with the help of his lovely wife. What we have is a lot of elected officials in Mississippi with a twisted moral compass.

"Also, once the child is born, a DNA test is sufficient so I don't understand the umbilical cord requirement."

Bingo. This bill has nothing to do with catching rapists. (The idea that only the umbilical-cord blood can ID the father is absurd; you people have never heard of a paternity test?)

More harassment of abortion providers, pure & simple.

The Klan could not in its wildest dreams hope to approach the genocide black people inflict on themselves, here and around the world.

When abortion clinics have to meet the same standards as animal clinics, maybe then they can gripe. A while back, a bill to raise abortion facilities to the same standards as animal clinics failed to pass "in the name of helping women and children."

Assuming that individual Hohrn donors are actively following moral issues in the Assembly and they have purchased access for use in moral matters, we might also assume they have taken the time to registered their disapproval. Perhaps the healthcare associations have used their moral capital and political access to do the same. But if these good individuals and upstanding associations are active in these matters...why do we get this result.

This was a pure race vote by John Horhn. Plain, simple, black and disgusting.

Besides, a Chancery Court Judge or Circuit Court Judge can already order a paternity test if paternity or rape are at issue under current Mississippi law.

ALERT: Jackson Free Press Columnist Tom Head opposed this bill and supports the unreported rape of underage children.

One can swab a baby's mouth, however, newly born.

And, do you really think father or guardian committing incest is going to get a midwife or a doctor for his victim so he can be caught? REALLY?

The animal clinic comment is beyond ridiculous. Do you really think an abortion clinic has the same operational needs? It was about making an abortion clinic jump through nonsensical and expensive hoops. Try writing that bill to apply to all outpatient surgical clinics and see what happens!

Whether one is for or against abortion, one should be concerned about unintended consequences.

I'm wondering if this is how convicted rapists in LA ended up with parental rights including requiring the child to be brought to the prison for visitation!

I realize some people are really stupid but how many times do I have to explain the umbilical cord blood is used for the paternity test? There is no guarantee the mother will bring the baby back, so this legislation is designed to get tissue that can be use din court at birth. Cheek swabs are not sufficient in some laboratories, so blood is preferred. The care of the newborn is most important, so it's best to leave the baby alone (it can be difficult to get enough blood from a neonate), whereas it's easy to get enough DNA from the umbilical cord before it goes to the incinerator.

These off-topic comments about the poor, poor abortion clinics are just a smokescreen to support the child rapists.

The suggestion accompanying the list of Horhn supporters is ridiculous. We can pick any politician and find a bill he opposed and extrapolate from that that all of his supporters also disfavored the bill.

It makes as much sense to suggest all who opposed a traffic light at the corner were pleased by the traffic death that occurred there a year later.

The real test for Horhn supporters is watching to see which will continue to support him, not which supported him a year before this vote.

"how many times do I have to explain the umbilical cord blood is used for the paternity test?"

So you think no one can be ID'd as Daddy if there's no umbilical cord blood? You have never heard of DNA? Were they teaching that the same week you skipped biology class because they were covering evolution?

What is truly frightening is that with their votes these black legislators are acknowledging that sex with under-16 minors is pervasive in their respective communities.

These men are not saying stop. No. They are condoning the behavior. That is sickening.

1:24am the baby is attached to the umbilical cord so " bringing the baby back" is not necessary. The baby is there with the cord for a DNA swab!

The umbilical cord contains stem cells. Only a drop would be needed for paternity so is someone hoping to obtain/ sell the rest for commercial use?

Who will pay for withdrawing the umbilical blood? Will the rape victim or the taxpayers?

This is how we lost our free airways and have to now pay for television and radio. It was " The Family Protection Act" written by and for the cable and satellite industries. Voting against it was political suicide.

Instead of assuming the worst immediately, perhaps we might ask those voting against this bill why they did.

The bill passed in the House 99-18 and in the Senate 42-10. So yes, YES, let's ask that deep thinker Kenny Jones what profound objections he and the other black senators and representatives had with the bill that the other 141 members of the legislature missed.

How many of the 28 nays were black? Maybe I missed the count, but, if any were white, who?

No whites voted against the bill. Which I stated in the post.

@10:42 AM. Spoke w/ Horhn contributor on your list. She is LIVID re: Horhn's vote.

Outstanding job Kingfish. This needs to be exposed throughout the state. Kudos.

This really doesnt have anything to do with this particular entry. I just wanted to comment that I heard about this blog from a dirty commie-progressive anti-white, white man who posts for the Jackson Free Press and he was all mad over this entry. He also mentioned how much this column angered him, so, I wanted to thank you for offending him and fighting the JFP. You also, apparently offended Donna Ladd, so double kudos to yall! We must fight this suicidal progressive-commie crowd who wants to repeal the Constitution.

Can't find what he wrote.

You can't rely on the parent or parents to report the child rape.

Go sit in Judge Kidd's or Judge Green's courtroom one day when they are hearing plea bargains. You will be amazed at how many mothers of victims of sexual abuse refuse to cooperate with a prosecution.

So, if a parent authorizes a 15 year old child to marry a 19 year old (it happens -regularly) and said husband turns 21 before said wife turns 16 and a pregnancy occurs in this interim, has said husband "raped" said wife? I see nothing in the proposed language to suggest otherwise so maybe THAT'S why some voted against it...because the language was too open ended. And before all you holier-than-thou zealots come out of the wokdwork, let me remind you that it was once common practice to marry and have children at 15, 16 years of age. I, myself, married a man 4+ years older and had my first child before my 18th birthday...and still married to the same man 47 years later.

I heard about this blog from a dirty commie-progressive anti-white, white man who posts for the...

Now that's funny.

12:58, where did you come up with the notion that underage black kids are marrying at such a high rate that they need to be protected against statutory rape accusations. You say it happens often. I think there are exceptions in the statutory rape laws for married couples anyway.

KF, you are right that many parents don't want to prosecute their child's rapist.
Some have pimped their children. Some don't think their children can withstand the court process. Some fear for their child's life should the rapist go free.

You are right about many things, but given the language of this bill, particularly the umbilical cord nonsense, it would have behooved you to ask those who voted against the bill if they would share their objections.

That all white folk voted for it is umimpressive. Perhaps none of them thought it through. Perhaps they are cowards and fear the political knee jerking on the part of their constituents.

But, I think it far fetched to assume the black community supports child rape and I think it reasonable to assume those who voted it against it will have to explain to their constituents.

I would happily vote for a bill to castrate and cut off the hands and cut out the tongues of all child molesters,but I wouldn't vote for this bill as worded.

Reading-challenged people are beginning to get on my nerves. Bill @ 3:58, my post @ 12:58 doesn't mentioned black kids AT ALL. Nor does it suggest any rate at which underage kids, regardless of race, are marrying and having children. I simply remarked that it DOES happen..probably more often that YOU realize...and that it USED TO BE common place. (Check your own genealogy records if you doubt me on that.) My post was -no more, no less- an observation that THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL appears to leave no room for a MARRIED person who became pregnant before age 16 to be exempted from this mandatory reporting nor does it (appear to) protect the spouse of that person from prosecution for "rape" if he happened to be 21 years old. You say you "think" there are exceptions in statutory rape laws. So, what makes you "think" that? And, do you also "think" such exceptions, if they exist, would supercede THIS proposal if it became law or would doctors be required to test and report, subjecting the new parents to an investigation in which they'd have to prove their marital status? I'm not expecting an answer. I'm just trying to point out potential reasons why a legislator might have voted against this proposal other than to protect child rapists...which is a ridiculous accusation for ANYBODY to make.

6:53; Are you seriously intimating that black legislators took time to 'think through' the bill and white legislators did NOT? If one or several of them went to the analytical length you suggest, he or they would have been on record with such a statement or question or at minimum, such concerns would have been outed. Your knowledge of marriage laws and rape laws seems terribly lacking.

6:42 am, please try to be analytical yourself or spend some time at the legislature.

Individual analytical thinking is a rarity there.

Legislators are usually fed information by lobbyists, in committees or by party leaders. They meet in groups and one will tell the others what to think about a bill. And, all will believe what they want to believe ( or think the political impact will be) rather than do one whit of independent reading or thinking.

Group think and " feelings" dominate the halls of our legislature.

I think it likely one person got good information and shared it. It happened to be a black person who had credibility only with other blacks...hence the outcome.

Or the blacks were naturally suspicious because of who brought forward the bill and perhaps rightly so and confirmed their suspicion. The public rarely knows what special interest REALLY wrote a bill.

As for marriage and family law, I haven't commented on either. I didn't feel it necessary as your reasoning is so obviously flawed.

IF an underage female has met the legal requirements to obtain a marriage license and been legally married and hasn't charged her spouse with rape, a rape has not occured. Criminal law applies here as well.

At any rate, I hope to heck you didn't manage to skate through law school and that that is why you imagine yourself legally competent.

I can trace my ancestory back to the 1400s. I can read the ages of when they married AND when they died which explains, in part, why they married so young! Many of the women died in childbirth as well .

The preceding paragraph is unrelated to the present.

You should be worried about connecting unrelated events and see a doctor unless you know you are doing it for political purpose.

No, 6:53, you didn't mention black people in your post, but the original post showed a clear racial element in the vote. I said that I thought there were exceptions in the statutory rape laws for married people and I still think so. I'm not a lawyer, but I have never heard that consensual sex between a man and his wife is against the law because of their difference in age. You're right in your assumption that I didn't do the research to make sure what I thought was actually the case. Sue me. I questioned your reasoning and still do. You say it was once common practice to marry young, and I agree, but that practice would still have to be common today if your argument against the bill is valid. I don't think that's common practice anymore, and I especially don't believe that it's common practice in the black community. Whether you like it or not, the opposition of this bill came exclusively from black legislators who represent majority black districts. I don't think any of them are for child rape, but to suggest there's not a racial angle in their opposition to what seems like a common sense bill is evidence of a head seriously deep in the sand.

Well said, Bill. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to be logical in their thinking and well read enough to extrapolate well.

Indeed, sometimes I wonder if not being a lawyer helps one to rely more on logic and less being argumentative :-)

8:47 (6:42 here); You may not realize it, but rape is a crime against the state. An adult can easily be prosecuted by the state for rape without a child pressing charges.

I lay no claim to having graduated law school.

And, no, it was not I who suggested black legislators had spent time analyzing the bill while whites had not. Please read through the entire body of posts before you make yourself look silly. who cares how far back you can 'trace your ancestry'? At what point in the time-line did ignorance begin to appear?

reread your comments 6:50 pm

Any idiot knows the state can prosecute rape.

It's the illogical reasoning that 2+2=5 that confounds the rest of us.

6:32; It was the insinuation that a victim must press charges in order for rape to be prosecuted that nudged my comment. 'Any idiot' must NOT realize it, since the suggestion was made.