US Democrat Leader Resigns After Saying Wisconsin Christmas Parade Killings Are Karma For Rittenhouse Acquittal

lemanski.jpg




A higher up in the DuPage County Democrat party has been forced to resign after saying last night’s deadly rampage that killed 5 and maimed many others, including children was karma for the not guilty verdict delivered by the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder case.

“Someone who believes in reaping what you sow. Wisconsin put that bad energy out there. It came back real fast,” said Mary Lemanski, manager of the DuPage Democrats social media pages. “It was probably just self defense.”

Later, the DuPage Democrats demanded Lemanski resign from her position.

“We are deeply saddened by the tragedy in Waukesha. We are aware of statements made by a former member of our organization and find them to be incredibly insensitive and not in alignment of who we are as an organization. Our organization does not support hate in any form,” the party said in a statement.

Later, Lemanski said she willfully resigned.

Screenshot 2021-11-22 21.54.06.pngScreenshot 2021-11-23 03.29.37.png
ezgif.com-gif-maker (57).png

“I firmly believe in the right to freedom of speech,” she said. “I also believe that you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions for that free speech.”

She went on to say her remarks were ‘not in good taste’ and ‘regrettable’.

Lemanski, a musician and mother of two got involved with the Democrat party in 2018 to fight against the Trump administration and Trump Republicans in her state.

“In early 2018, between the Trump administration, Peter Roskam, and Bruce Rauner, I felt that I needed to do something to help the Democrats in the mid-term election, but being a single mom of two kids, I’m limited on time, so I wanted to do something I could do from home,” she said. “I saw online that the DuPage Democrats were wanting volunteers to help with their website. By being a musician, working in the music & entertainment industry, and earning an MBA in e-Business, I have gained experience in website creation/maintenance and social media marketing, I thought that it would be the perfect way for me to help the Democrats.”

In 2021, Lemanski ran for office for the position of clerk in the township of Downers Grove. She lost that election to Lorraine Grimbsy 52.9% to 47%.

Her entire Democrat slate lost their race for positions on the town’s board of trustees and highway commissioner.

The DuPage Democrats deleted all references to Lemanski on their website, but cached copies were obtained through Google Cache.

www.shorenewsnetwork.com

Democrat leader resigns after saying Wisconsin Christmas parade killings are karma for Rittenhouse acquittal

DuPage County, IL - A higher up in the DuPage County Democrat party has been forced to resign after saying last night's deadly rampage that killed 5 and
www.shorenewsnetwork.com www.shorenewsnetwork.com

archive.md

Democrat leader resigns after saying Wisconsin Christmas parade killi…

archived 22 Nov 2021 19:34:43 UTC
archive.md archive.md
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Allakazam223, chickenbutt and 18 others
Click to expand...
Kermit Jizz said:
Which part? The first amendment part or her going to prison? Cause I don't think throwing terrorist sympathizers in prison is controversial here.

The first amendment one might be, but let me ask you when was the last time it did you any good?
Click to expand...
The problem with the first amendment is not directly the concept itself but more that the exceptions to the first amendment weren't made more obvious or directly clear. I've always felt baiting for a potentially violent response should be against the first amendment. Within proper context of course.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BlazikenLover, From The Uncanny Valley, BlerdBjern and 2 others

Attachments

  • Mary Lemanski - Lullaby - Music Video.mp4
    175.6 MB
  • Mary Lemanski Raps a Verse of Her New Single _Pound to the Beat_ in the Studio.mp4
    2.7 MB
  • Mary Lemanski - Living Room Concert.mp4
    128.2 MB
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Mammamia in Naziland, usiv, spinal gas chamber and 5 others
Aqua Panda said:
Hope her husband can provide for her and the two kids. She has outright wrecked her career and any future job prospects.

Narcissism is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...

“In early 2018, between the Trump administration, Peter Roskam, and Bruce Rauner, I felt that I needed to do something to help the Democrats in the mid-term election, but being a single mom of two kids, I’m limited on time, so I wanted to do something I could do from home,” she said.

Those poor fucking kids, I hope dad got joint custody. (:_(

Addendum: How did Trump manage to so thoroughly break these peoples brains in 4 years? I really don't understand TDS sufferers, I can't even empathize or put myself in the mindset of them.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: PurpleSquirrel, Pee Cola, Exterminatus and 14 others
Mewtwo_Rain said:
The problem with the first amendment is not directly the concept itself but more that the exceptions to the first amendment weren't made more obvious or directly clear. I've always felt baiting for a potentially violent response should be against the first amendment. Within proper context of course.
Click to expand...
The problem is that placing any restriction on free speech can be used as a wedge. ‘Hate speech’ is a good example. Many progressives think it should be banned but nobody can define what it actually is. And worse, in this day and age, if such a restriction came to pass, you can bet it would be weaponized against certain communities.

“I’m sorry sir, but when you called the police you described the burglar as lower-case-b black instead of a choice from the current approved nomenclature. This constitutes a hate crime so your right to own firearms has been revoked. Oh and your racially vilified, hate-speech victim and his three cousins are out on bail. Have a nice day.”

And before you regard that as pure fantasy, don’t forget that prosecutors in the Zimmerman case tried to get racial animus on the table because The Zim described Trayvon as ‘black’ to the police dispatcher; and that Biden’s federal gun control plan involves revocation of firearm rights for anyone who is found to have committed a misdemeanor or felony where race is a motivation.

One big reason I‘m a free speech absolutist is because sometimes it allows fucking morons enough rope to publicly hang themselves, as we’ve seen in this thread. Referring purely to the subject of OP’s post, of course.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Emperor Augustus, Uranus Pink, PurpleSquirrel and 23 others
And here I was thinking that women were the empathetic sex. /sneed

As much as I love dabbing on women, this is a problem of the political class in America. In the last 10-20 years American political parties, more Dems than Reps, have advanced and rewarded fanatics and true believers over negotiators and pragmatists, which has regressed American politics from policy disputes to an existential contest where any misfortune that befalls 'the enemy' deserves celebrating.

Even if you believe your political opponents are evil subhumans and golems (hola comunistas) as a practical matter don't go mask off in front of the normies who aren't as polluted by politics as you are.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: PurpleSquirrel, OttoWest, cactus and 2 others
Aldeland said:
Addendum: How did Trump manage to so thoroughly break these peoples brains in 4 years? I really don't understand TDS sufferers, I can't even empathize or put myself in the mindset of them.
Click to expand...
Consider this : 4 years is coincidentally how long it takes to get a bachelor's degree*

*terms and conditions may apply. Studies may be lengthened if you change your program or are big dumdum, or they may be reduced if you take heavier course loads and transfer credits in from other programs. Neither the receipt or the value of the degree is guaranteed.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: The Littlest Shitlord, ufukiniggas, From The Uncanny Valley and 2 others
SITHRAK! said:
The problem is that placing any restriction on free speech can be used as a wedge. ‘Hate speech’ is a good example. Many progressives think it should be banned but nobody can define what it actually is. And worse, in this day and age, if such a restriction came to pass, you can bet it would be weaponized against certain communities.

“I’m sorry sir, but when you called the police you described the burglar as lower-case-b black instead of a choice from the current approved nomenclature. This constitutes a hate crime so your right to own firearms has been revoked. Oh and your racially vilified, hate-speech victim and his three cousins are out on bail. Have a nice day.”

And before you regard that as pure fantasy, don’t forget that prosecutors in the Zimmerman case tried to get racial animus on the table because The Zim described Trayvon as ‘black’ to the police dispatcher; and that Biden’s federal gun control plan involves revocation of firearm rights for anyone who is found to have committed a misdemeanor or felony where race is a motivation.

One big reason I‘m a free speech absolutist is because sometimes it allows fucking morons enough rope to publicly hang themselves, as we’ve seen in this thread. Referring purely to the subject of OP’s post, of course.
Click to expand...
I don't think hate speech is at all required. There were already limitations on free speech hence "Slander" and "libel" lawsuits.

I think there should be restrictions but the restrictions have to be very clear and cohesive. No wiggle room: So for instance let me use my own example: Something baiting violence: There's an obvious difference between someone joking with you and saying "Your mom is ugly" which would often bait a violent response. However, it's different if someone is constantly mocking you with it and harassing you to a certain extent. Before you go "Harassment is illegal" but often in such a case law enforcement will do nothing to an individual deriding you in this scenario.


Now the problem is most people don't set lines in the sand or strict limitations or obvious exceptions such as humor and more it's merely why it has to be done with context taken into account. I don't disagree free speech should have large open-ness but I think the wriggle room for more questionable things is the issue, and even if such speech was made illegal, morons such as Mary in the OP would still do it. No different then currently.

The only problem is with how irresponsible and how politics has muddled discourse, it'd be impossible to set those limitations in place and be abided by. That time is long and gone for such a thing to occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: From The Uncanny Valley
Mewtwo_Rain said:
I don't think hate speech is at all required. There were already limitations on free speech hence "Slander" and "libel" lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the ‘fire in a crowded theater’ situation applies as well. However some might argue also that slander and libel are not ‘limitations‘ so much as consequences.

Sending people to prison for expressing a radical or unpopular opinion was the kind of bullshit that drove people from Europe to settle North America in the first place.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Uranus Pink, PurpleSquirrel, Jerri's Kid and 3 others
SITHRAK! said:
Yes, and the ‘fire in a crowded theater’ situation applies as well. However some might argue also that slander and libel are not ‘limitations‘ so much as consequences.

Sending people to prison for expressing a radical or unpopular opinion was the kind of bullshit that drove people from Europe to settle North America in the first place.
Click to expand...
Again having a radical opinion or unpopular opinion isn't the issue personally. I'm sure many on this site have such things hence why we are here in the first place and not on more restrictive forums.

In regards to consequences, then I merely mean certain steps in discussion or language should have consequences and be very specific when they have such ramifications as it is free speech is leading to mob rule over speech then being directed such as constitutionally.

Yell nigger in a black neighborhood, get killed and watch as people defend the person who killed you over defending your right to free speech. It happens all the time and the black community is notorious for making crap like that up of victims of black murderers to muddy those waters because they know the majority will then excuse the action even if the person is charged for violent retaliation, and that's even worse.

The only other issue is without force of control of society you can't really have open freedoms. We're again seeing that in today's age all ready, and without someone gatekeeping the gatekeepers how do you make sure the gatekeepers aren't corrupted?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Uranus Pink, Afinepickle, Autistic Joe and 1 other person
Mewtwo_Rain said:
Again having a radical opinion or unpopular opinion isn't the issue personally. I'm sure many on this site have such things hence why we are here in the first place and not on more restrictive forums.
Click to expand...
You do raise some good points, and I don’t think your logic is without merit. However we are dragging this thread away from its primary purpose: laughing at idiots.

Edit to remove doublepost:
I’m prepared to bet she’s had more hits on her YouTube songs in the last 12 hours than in the preceding 12 months.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: PurpleSquirrel, Exterminatus, From The Uncanny Valley and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back