Donna Ladd Hits Rock Bottom

The problem with calling out Donna Ladd when she lies authors irresponsible, half-baked crap, is that it gives her the thing she so desperately craves:  Attention.  Therein lies the problem with dealing with a 50 year-old woman with the permanent temperament of a 2 year-old.

The DJT was acutely aware that our post calling BS on her asinine and reckless essay about firearms would feed Donna's lifelong desire for attention.  But, considering that her drivel posed lethal risks to anyone foolish enough to follow Donna's advice, we felt it was necessary to let her have a little attention, in order to warn the public of the inherent danger of following Donna's advice.

Predictably, when the LaddFraud saw our post, the twits hit the fan.  Donna evidently did not care much for our fair and balanced critique of her patently stupid editorial (as well as her lack of any credentials in the personal protection field).  Donna turned her Twitter selector switch to full-auto and fired off a 4-round burst, each wildly missing her intended target. 

We publish the results of Donna's drive-by below for your comedic pleasure, each followed by some commentary from the DJT.

The old "I didn't do it" defense.  Yes, Donna, you did.  When the post first appeared on the JFP website, it clearly identified the author as "Donna Ladd."  For some reason, Donna's girlfriend Publisher Todd Stauffer ran over and took Donna's name off the post.  Donna now claims this was an error, and that the real author was the JFP "Editorial Board."  Right.

Don't you just love the dishonest hair-splitting?  She first moans that she didn't write this nonsense, but in the comments section to the post states that although she didn't write the story, she "agrees with it."  Donna Ladd is the Editor.  She agrees with the editorial.  Even if we stretch the benefit of the doubt beyond its functional capacity and assume Donna isn't lying, this is still a distinction without a difference.

This foolish editorial is yours, Donna.  Stop trying to blame others for this farce.

This one was as predictable as it is pathetic.  Whenever confronted with a strong opposing viewpoint, port-side intelligentsia like Donna Ladd respond by falsely labeling the opposition as either bigots or racists.  It's a transparent attempt to marginalize the opposition.  Sadly, this is a common tactic by some here in Jackson (just two weeks ago we had another little namby pamby do the same thing because he didn't like something we wrote).  There's not a damn thing "bigoted" in our post, unless one claims we are bigoted against insecure, dishonest, agenda-driven, narcissistic, know-it-all journalist-impersonators who give people "advice" that can get them killed.  As to that, we will concede the point.

And yes, Donna, we let people comment anonymously here.  We also let them say what they want, in whatever way they want, with only a few restrictions.  We much prefer this approach to yours, as we are not as comfortable with hypocrisy as you appear to be.  We don't shout down or ban commenters because they disagree with us, while letting our pets say whatever they wish.  We tolerate the occasional comment that goes off the reservation, in order to avoid the Pot-Meet-Donna system you have on your website.



Hun, you need professional help.  If the DJT is trying to "cash in" on fear, we're evidently not doing it right.  This site is designed to expose problems and the people that cause them in downtown Jackson.  In doing so, our intent is to alleviate those problems.  We do not expect or intend to make money.  In fact, this site, by its very nature, is a money-losing venture.  For example, the incident reports in the Standard Life Auto Burglaries post cost us $159.00.  Every time we acquire records for a post, we spend money, not to mention the time, fuel and effort expended in gathering the evidence we post here.  It is worth it to us to spend money to educate the public and clean up the riff-raff.  To say that the DJT tries to "cash in" by publicizing these issues is nothing short of an outright lie.

Donna's silly editorial did not make us "defensive," as she claims.  We responded to that editorial because it was ignorant and written by a person who is an all-knowing expert on everything.  It's not defensive to say that Donna Ladd does not know what she is talking about when it comes to personal protection.  It is, however, the truth.  Donna Ladd has no experience or training of any kind in law enforcement, security or personal protection.  Yet Cliffette Claven published this editorial giving people tactical advice on the use of firearms for personal protection.  Motivated by her lust for relevance and attention, Donna gave dangerous advice she is not qualified to give.  It's not "defensive" to say so.

Our favorite part of this bulltwit is Donna's statement that "people [meaning Donna Ladd] are choosing to do something other than hate about crime."  Implication, of course, being that we just sit around and bitch about crime, without doing anything about it.  Our question to Donna is, what exactly have you done to prevent crime?  As far as we can tell, the only thing you have done is tell people not to do the one thing that will prevent them from becoming the victims of some future JFP mentees.  So what specific action has the JFP taken to prevent crime? 

As far as your implication that we just "hate" about crime, you are, once again, a liar and a fraud.  The DJT doesn't like to toot its own horn, but just ask this violent career criminal what we've done about crime in downtown Jackson.  And while you're at it, ask him if he thinks he would be in jail right now if our friends from Springfield Armory had not been there to "assist" us in ending his 20+ year one-man crime wave. 

And finally, an invitation to visit the traffic-ailing JFP website.  Because, as we said in the beginning, this is nothing more than a desperate cry for attention by Donna.  Her crime "manifesto" fell in the woods, and even though many people were around, no one heard it.  The reason no one heard it is because no one is listening.

Look for more hissy fits from Donna in the near future.  Irrelevancy has reared its ugly head at the JFP.  And Donna Just.Can't.Stand.It.

Our Advice to Donna "Fondrazon" Ladd

UPDATED:  Added link to Donna's drivel below.

The DJT's advice to Donna Ladd:  Stop giving advice--particularly on matters of self defense.  We're seriously concerned that the 6 or 7 people who actually take Donna seriously might take her advice and get themselves killed.

A few weeks ago, the Fondrazon got her anti-gun boxers in a bunch over advice that some Jackson Police Officers allegedly gave to some Jackson Free Press Fondren Daily Worker staffers.  Multiple police officers allegedly advised Donna's minions that in order to protect themselves from crime, they should...GASP!...get a gun.  When Donna heard this she went off faster than an SKS at the Branch Davidian compound.

She called her pal Aunt Esther Chief Rebecca Coleman to tattle on the officers.  Tattling wasn't enough for the ever hysterical egomaniac, however.  She immediately penned a column congratulating herself on tattling to the Campus Cop Chief of Police.  Then, she turned all Sarah Brady on us and warned of the dangers of firearms possession by law-abiding citizens.

Donna showed great concern for the welfare of violent criminals who might get killed by an evildoer who lawfully possesses a firearm.  Donna cites half-baked statistics to persuade us that "guns 'intensify violence' in property-crime situations leading to more homicides."  Well, duh.  A homeowner with a firearm is likely to "intensify the violence" by cooking the perpetrator on the spot.  And yes, there is an increased risk of homicide, as the bad guy stands a good chance of becoming Dr. Hayne's newest patient.  On this point, the DJT asks, what's wrong with that?

Because Donna Ladd is an agenda-driven master of spin, she made these fallacious arguments in the context of burglary and other property crimes.  Never once did Donna mention the effect of lawful firearms possession on attempted violent crimes.  This is because such an argument would be utterly ridiculous.  Experts, logic and common sense unanimously agree that an armed citizen is less likely to be beaten, robbed, raped and/or murdered than an unarmed victim.  No citizen can predict when he or she will be the intended victim of a violent crime.  Only the violent criminals can decide that.  But if it happens, citizens can increase their chances of survival by following Rule #1 of getting mixed up in a gunfight:  Have a gun.  Donna completely omits any reference to violent crime because it didn't fit her agenda in the article.

By focusing on property crime, Donna reveals just how completely clueless she is when it comes to matters of self-defense.  We don't carry concealed because we're afraid someone is going to break into our cars and steal our Top Gun limited edition soundtrack.  We carry concealed because we don't want to be the victim of a Jackson thug who sticks a gun in our faces to "burglarize" us mano y mano.

Donna goes so far as to trot out the most ridiculous argument against firearms possession: that the guns become "loot" for burglars.  Good thinking, Donna.  Let's not arm ourselves because of the slim possibility a burglar will break in and steal the guns.  [Note to Donna:  Those of us who are serious about the use of firearms for self-defense don't leave our primary firearms unattended at the house or in the car.  They are on our persons--exactly where God and Gaston Glock intended them to be.]

Just when we think Donna could not get any more ridiculous, she offers up idiotic firearm safety advice to anyone who obtains a firearm.  Donna recommends that we use "locks that keep it secure from children and in the case your home or car is burglarized successfully."  That is asinine.  A locked gun is an unloaded gun, and there are few things in this world more useless than an unloaded gun.  To unload and trigger lock a firearm defeats the purpose of having the firearm in the first place.  Safety is of paramount importance, but there are other methods of securing firearms when not in one's immediate possession.  These alternative methods do not require making the firearm completely useless.

This little "firearms safety" lecture demonstrates how very little Donna Ladd and her live-in girlfriend Todd Stauffer know about firearms and personal protection.  For Donna to give this ridiculous advice, while being wholly ignorant of the defensive use of firearms, is nothing short of reckless.

We suspect that Donna's hyper-hysterical reaction to this phony controversy is only partly fueled by her irrational hatred of firearms.  Donna's reaction was, at least partially, a desperate cry for attention.  You see, Donna put a great deal of time and thought into her lackluster blockbuster "crime issue."  She treated the ignorant masses to the "JFP Crime Manifesto," as the cure to Jackson's perception crime problem.  It was to be Donna's greatest work, and her everlasting gift to the rest of us idiots who are less smart than she. 

Unfortunately for Donna, it flopped.  The JFP Crime Issue went nowhere.  She can't even get her most loyal members of the echo-chamber to log-in and tell her how awesomely intelligent she is for rehashing the same old failed crime prevention theories that have been floated around for 30 years.  Something tells us that when her crime prevention issue epically failed, she went into full-blown irrelevancy panic mode.  And Donna will never be irrelevant.  Never.  Donna had to fabricate this controversy about the alleged advice of certain JPD officers in an attempt to appear relevant, even if it's only the perception of relevance existing only in her own mind.  

Hopefully, most will recognize that Donna Ladd knows nothing about this topic, and will disregard her foolish statements.  Donna, you do not possess the education, training or experience to offer an opinion of any value on the issue of self-defense.  Your advice is worthless, irresponsible and potentially dangerous. 

Assuming you are telling the truth about the advice these officers gave, it is good advice.  Citizens would be well-advised to take personal protection recommendations from street-level police officers who know what they are talking about, and reject the unsolicited, ill-informed and unqualified opinions of an agenda-driven attention-whore.