Category: Goobermint

Get the Word Out About Kyle’s Law

A prosecutor who uses his or her authority to virtue signal to the public to advance his or her political career is more dangerous to society than all but the most violent criminals.

Insurance will cover many forms of property crimes, and you can legally use deadly force against somebody who menaces you with death or serious bodily injury.

A prosecutor, though, can bankrupt most people by filing unfounded criminal charges against them, ruin their lives with prison time and criminal records. Unless the case is particularly egregious like that of Mike Nifong (D-NC), or with crooked judges like Mark Ciavarella (D-PA, a.k.a., federal inmate #15008-067) or Mike Conahan (D-PA, home arrest), there is little or no recourse against these “jurists.”

To put this in perspective, Pennsylvania attorney Frank Fina was suspended from the practice of law for his role in convicting Penn State President Graham Spanier of putting children at risk. Pennsylvania’s current Attorney General, and gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro (D-PA), worked hard to reinstate Spanier’s conviction while tweeting that Spanier had been told that Jerry Sandusky was sexually assaulting children on the Penn State campus. The witness, Mike McQueary, testified, however, under oath, that he did not see Sandusky do anything he deemed reportable to police while his father and a family friend, both of whom are mandated by law to report abuse, did not encourage him to report to child protective authorities whatever he thought he might have possibly heard.

I believe that Shapiro, like Scott Harshbarger (D-MA) and Martha Coakley (D-MA) who ruined the lives of the Amiraults, used his position to “virtue signal” his concern for the children prior to the election. The latter is my perception of Shapiro, Harshbarger, and Coakley rather than a statement of fact because I cannot read their minds.

Kyle’s Law

Attorney Andrew Branca, whose opinions often appear on William Jacobson’s blog Legal Insurrection, has proposed what he calls Kyle’s Law due to what he and I both regard as a politically motivated prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse for what was obviously self-defense.

“Too often, rogue prosecutors bring felony criminal charges against people who were clearly doing nothing more than defending themselves, their families, or others from violent criminal attack. …The only motivation of the prosecutor is personal aggrandizement and political capital.” Kyle’s Law would sanction not only the jurisdiction but also the prosecutor who brings a junk case, to be defined as one in which the prosecutor lacks even preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did anything wrong.

The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state meanwhile, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous…” and also “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause…” and probable cause requires a “reasonable belief” that the defendant has committed a crime.

If, for example, a video of a self-defense shooting shows clearly that the person who was shot initiated a deadly confrontation, perpetuated it by not allowing the subject of their attack to retreat in complete safety, and menaced the shooter with immediate deadly force, as did all three of Rittenhouse’s assailants, that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of the shooter that the shooting was justified. If we look within the four corners of the charges against Rittenhouse, the prosecutors did not contest this version of the events.  Joseph Rosenbaum initiated a confrontation in which he attempted to strong-arm rob Rittenhouse (a violent felony by itself) of a firearm he could have turned against Rittenhouse on the spot and also one which, as a convicted felon, it was unlawful for Rosenbaum to handle. Anthony Huber the domestic abuser was a member of a mob (which constitutes disparity of force and therefore deadly force) that pursued Rittenhouse while yelling violent threats, thus putting Rittenhouse in reasonable fear for his life and denying him the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. He then menaced and struck Rittenhouse with a deadly contact weapon when Rittenhouse was on the ground. The third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, pursued Rittenhouse with a drawn handgun, which again constituted an implied threat, along with the immediate means of carrying it out.

Another example would be, for example, if a politically ambitious prosecutor had tried to show his “woke” credentials by charging the officer who shot Hakim Littleton even though the latter was on bodycam video firing a handgun at the head of another officer at roughly three paces. It was fortunate that Littleton was a bad shot or it would have been “end of watch” for that officer or, as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would put it, he would have “oinked his last.” This did not, however, happen because the local prosecutors saw the open and shut case of self-defense.

Poster Children for Kyle’s Law

  • The Amiraults were convicted on the basis of “evidence” that included, among other things, accusations that one of them sexually assaulted a boy with a butcher knife that somehow left no injuries, along with a “secret room” and a “magic room” that were never found.
  • Police officer Grant Snowden was railroaded to prison on the watch of Janet Reno (D-FL).
  • Police officer Garrett Rolfe was charged with murder for shooting Rayshard Brooks after Brooks took an officer’s Taser, which the prosecutor stipulated is a deadly weapon under Georgia law, and discharged it at the officers. The charges were finally dropped but should have never been filed.
  • Nikolas Fernandez was charged with felony assault for shooting Daniel Gregory, who reached through the window of Fernandez’s car to punch him. Gregory even admitted openly, “I catch him, I punch him in the face.” He claims that he was trying to stop Fernandez from running over “demonstrators” but the video shows clearly that Fernandez had come to almost a complete stop by the time Gregory reached into his car. Note also the barrier that another “demonstrator” shoves in front of the car which a reasonable person would construe as a prelude to a carjacking or Reginald Denny-style beating.
  • Here is a long list of wrongful convictions in the United States, some of which involved willful prosecutorial misconduct and/or misconduct by rogue police officers eager to get convictions no matter what.
  • Prosecutors should not be afraid to do their jobs just as police officers should not be afraid to do their jobs. Kneeling on a helpless suspect’s neck as Derek Chauvin was convicted of doing is not, however, a police officer’s job, and Chauvin is now in prison as a result. Junk prosecutions whose sole identifiable purpose, at least from the perspective of a reasonable person, noting that nobody can read the prosecutor’s mind, is to advance a prosecutor’s legal and/or political career, should similarly bring the consequences recommended in Kyle’s Law and maybe professional disciplinary action as well.

5 questions about New York’s new social media requirements for gun applicants

New gun laws in New York for those seeking a concealed carry license, including a review of social media accounts by law enforcement, was cleared to go into effect by a federal judge last week, but questions about how the state will enforce it and future legal challenges remain.

The new rules, part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, followed a Supreme Court ruling in June that prohibits states from requiring residents seeking a gun license to prove a special need to carry a handgun outside the home.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, challenged a provision of New York’s 109-year-old concealed carry law that required applicants to have “proper cause” for the permit — a special need for self-defense. Five other states had similar laws.

New York responded with a number of changes, including requiring concealed carry applicants to share “a list of former and current social media accounts” from the past three years to assess the applicant’s “character and conduct.” The rule comes in the aftermath of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, where the gunmen reportedly posted warnings about their violence online.

The new state laws, which also require more classroom and in-person training for concealed carry licenses and the creation of “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted, have already been met with lawsuits. Judge Glenn Suddaby declined to put the law on hold a day before it took effect, saying the New York resident and three gun rights organizations who filed lawsuits didn’t have standing to bring the legal action. But he indicated he believed some parts of the laws were unconstitutional, and legal experts expect other challenges in the future.

While written testimonies are common for gun permits across the country, requiring social media records is an added layer that has not been implemented in other places for the purposes of gun permitting.

“I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said of the conceal carry changes in a statement last week.

The social media requirement has raised questions about privacy and what states can request in the permitting process.

Max Markham, vice president of policy and community engagement at the Center for Policing Equity, said he believes the laws as a whole are a “strong legislative package” when it comes to curbing gun violence. But he said the social media requirement is unclear in its scope and implementation, and will need to be better defined in the near future. He added that he expects conservative groups, in particular, will fight the law on constitutional grounds.

Markham said the law includes a process to appeal if a person’s application for a concealed carry permit is rejected, which he believes can help increase accountability and provide space “for individuals who may feel like they’ve been judged incorrectly.”

“I think seeing how it is enforced and ensuring that there is some degree of equity will be really key,” he said.

What is the scope of the law?

The wording of the requirement suggests applicants only need to share their public content with officials, and that the purpose of the search is to corroborate written testimony from character witnesses, according to David Greene, civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Greene believes the social media rules are intended to look for stated intent to commit crimes with a gun. But Greene said there’s a host of information unrelated to a search for criminality that can be gleaned from accessing someone’s social media history.

“[It] can say a lot about someone’s political affiliations, about the community organizations they belong to, about religious groups they’re active in … and their familial relationships,” he said.

Greene said that context – which is hard to gather from a quick social media scan – is relevant to what people share on the platforms, and it can be difficult to get that from a profile alone .

While New York’s new gun law includes welcome changes, such as requiring more firearm training, the social media requirements are a “poor” part and have “serious” privacy concerns, said Adam Scott Wandt, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“I question whether or not that part of the law will subject the state to lawsuits that will eventually find the law unconstitutional. And I also have serious privacy concerns with the state requiring somebody to submit social media accounts for review based upon unclear criteria as to what constitutes ‘good character’ and moral and what doesn’t. It’s messy,” Wandt said.

The New York City Bar Association Committee on Technology, Privacy and Cyber, which Wandt co-chairs, did not have time to offer input or feedback on the laws, either, he said..

Hochul’s office did not answer a question from the PBS NewsHour about outside expert review on the new set of laws.

Is social media monitoring for licenses used elsewhere in government?

Social media monitoring to get an official government license is a rare official policy but at least one other agency has adopted the practice.

Greene said visa applicants have been required to share their social media accounts since 2019. The requirements, originally created under the Trump administration, have been continued by Joe Biden. Users are required to provide social media accounts used in the last five years from a list of 20 platforms. Applicants do have the option to select “none” if they have not used any of the social media sites.

According to the State Department, the collection and review of social media information is intended to “enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and other immigraiton benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.”

Wandt said that he is also concerned about social media reporting requirements being expanded to other professional licensing administered by the government, potentially forcing some people seeking these licenses to sacrifice privacy for their work, he said.

Wandt said there were also questions about how he social media information gleaned from firearm applications will be used or stored by law enforcement.

“Do these things go into a database when the NYPD pulls me over? Is there a database now that they’ll be able to look at and see my social media because I applied for a handgun? I think there are more questions than answers at this point,” he said.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question from the NewsHour about what happens to the records of an applicant’s social media account after a permit is processed.

Which law enforcement agencies will conduct these searches?

Who will grant gun licenses in New York under the new law is dependent on the jurisdiction. In New York City, the NY Police Department issues gun licenses and will check social media accounts. Across the state, there may be some sheriff’s departments who conduct the checks, but in many cases, a county authority, such as a judge, issues the license. However, in those cases, responsibility for ensuring requirements for a gun license are met will still fall to the sheriffs.

“Troopers remain committed to this mission, and we are dedicated to stopping the criminals who traffic illegal guns and endanger our communities,” State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen said in a statement.

NY Sheriff’s Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe said there is worry by sheriffs that the task of searching through social media accounts would be too difficult. He said there is a risk that law enforcement will miss something in the social media account of someone issued with a gun license who then goes on to commit a crime, putting that responsibility and accountability on the sheriffs.

READ MORE: Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social media accounts

“It falls on the sheriff because he missed something when he was given an impossible task,” he said.

Kehoe adds that the definition of “character and conduct” under the new statute is too vague.

“The statute says that they have to give us social media accounts and we have to use those to determine whether or not the individual has the right temperament and judgment to be entrusted with a weapon,” Kehoe said.

“What we think shows good judgment might not be the next guy’s estimate of good judgment and it’s all gonna be based on the eyes and ears of the person who’s reviewing it,” Kehoe said.

However, Kehoe denied that political biases would play a role in vetting.

“They’re going to be looking at these accounts. And if they see something concerning, they’re gonna put that in their background report to the judge then it’s gonna be up to the judge to decide, I guess, whether or not that particular concern is disqualifying for the person to have a license.”

In a statement to the NewsHour, Hochul’s office said the law doesn’t change the nature of licensing, it simply adds a new requirement for applicants.

“Local law enforcement and licensing officials have always been responsible for evaluating information provided by prospective applicants to determine whether a permit should be issued. The law doesn’t change that,” the statement said.

“It simply requires them to consider social media activity and other new information as part of their review process for concealed carry applications.”

Is there any training being provided for those doing this vetting?

The section of the law that requires applicants to disclose their social media accounts does not detail what training is required for those doing the vetting. Kehoe said law enforcement has not been given additional funding to do training for law enforcement, or to conduct checks of social media accounts. Kehoe expects “millions” of applicants under New York’s new gun licensing rules, many of whom will have more than one social media account.

“Just on a very practical level, we don’t think we can do this.”

Applicants will only be required to provide social media accounts used in the past three years, however, Kehoe said law enforcement may be required to look farther back into those accounts.

“The statute didn’t provide any resources for us to do this and it’s just not going to be possible to get it done without additional manpower,” Kehoe said.

Markham hopes the state will provide bias training for officials combing through social media, reflecting a wider push for law enforcement agencies to minimize possible unequal treatment of minority communities.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question about whether additional training or resources would be provided to law enforcement in support of the new requirements.

Can monitoring social media work?

The social media search may catch some people who shouldn’t have access to firearms but many more, including those who might be most dangerous and inhabit the darkest parts of the internet, will slip through the cracks, Wandt said.

“Putting all the constitutional and moral issues aside, I stand by my experience and research that shows me that the truly dangerous, disturbed people have multiple social media accounts, usually not under their real name, and I highly doubt that they will be reported on a application for a carry permit,” Wandt said.

Greene said asking whether it will work is the wrong question, since he believes such policies can be inherently harmful, especially if other government institutions, such as general law enforcement, adopt similar policies.

“I do think there’s something dangerous about institutionalizing and normalizing having people provide their social media accounts to the government,” he said.

Gun control fans won’t like lessons of New Zealand

When the Christchurch massacre took place, New Zealand acted. They responded to what happened the same way American anti-gunners would have us react. They banned AR-15s and went on a rampage of stomping on the gun rights of folks there.

Of course, New Zealand doesn’t have a Second Amendment. There’s no protection of gun rights. In fact, gun rights aren’t even acknowledged as rights there, which is a bit of an issue as well.

However, right now, the biggest issue is how the country tripped over itself passing gun control, yet absolutely none of it worked.

Gun control laws disarm victims, not criminals. That’s common sense to everyone but the politicians who promise peace, rainbows and dancing unicorns if only you’ll give up your firearms.

New Zealand’s gun control advocates — including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern– remain slow on the uptake of that fundamental principle of life. In multiple gun confiscation drives, the Kiwi government grabbed most of the good guys’ guns. And now, a year after the final confiscation push, gun-related violence has reached new, record levels.

Try to suppress your shock and surprise.

Is it really that bad? Are the good folks over at The Truth About Guns spinning things a bit to make a point?

Actually, no, they’re not.

Rates of injury and death caused by firearms are tracking higher than ever before.

Data released by police under the Official Information Act shows 10 murder or manslaughter deaths in 2022, up until 31 July. There were 11 in total in 2021.

Injuries are also running at a record rate, on track to exceed 300 firearm-related injuries for the first time. In 2021, there were 298 gun-related injuries recorded by police, the highest ever.

Now, the numbers aren’t overly impressive, but we have to remember that New Zealand has a total population of just over 5 million people. If you put all of them together in one city, it would only be the second-largest city in the US by population.

Yet those 5 million are spread out over 103,000 square miles, which is enough to drive down the violent crime rates all by itself.

That said, comparing their numbers to ours is silly. Other countries aren’t the United States and vice versa. When looking at the impact of gun control, one thing you have to look at are the trends from before and after its passage.

Prior to Christchurch, New Zealand’s homicide rate was pretty low. In fact, the 49 people killed in that massacre were enough to produce a nearly 254 percent increase in the homicide rate that year, which is kind of telling all on its own.

Yet since then, we’re clearly seeing homicides increase as well as violent crime as a whole. That’s likely because criminals no longer have much reason to fear ordinary citizens. They can kill as they want with impunity because no one is there to stop them.

Oh, sure, the police may come looking for them, but few criminals believe they’ll be caught. They tend to think that if no one is there to prevent a crime, no one will know who did it. That’s not quite true, as we know, but that’s how they tend to think.

New Zealand gave those criminals a gift.

What’s more, American gun grabbers want to give our own criminals the same gift. However, the carnage here would be orders of magnitude worse by virtue of this country simply being more violent. Take away good guys’ guns and watch how the bodies pile up.

If it’s happening in New Zealand, there’s not a shred of doubt that it would happen here.

And this is what gun control got them.

Even if you dismiss gun control as causing this issue, you cannot ignore that it did nothing to prevent it, which is par for the course and why it’s so infuriating that people still push it.

THE COLUMN: From Hell’s Heart

After Joe Biden’s disgraceful speech last week —the worst and most deliberately provocative bully pulpit address in American history—many people have finally woken up to the very real threat threat of Leftist fascism (historically, there is no other kind) and its burning desire for civil war, and have begun asking themselves: what if this idiot is serious?

That Biden is, in fact, an idiot, is beyond dispute. For more than half a century this thoroughly nasty piece of work has been bullying, blustering, bragging, plagiarizing, insulting, sliming, and attacking his political enemies—which now apparently include anyone who opposes him and his criminal Anti-American Party—without any fear of reprisals whatsoever. Since he spent most of that time in Congress, profiting handsomely at the public teat, attacking Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, he was immune from consequences thanks to the Speech and Debate clause in the Constitution: the same Constitution he now openly despises and seeks to supplant.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Bidding fair to claim the title of Second-Worst Irish-American politician in American History, and closing fast on the current titleholder, Ted Kennedy [the noxious “Robert Bork’s America” speech begin at 25:38 and is well worth a watch], Biden vilified his predecessor, his supporters, and by extension every American who voted for the Republican candidate during the contentious and hotly contested 2020 election. You can see the hatred and the anger on his face as he “calls for unity”:

The fact is, Biden is Fredo Corleone without the wit, charm, or brains: “I can handle things. I’m smart. It’s not like everybody says, I’m dumb. I’m smart and I want respect.” He is Ubu Rex without the self-restraint, a Roman emperor who judging from the two Marines outrageously stationed behind him actually trusts his Praetorian Guard. Like another National Socialist who instantly comes to mind, he’s forever mad at the world for not recognizing his talent and his genius and will show us who’s boss or die trying.

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans.  Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country. These are hard things. But I’m an American President — not the President of red America or blue America, but of all America. And I believe it is my duty — my duty to level with you, to tell the truth no matter how difficult, no matter how painful. And here, in my view, is what is true:

MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution.  They do not believe in the rule of law.  They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election.  And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself. MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

Caligula and the Praetorians in 41 AD: oops.

All of these “rights,” of course, are not rights but policy prescriptions of the Left. There is no enumerated, nor implied, “right” in the Constitution to “choose” to murder your unborn children, to contraception, to “marry who[m] you love.” “Privacy,” unenumerated, is something we would all like to have, but given the initial privacy violation of the 16th amendment, which has made the lives and ledgers of every citizen open to the inquiries of the state, and to which the presumption of innocence does not apply, it’s a little late for a “progressive” Democrat to be bitching about loss of privacy. More of what in decent Irish neighborhoods used to be called fighting words:

They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.

And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections. They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people.  This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people.

Make no mistake: despite Biden’s walk-back the next day—for members of Congress, words have no lasting meaning— this was an evil speech and tantamount to a declaration of war on both conservatives and a Republican Party that, however poorly, represents them. It should have been immediately been greeted with articles of impeachment by the hapless, cowardly, and contemptible GOP, but of course it wasn’t. Biden and Left have backed the Chicken Party into a corner, from which they cannot fight back without giving MSM credence to the charges he just laid against them. Grandpa Joe (more like your Wicked Uncle Ernie from Tommy), a veteran of nearly haft a century of “reaching across the aisle” in order to pick the country’s pockets, may be dumb but he’s not stupid. He knows his enemies and their foolish desire to be loved by the press, and knows that they won’t dare stop him as he fiddles about.

Despite his manifest unworthiness for the highest office in the land, Joe Biden is in a way the perfect president for our times. Since Reagan, and with the partial exception of Donald Trump, we have had a parade of base, weak, conniving, corrupt, and otherwise unsuitable presidents, so why should he be any different? In latter-day America, only scions and plutocrats need apply: starting with the CIA’s very own commander-in-chief, George H.W. Bush, we’ve had William Jefferson Blythe Clinton III, George W. Bush (aka Junior), Barack Hussein Obama II, Donald J. Trump, and now Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. And if the president’s staff of Drs. Feelgood can keep him ambulatory and relatively sentient and publicly continent until January 2025, there’s a very good chance he’ll be POTUS again, especially if he runs against his fellow obsessive geriatric, Trump.

Die, MAGA, die!

Like Captain Ahab in Melville’s masterpiece, Moby-Dick, JB, Jr., has finally harpooned his nemesis, the American government, determined at last to make the magnificent monster pay for laughing at him all these years.

 

 

But the Whale is bigger than Biden, and swims in a school far beyond his understanding or ken. On Thursday night, Robinette’s concluding words were:

And I have no doubt — none –– that this is who we will be and that we’ll come together as a nation.  That we’ll secure our democracy.  That for the next 200 years, we’ll have what we had the past 200 years: the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. We just need to remember who we are.  We are the United States of America.  The United States of America.  (Applause.) And may God protect our nation.  And may God protect all those who stand watch over our democracy.  God bless you all.  (Applause.)  Democracy.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

What they should have been were: “From Hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.” Ahab’s last words, just before the White Whale drags him down to Davy Jones’ Locker. Talk about a call for unity: the (applause) on both sides of the aisle, from both satanic Left and patriotic Right, would have been thunderous.

BLUF
The enemy always gets a vote – and Biden just announced that his enemy is tens of millions of us patriotic citizens. So, in the great AR-15 vs. F-15 hypothetical – and pray it stays hypothetical despite the stupidity of our ruling caste – the smart money is on the numbers. But the truly smart course of action is to not to even go down this road, to re-embrace our Constitution and to stop trying to be butch in order to get some Twitter love from the pinkos. Maybe this ridiculous stooge masquerading as our president should stop running his fool mouth threatening to slaughter other Americans.

F-15 vs. AR-15? Bet on the Guys With the Guns

Father of the Year and alleged President Joe Biden is busy trying to rile up his base of weirdos, adjunct professors, gender studies grads, government timeservers, sexually unsatisfied wine women and their sexually unsatisfying life partners. That’s why Dork Brandon pulled one of my favorites out of his Big Duffel Bag O’ Hack Cliches, the old “Your puny guns are no match against the awesome power of the US military which I will use to kill you for dissenting!” narrative.

Okay, fine. Let’s go over this again for the knuckleheads who think that they prevail if they step outside the “use your words” paradigm they grew up with in their sissy private schools. You lose if you idiots provoke a real civil conflict – not the kind of low-intensity urban conflict of the Seventies where you cheered on the Weathermen and Cinque’s SLA, and not the kind where a bunch of mutants riot under the protection of leftist municipal governments in leftist municipalities, but a real one. One where the people you want to crush under your Birkenstocks fight back. With AR-15s.

I discuss this in great detail in my new non-fiction book We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America, and not from the perspective of half-wit daughter-showering goofs but from the real down and dirty of how this terrible course of events would actually unspool. And it would go poorly for a largely unarmed, untrained, urban-centered population of smug geebos whose primary weapon system is a snarky tweet.

The doddering moron shared his tactical insights with his audience at a rally in Pennsylvania for Heart Attack Shrek. He said, thinking he was super-clever, “For those brave right-wing Americans… if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something little more than a gun.”

Hmmmm, but do they? Really?

Grandpa Badfinger’s premise is that all you tens of millions of semi-fascists out there with your AR-15s would have no shot stopping the woke military, which would eagerly crush you with their potent force package of F-15s and esoteric pronouns. It is a flawed premise on more grounds than one column can cover (hence my book), but we need to focus and that means we will need to overlook some important questions. These important questions include:

– Why do you imagine your sorry band of socialist creeps who treat the Constitution like Jerry Nadler treats his boxers constitutes “the country?”

– The useless senior officer corps aside, why do you believe the normals who make up the vast majority of America’s combat forces will gleefully butcher their friends and family for the amusement of a bunch of Chardonnay-swilling blue checks?

– Have you ever heard of Afghanistan?

Let’s focus on his key sound bite. Gun vs. Jets…who ya got?

I’m putting my money on the guns. You dumb progressives can go for the jets and the points.

Continue reading “”

NY Gov. Hochul’s Office Cannot Say Whether She Is Giving Up Good Guys Who Protect Her With Guns

Breitbart News contacted New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s (D) office Thursday to see if she would disarm the good guys who protect her with guns in the same way that she is forcing average Americans with guns to disarm around New York.

Her office could not say whether Hochul will be giving up her good guys with guns.

The person with whom we spoke indicated here has been no policy statement on it yet.

On September 1 Breitbart News reported that Hochul tweeted information on the state’s new gun controls and contended that good guys with guns do not stop armed bad guys.

FOX News quoted Hochul saying, “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”

On August 31 Hochul tweeted the many locations in which law-abiding citizens will be prohibited from being armed for self-defense:

But Hochul’s office could not say whether or not the Governor will retain the good guys with guns who keep her safe day in and day out.

Breitbart News suggested Hochul’s retaining armed protection for herself, after barring law-abiding, average Americans from being armed for self-defense, could give the impression that the lives of average Americans are not held in the same high esteem as the lives of the ruling class. We were transferred to Hochul’s press office after making that point, and our call was answered by voicemail.

BLUF
Back in the United States, American Farm Bureau Federation Chief Economist Dr. Roger Cryan estimates that a Sri Lankan-style move would cut domestic grain crop production by about 50 percent within two to four years of implementation, leading to massive price hikes and acute shortages of basic commodities……

Should California – or the nation –  take the path of most destruction and implement restrictions or even fertilizer bans, the social and economic impacts would be catastrophic and could hearken back to the conditions during the Great Depression of the 1930s – except this time there wouldn’t be any bread lines because there wouldn’t be any bread.

From Sri Lanka to Salinas

Ah, Sri Lanka.

In 2020: a beautiful, agriculturally self-sufficient island nation full of tea and tourists and holder of the highest “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) investor rating in the world.

And then, as part of the larger “green” effort spurred on by international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), woke capital, and, seemingly, a desire to sit at the big table at the various and sundry global initiative conferences, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa banned the use of manufactured fertilizer in order to create a more climate-friendly sustainable farming sector.  In April, 2021, the country went all-organic overnight.

What could possibly go wrong?

By the end of last year, Sri Lanka became unable to feed itself, prices for food (especially rice) and fuel and other daily basics skyrocketed, the tea crop – and the hundreds of millions it earns in international trade – was decimated.  The nation defaulted on its foreign debt, had rolling power blackouts, the tourists are staying away in droves, and Sri Lanka,  already wracked by corruption and COVID, spiraled out of control.

The public’s response?  Even though the fertilizer ban had already been partially rolled back, just last month Rajapaksa’s presidential palace was stormed by thousands of everyday Sri Lankans and he had to flee the country – last word was that he was holed up in Singapore.

(Side note to Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney – this is what an actual insurrection looks like:)

It seems Kermit was right – it ain’t easy being green.

But, considering the state’s claim to be the global leader in fighting climate change, can California – with its extremely powerful “climate lobby” that was able to ban the future sales of new gas-powered vehicles, a concept that would have been unthinkable a very few years ago –  be far behind?

California’s commitment to confronting climate change cannot be underestimated., as proven by the 86 different climate partnerships, or “bilateral and multilateral agreements with national and subnational leaders” the state as entered into.  (The list can be found here:  https://www.energy.ca.gov/about/campaigns/international-cooperation/climate-change-partnerships .)

Additionally, a quick tour of state department websites finds numerous examples of “green,” “sustainability,” and “climate” pages and plans; even the state’s prisons get into the act with its climate change plan: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/green/cdcr-green/climate-change-adaptation/ .

It should be stressed that California is not above shooting itself in the foot when it comes to climate issues. Thursday, the legislature passed a bill mandating 3,200-foot “buffer zones” around all – new and existing – oil and gas wells, a move which would practically eliminate the industry – and its 13,000 jobs – in the state.

Continue reading “”

Biden’s soulless screed a smokescreen for what really ails the nation.

Last night[Thursday], the same president who almost exactly a year ago disgracefully abandoned 14,000 Americans and tens of thousands of our allies to the Taliban decided to lecture the US on “the continued battle for the soul of the nation.”

Let that sink in for a moment or two.

In that speech, Joe Biden tried to take the high ground for democracy against authoritarianism — just a week or so after eviscerating the constitutional check on the presidency by claiming the executive branch has the authority to print and appropriate between $600 billion and one trillion dollars to transfer debt from Biden’s base voters to the rest of the taxpayers.

Let that one sink in for another moment or two. Especially after Biden described “the work of my presidency” as returning the US to the founding documents of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Joe Biden isn’t the solution for what ails the American soul. He’s not even really the main disease of what ails the American soul. Joe Biden is a demagogue who floated to the top of a morass that has been building for decades, and who only sees the problem to the extent that it benefits or harms Biden’s interests.

To wit — here’s how Biden framed the problem in this prime-time speech from Independence Hall [corrected]:

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.

They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

Ahem. One can certainly believe this to be true of “MAGA Republicans.” What about the Democrats and progressives that rioted in the streets of Washington on January 20, 2017, in an attempt to disrupt the inauguration of Trump? How about the way that Democrats — even mainstream Democrats — labeled themselves “The Resistance” almost immediately after the 2016 election, which preceded that Inauguration Day riot and helped fuel it? And for that matter, what about the pointless two years of “Russian collusion” allegations that turned out to be based on Hillary Clinton’s oppo research?

Continue reading “”

New York prosecutor promises discretion in enforcing new “gun-free zones”

While New York’s new carry restrictions are now in effect, it looks like enforcement of the laws is going to vary wildly across the state. Gov. Kathy Hochul, for example, has proclaimed that anyone not issued a permit by September 1st is going to have to apply under the new laws, while at least one county clerk (and I suspect there are many more) say they’ll continue to process all permits received before the 1st under the old rules (minus the “good cause” requirement struck down by the Supreme Court a couple of months ago).

The same confusion reigns when it comes to the state’s nearly endless number of new “gun-free zones” mandated by recently enacted gun control measures. Under the statute signed by Hochul it’s a felony offense to carry in a “sensitive place”, and even accidentally setting foot inside a prohibited place while carrying could result in a four-year prison sentence.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has already promised that the new laws will be strictly enforced, but the prosecutor and police chief in Syracuse say they have no plans on putting concealed carry holders behind bars, at least if their only “crime” is carrying where it’s not allowed.

Violators will have their weapons confiscated while prosecutors investigate any other criminal activity, District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said. Their cases will be referred to the judge who granted them concealed-carry licenses in the first place, possibly leading to the revocation of their carry privileges.

… The DA noted there’s bound to be widespread confusion over which places are off-limits. Technically, walking on the sidewalk in front of a school with a gun is considered a felony. So is walking through downtown Syracuse’s Clinton Square or Columbus Circle, both public parks where guns are always banned.

In addition, a Syracuse-based federal judge on Wednesday wrote an opinion suggesting that the state’s new law — including the long list of prohibited locations — was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. That ruling, however, was not binding and so the law is in effect as written.

Still, Fitzpatrick suggested, that ruling had an impact on how law enforcement will handle the new restrictions.

Law enforcement won’t be proactively enforcing the new law by trying to catch legal gun-owners in prohibited locations, Syracuse Police Chief Joseph Cecile said.

“It will be complaint-driven,” the chief said.

The idea here seems to be that if the concealed carry holder in question has a history of wandering into “gun-free zones” while carrying, or there are other criminal offenses that took place at the same time, charges might be warranted. An inadvertent incident or innocent mistake, on the other hand, wouldn’t be punished by prison time, though it could still lead to someone losing their ability to lawfully carry altogether. It’s unclear from the news story just how quickly someone will have their firearm returned to them once that investigation into other criminal activity has concluded, however, and that’s a big concern. I’m glad that Fitzpatrick says he won’t be charging accidental violations of the law, but if there are no charges then there should be no gun confiscation either.

The U.S. District Court judge in Syracuse who ended up allowing the new laws to take effect because he determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue acknowledged in his ruling that, if the plaintiffs did have standing, he would have ruled in their favor on many of the challenges they brought forward… including the “sensitive places” language.

Given that the judge maintains that the Supreme Court has “effectively barred” any location beyond schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, and courthouses from being labeled a “sensitive place” off-limits to legal carry; it would have been nice if Fitzpatrick and Cecile had announced that those would be only locations where they would enforce the “sensitive places” statute, but we may see other District Attorneys around the state come to that conclusion on their own. New York’s latest gun control laws have not only created chaos and confusion, but I suspect some civic (and civil) disobedience as well.

Leaked memo states that in NYC anyone carrying a firearm, legally, is now presumed guilty until proven innocent

NEW YORK CITY, NY – Leaked documents from the New York Police Department (NYPD) indicate that anyone carrying a firearm is now presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The new guidance highlighted in the leaked memo proves that almost anywhere in New York City — public or private — is a gun-free zone.

It basically states that unless someone is a police officer or a former cop, no one can bring their legal firearm out of their house for protection, like on public transportation.

The memo, titled New York State Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Firearms, states very clearly in its “key points”:

“Anyone carrying a firearm is presumed to be carrying unlawfully until proven otherwise.”

The other “key points” are listed below:

Possessing a firearm in New York City requires a special license issued by the New York City Police Department;

Carrying a firearm in New York City requires a concealed carry license issued by the New York City Police Department;

License holders are required to carry their license when carrying a firearm and must provide their license to law enforcement upon request; and

Recent changes in law do not impact the way officers conduct investigative encounters. Officers may stop an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a firearm (Level 3) and may frisk that individual since the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

The memo also describes what are to be considered “sensitive” and “restricted” locations throughout the city. According to the memo:

“Even though a person may be licensed to carry a firearm, they may not bring a firearm to a ‘sensitive’ location … All private property (residential and commercial) that is not on the sensitive location list is considered ‘restricted.’ People who are licensed to possess firearms may not bring firearms to a restricted location unless they get permission from the property owner.”

The one who knocks: Mayor Adams vows door-to-door checks on gun permits

He’s certainly no criminal like Walter White, but Mayor Eric Adams is vowing to take up the “Breaking Bad” character’s mantle as the “one who knocks” — at least when it comes to gun permits in New York City.

“It is really about using the good, old-fashioned methods of doing investigation,” Adams said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday morning.

“When I became a police officer, people knocked on my neighbor’s doors and interviewed them and asked what type of person am I.”

Police officers will employ those “good old-fashioned” methods of investigation like knocking on neighbors’ doors as part of the background check requirements on potential gun permit holders included in New York’s new gun safety law.

State officials added extra requirements for individuals seeking concealed carry weapons permits that take effect today, Sept. 1, in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision that overturned a 1913 state law mandating individuals to show “proper cause” for packing heat.

“And I think those are the same skills that’s going to be used to look at not only social media but also knocking our neighbors’ doors, speaking to people, finding out who this individual is that we are about to allow to carry a firearm in our city,” said Adams, a former police captain.

Background checks will now require applicants to sit down for an in-person interview, submit four character references, a list of former and current social media accounts spanning the prior three years and disclose the names of their spouse or any other adults living in their home.Permit renewals will also now be required every three years, instead of five years under the former law.

NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell said the department has tracked a 54% increase in carrying license applications ahead of the Thursday deadline, accounting for 1,579 applications filed since June 1 — compared to 1,024 filed during the same period in 2021.

Officials also said the NYPD won’t add additional officers to enforce the new rules in newly created gun-free zones like Times Square right off the bat, but Adams said he predicts the changes will stress the department’s current resources.

“We’re not going to take police officers from those areas where we need police protection because of violence, upticks, but at the same time, it is going to really stretch out our law enforcement capabilities,” said Adams on MSNBC.

Adams has vowed to redeploy officers working desk jobs in an effort to get more cops on the streets and help get the city’s crime problem under control.

The Post exclusively revealed that the NYPD will soon require uniformed plant managers working in bureaus to go back on patrol

Never Forget. SloJoe may be a senile dolt, but that speech was precisely what the demoncraps think about you.
As Joe Huffman says ‘Prepare Accordingly’

BLUF
So he just wants us to pretend he didn’t say it and ignore everything he said last night? What kind of ridiculous administration is this? They can’t even do evil oppressive government right, they’re that messed up.

But you know what a failure this all was when he immediately has to backtrack from it the next morning.

You Know It Backfired Badly: Biden Now Desperately Trying to Backpedal His Despicable Speech

Joe Biden is getting all kinds of backlash from the despicable speech he delivered last night at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, attacking millions of Americans who want to “Make America Great Again” and supporting President Donald Trump.

We covered some of the hot takes, with many people comparing his unprecedented attacks to Communist or Nazi-like tactics, Biden acting like the fascist he was accusing others of being. They also hit on the visuals with the improper use of the Marines and the evil blood-red backdrop.

Among the hot take was Trump who chastised Biden for essentially threatening Americans and saying if Biden doesn’t want to make America great again he shouldn’t be representing America. Trump also called going after Americans like that insane.

Even CNN bashed Biden for the use of the Marines in such a speech. On the other hand, CNN also reportedly softened the look of the visuals so it didn’t look as bad.

But now Biden seems to be trying to walk it back a bit. Or maybe he just can’t even remember what he said the night before. Now he’s trying to say he was only talking about people who called for “violence.” That of course was a lie, that is not what he said during the speech or the whole prior week. It means he knows now that he screwed up and went too far.

“I don’t consider any Trump supporter to be a threat,” Biden said to Fox’s Peter Doocy. “I do think anyone who calls for the use of violence and fails to condemn violence when its used, refuse to acknowledge an election when it’s been won… That is a threat to democracy.” Oh, so you mean like the Democratic reaction to when Trump won in 2016, when they tried to suborn electors, boycotted his inaugural, when Democrats refused to accept he won, and leftists rioted in the streets on Jan. 20, 2017? When have the Democrats ever called out any of that? Biden didn’t condemn any of that, indeed, he encouraged the perception that Trump was not a legitimate president.

Continue reading “”

I Am a ‘Clear and Present Danger’ to the Biden Regime (And So Are You)

“Clear and present danger” aren’t words any president should use lightly because that’s when the big guns used to come out against the First Amendment — and might again.

Set aside for a few minutes the vaguely Nurembergesque optics of Thursday night’s historically divisive speech by Presidentish Joe Biden so we can concentrate on the content.

“MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger,” Biden angrily declared. “They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow lies together.”

“That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a ‘clear and present danger’ to our democracy.”

Ben Shapiro called it “the most demagogic, outrageous, and divisive speech” he’s ever seen from an American president because Biden “essentially declared all those who oppose him and his agenda enemies of the republic.”

Biden’s speech came just two days after he not-so-implicitly threatened [VIP link] millions of law-abiding Americans with military action. “For those brave right-wing Americans,” he sneered, “if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something little more than a gun.”

Ricochet’s Jon Gabriel said that Biden’s word choice was as “deliberate as it was divisive,” reminding readers that the C&PD doctrine was “created by the Woodrow Wilson-era Supreme Court to curtail the free speech of Americans.”

Biden, warned Gabriel, “floated a legal pretext to silence Republicans heading into the midterm elections.”

Already, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have been revealed as willing stooges for government end-runs around the First Amendment, as our own Stacey Lennox noted just today:

On the heels of shocking comments by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the FBI’s role in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, initial e-mails related to a lawsuit filed by Schmitt and Landry show even more evidence that the Biden administration is using Big Tech to do what it is not, allowed to do according to the Constitution.

Lennox wrote that “Further disclosures could demonstrate that Big Tech and the government are conspiring to censor information related to any number of issues.”

But back to Thursday night’s demagoguery.

MSNBC’s Eugene Robinson approvingly described Biden’s speech as an “urgent, wartime address.”

Well, with whom is Biden at war? Biden has met the enemy, and he is us.

Many on the Right, including my friend and colleague Stephen Kruiser, believe that Biden’s speech was a display of weakness, “the panic and flop sweat of every Washington power player inside the Beltway.” I don’t necessarily disagree, but let’s at least consider that it might have been something else: A display of dangerously hubristic overconfidence in the administration’s own power.

Their power not to govern but to rule.

What else is there to call it when the Biden regime goes from surreptitiously silencing critics via social media back channels to openly floating a Wilson-era pretext for jailing us?

If this scheming mediocrity believes he can use his signature to transfer up to a trillion dollars from blue-collar Americans into the wallets of lawyers, doctors, and Trans Deconstructive Lit Theory majors and call it “debt relief,” why wouldn’t he think he can use the coercive power of the state to silence his critics?

I’ve been writing for PJ Media for over 15 years, but this is the first time I ever felt like the company, all of these voices, might not be here tomorrow.

I don’t know if the Swamp cabal running the White House will get away with it, but I’m sure as hell not going to be quiet about it ….

Forget “democracy” — our republic might depend upon it.

When Turnips Attack!.
Joe Biden is the most dangerous threat to the US since the Civil War

Good morning to the other 74,999,999 semi-fascists trying to destroy our democracy by insisting the FBI, the DOJ, the Intel community, the military, the IRS, and congressional Democrats apply laws equally — and that the Executive branch not use private Big Tech companies to censor speech at the Administration’s direction.

Apparently, you need be an *actual* fascist to battle the “MAGA extremists” that comprise half — or maybe more —of the voting population.

Remember the instructive, sober words of communication luminary, Karine Jean-Pierre: you’re considered an extremist if you disagree with the progressive political consensus. Opposition to the ruling party is an act of insurrection.

— Meanwhile, you are most certainly in the camp of non-extremists if you back President Turnip and his 38% approval rating, because in progressive math, 38% approval is approval enough. So shut up, you 62% of the population who are racist fascist transphobic xenophobes!

President Turnip has F-15s. Do you? President Turnip directs a military armed with non-gendered pronouns and led by a thick-bodied, bag-eyed yes man in touch with his privilege and aware of his own white rage. Do you? President Turnip has the unwavering support of Max Boot and Jen Rubin — two of this country’s most beautiful minds. Do you?

“Dark Brandon,” flanked by Marines and backed by Hellish lighting, mumbled, shouted, and emoted his way through a Hitleresque scapegoating of large swaths of the population. And his call to arms has energized all the woke and virtuous defenders of democracy, who are now demanding a one-party system and the shunning of Republicans as lesser humans. Because, in the same way you sometimes have to destroy villages to save them, sometimes you have to become an unelected Administrative dictatorship to save democracy from the benighted and filthy MAGAts who so frustratingly vote incorrectly.

President Turnip’s speech — presented with the full backing of the Executive branch and its law enforcement and justice arms — was perhaps the most egregious speech ever given by a US president. It was more than simply divisive. It was tacit permission to treat those who don’t favor progressive governance as enemies of the State. It’s the summer of 2020 with presidential approval. It’s dangerous. It’s unconscionable.

And we know this didn’t land with all the sanctimonious anti-MAGA crowd, because even slovenly token CNN Republican and Dispatch co-founder Jonah Goldberg — while agreeing with “nearly all” of what Biden said on the substance — still called the speech “a mistake.”

And though the author of Liberal Fascism has morphed into the kind of lazy compromised shill who now uses his own book as an instruction manual rather than the political jeremiad it once was, it remains true that when you’ve even semi-lost Goldberg, you risk losing those legions of putative Republicans heretofore willing to elect progressive Democrats in order to conserve conservatism.

— Because while nothing is more crucial to conserving conservatism than protecting those hallowed norms that translate into politicizing the DOJ, the FBI, the Intel community, the IRS, et al., while simultaneously using executive orders to destroy energy independence, import millions of unvetted illegals, and wage lawfare against your political opponents, confrontational speech may just be a bridge too far!

It’s time to revisit Ayers’ et al., Prairie Fire manifesto, which laid out a blueprint for the violent socialist takeover of the US. It involved imprisoning political dissidents. Re-education camps. And even worse, for the intransigent.

Since we know that Barack Obama was a protégé of Ayers, and since we know that the Biden Administration is really the third Obama administration with a corrupt, incontinent, and addled figurehead who can barely read a teleprompter, it’s worth passing around the word: Cloward-Piven will mark the end of the middle class and create new dependents. Political opposition to this Great Reset will be criminalized. And then?

Utopia!

That’s the plan.

It can happen here. Biden’s speech last night shows that the more desperate the socialist authoritarians become to finish their project, the more latitude they’re willing to give themselves to allow the ends to justify the means.

We are here. Time is running out. What are we prepared to do about it?

Two Minutes Hate: Biden Rails Against His Fellow Americans in Dark, Threatening Prime-Time Speech

Joe Biden harangued and threatened the nation for 20 minutes on national TV on Thursday in a speech that will be remembered for its vicious rhetoric and blood-red lighting.

In the highly partisan speech, Biden railed against MAGA America like there was no tomorrow—he used the words “MAGA Republicans” 11 times in the first 12 minutes. Some of the most-used words in the speech were: violence, darkness, threat, and politics. The most-used word was “democracy,” the Marxist-leaning crowd’s favorite term of derision for our republic.

But that’s all Joe Biden’s got right now. By nearly every metric, America is worse off than it was during the Trump years, so Biden can only resort to fearmongering and demagoguery.

For most politicians, Independence Hall in Philadelphia would be the perfect backdrop for a patriotic speech. But Biden’s handlers apparently thought it would be better to stage the boss’s dark rhetoric with blood-red lighting and shadowy Marines standing at attention, suggesting a cross between the 6th circle of Hell and a Fidel Castro rally.

 

Even with the pink-washing, the speech was a bridge too far for CNN’s Brianna Keilar: