In America, Mass Murder Academy Is Always in Session

Gun control partisans sometimes claim that rampage shootings are a uniquely American affliction, caused by our failure to imitate other countries’ gun policies. It’s true that other countries have fewer school shootings than we have. But uninformed anti-gun Americans overstate their case.

There have been massacres in Germany, Scotland, Canada, Brazil, the Soviet Union, China, Japan and South Korea. And the foreign countries do not rely exclusively on gun policy to prevent gun violence in their schools.

For example, rating by the Ministry of Justice is mandatory for all video games released in Brazil. As a result of that prospect of scrutiny and accountability, online game stores do not sell their most violent and harmful games in the Brazilian market.

The Brazilian government outlawed Mortal Kombat, Postal, Carmageddon, Requiem, Blood and other violent first-person shooter games in 1999 after a 24-year-old medical student killed several people at a cinema, re-enacting a bloody Duke Nukem video game scenario.

Sega gained a competitive advantage over Nintendo in the U.S. market by allowing a bloodier, more brutal version of the Mortal Kombat game. But Sega canceled release of that most inhumane version in Spain, where the government was unlikely to tolerate it.

South Korea and Australia banned the Mortal Kombat game altogether.

Germans passed the Children and Young Persons Protection Act in response to the Erfurt Massacre of 2002, in which an expelled 19-year-old student killed 16 at his high school.

It was already illegal to provide content on how to commit a crime, and to glorify or trivialize violence. But the new law created an age-based system for listing and restricting video games that are harmful to youth, whether due to violence or a dark and threatening atmosphere.

American game publishers and developers began to release edited versions of their games in the German market in order to avoid a restrictive rating that would depress sales. Microsoft opted not to release its third-person shooter Gears of War game in the German market, and did not initially submit to the rating system.

Gears of War was nevertheless imported into Germany by travelers. The government then revised its system to presume that unrated imported video games deserve the most severe restrictions. The first two iterations of Gears of War were added to the restricted “index” of media harmful to youth.

German prosecutors enforced the index, and youth welfare agencies brought violations to their attention. On the third phase, Microsoft finally relented and submitted to the German rating system.

Americans have attempted to counter the influence of toxic entertainment media here, too, but have been unable to overcome elite opposition in Congress, the courts and the mainstream media.

After the Columbine High School massacre, President Bill Clinton denounced “video games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct and Doom, the very game played obsessively by the two young men who ended so many lives at [Columbine].”

“What does it do to children, who see thousands of acts of violence on television,” asked Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001, “who are conditioned by video games to do things that are abhorrent to the human spirit?”

Manufacturers should “understand that there’s a certain responsibility in the development of video games,” he said.

Ashcroft said boys who massacred fellow students at Columbine (Colorado) and Heath (Kentucky) watched violent video games before their crimes. The Kentucky murderer learned tactical shooting skills in video games and was a better shot than most police officers, according to the Attorney General.

Industry spokesmen were dismissive of the idea that video games condition players to commit violence or that they can hone players’ marksmanship. Although everybody seems to agree that great art and literature can inspire us, many who enjoy or profit from the bad stuff claim to doubt that it’s harmful.

Yet an Australian university experiment studied participants who played Mortal Kombat and found that “playing violent video games leads players to see themselves, and their opponents, as lacking in core human qualities such as warmth, open-mindedness and intelligence.”

Simulated violence can lead to actual violence, wrote a University of Missouri psychology professor, because “to the extent that a player learns to make specific or violent responses in the context of the game, those same skills could transfer to scenarios outside the game, potentially increasing aggression in non-gaming situations.”

Novelist Stephen King, a former classroom teacher, was more sensitive than video game entrepreneurs to the fact that art and entertainment can rehearse adolescent violence. He was appalled to learn that the Kentucky shooter had a copy of King’s rampage novel, Rage, in his school locker. King asked his publisher to let it go out of print.

The U.S. courts have sided with the publishers against parents. When three parents of Heath High School shooting victims sued, their claim that media violence inspired the shootings got as far as the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before it was was dismissed in 2002.

It’s “simply too far a leap from shooting characters on a video screen to shooting people in a classroom,” that Court held. I don’t know enough about law to express an opinion on the legal merits of that holding. But it was certainly a dagger through the heart of any prospect of accountability for those who get rich degrading and destabilizing adolescent character, at the cost of great human suffering.

Even our video game industry’s rating system is a sham. The Video Game Decency Act of 2006 was an attack on the obvious corruption of our system, which relies on voluntary disclosure by publishers. It would treat publishers’ false descriptions of their video game content as “unfair or deceptive acts affecting interstate commerce” under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It died in committee. In other words, it was never even brought to the House floor for a vote.

Thus parents have no recourse against entertainment media corporations when their children fall in a media-inspired hail of bullets, and they have no reliable, authoritative rating system to guide them in shielding their own adolescents from material that might deform their character.

“A child growing up in America today witnesses 16,000 murders,” NRA executive Wayne LaPierre said after the Sandy Hook massacre, “and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. And throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.”

The suppression of American gun ownership will not reduce rampage shootings. When will we join the rest of the civilized world in confronting the loathsome commercial media, mostly American, that invades our families to entice and train our most troubled adolescents to slaughter classmates and teachers?

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Allegations About 40 Homosexual Priests Surface at Vatican

The archdiocese of Naples says it has sent the Vatican a 1,200-page dossier compiled by a male escort identifying 40 actively gay priests and seminarians in Italy.

In a statement on the diocesan website, Cardinal Cresenzio Sepe said none of the identified priests worked in Naples. But he said he decided to forward the file to the Vatican because “there remains the gravity of the cases for which those who have erred must pay the price, and be helped to repent for the harm done.”

The dossier, containing WhatsApp chats and other evidence, was compiled by a self-proclaimed gay escort, Francesco Mangiacapra. He has told Italian media that he outed the priests because he couldn’t stand their hypocrisy any longer. (Read more from “Allegations About 40 Homosexual Priests Surface at Vatican” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Can END the Tyranny of the Courts TOMORROW

No, the Constitution doesn’t vest the lower courts with the power to immediately shut down our sovereignty. Congress has complete control over courts’ subjects of jurisdiction, as well as the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This was made evident by a pair of high court opinions issued this week. These cases were relatively low-profile, but if Congress were paying attention, these cases should provide a blueprint for dealing with the political tyranny from the lower courts.

Tuesday, the Washington Times published an analysis of a trend we’ve been observing here for quite some time: How district judges have illegally seized the weapon of nationwide injunctions to place a national, illegal veto on every practice, tradition, law, and policy under the sun. The article quotes from legal scholars noting that this trend is very new and it has expanded the role of a court from settling disputes between two plaintiffs to essentially vetoing and determining national policy.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell: Leftist organizations can take any executive action and find a radical district judge within a liberal circuit to enjoin the entire practice nationwide and automatically win the appeal. They get to determine where to litigate any issue that is national in scope and will never take it to a circuit where they will lose. Thus, none of the good judges Trump is appointing in places like the Fifth and Eight Circuits will ever hear these cases. The Left wins every time, and there is never a circuit split, so the Supreme Court takes up appeals slowly, if ever. This is how we have the most extreme judges shutting down national policy and violating Supreme Court precedent and rarely being rebuked before their edicts do irreversible damage to our country. It also has the effect of swaying public opinion against a policy, because voters are treated to constant headlines of “Trump’s policy struck down,” or “Another Trump action ruled unconstitutional,” even though the Supreme Court justices would eventually overturn it if the case actually came before them.

Congress could simply clarify, in the Rules Enabling Act governing the administrative procedures of the courts, that the courts lack any power to issue nationwide injunctions beyond the individual plaintiff. Dave Brat’s bill does just that.

But if members of Congress were paying attention to the Supreme Court this week, particularly to Justice Thomas, they would see that their power over the courts is much more expansive than they think.

Ideally, the plain language of Article III Sec. II, along with its robust history, should be enough for Congress to remember that it has the power to determine any subject-matter jurisdiction and rules of standing before a federal court. But we all know that the Constitution is no longer the law of the land; the Supreme Court is. So, let’s review what the Supreme Court said this week.

Patchak v. Zinke

Patchak v. Zinke was a very complex multi-tiered litigation by a Michigan private landowner who sued the interior secretary for taking over neighboring lands into a trust so that an Indian tribe could build a casino. The details of the underlying case are not important for our purposes. What is relevant is that after the first round of litigation over whether the plaintiff had standing, Congress passed legislation kicking all federal courts out of this arcane issue, something we have long called for on important political issues. In 2014, Congress passed the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which stated that any legal action “relating to the land [in question] shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed.” Thus, Congress categorically blocked all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating any claims about this land.

On Tuesday, the high court released an opinion, 7-2 in judgement and 6-3 on the merits, in favor of the act of Congress. The majority ruled that Congress can categorically strip the courts of any jurisdiction over a particular subject, even when it is clearly intended to influence the outcome of only one particular case that is already in the process of adjudication. All nine justices affirmed the plenary power of Congress to strip jurisdiction over entire categories of subject matter from the courts. The only disagreement was whether Congress can use jurisdiction-stripping to reverse a specific case that is already pending in court. Justices Roberts and Gorsuch dissented because they felt this law went too far and was tantamount to actually engaging in the judicial power. Justice Sotomayor agreed with the rationale of the dissent but sided with the majority in upholding the act of Congress for a technical reason. Yet the six other justices were clear that even in this case, Congress was exercising its legislative authority over the judiciary, not actually ruling in favor of a particular plaintiff, even if indirectly that is the outcome and even the intent of Congress.

Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas observed:

Congress generally does not infringe the judicial power when it strips jurisdiction because, with limited exceptions, a congressional grant of jurisdiction is a prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power.

And more specifically to this case:

[T]he legislative power is the power to make law, and Congress can make laws that apply retroactively to pending lawsuits, even when it effectively ensures that one side wins.

In other words, while Congress can’t exercise the judicial power (“In Smith v. Jones, Smith wins,” for example), the legislature has the power to exercise full control over the judicial branch of government. Contrary to what you hear in the political class, the judiciary is not supreme or even equal, at least not in the traditional sense. And if Congress exercises its legislative powers and Art. III Sec. II powers to make “exceptions and regulations” to the jurisdiction of the courts, then courts cannot rule on that particular matter.

Specifically related to immigration, there already are existing statutes that do just that, yet they need to be asserted more clearly and expanded. The Department of Justice won’t even assert them in litigation. Which brings me to the next major opinion from this week.

Jennings v. Rodriguez

In 2013, an extreme district judge in California gave standing to a criminal alien going through deportation proceedings to sue on behalf of all detained aliens and demand bond hearings. The district judge and the Ninth Circuit essentially ruled that criminal aliens (whom even Obama wanted to deport) must be given bond hearings every six months to be released into our communities, even though they are the consummate flight risk. They, of course, applied a nationwide injunction.

Thankfully, after this injunction hampered for years our interior enforcement and turned America into a dumping ground, we got relief from the Supreme Court, which voted 5-3 (Justice Kagan had to recuse) to remand the case back to the Ninth Circuit.

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion, noting that the courts should never have granted standing to this alien to begin with and that the case should immediately be dismissed, not just remanded. Existing law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9), 1226(c)) already kicks the courts out of this case altogether, in their opinion. Thomas seemed bewildered that the DOJ didn’t even assert this argument. This is a point I’ve made, that the DOJ didn’t assert a similar jurisdiction-stripping provision (§1201(h)(i)) against litigation pertaining to denial of visas as part of the immigration pause executive order.

Justice Alito, writing for the plurality, disagreed on technical grounds because he read the statute differently, but it is clear that five justices believe Congress clearly has the authority to kick the courts completely out of most immigration litigation as long as the statute does so clearly.

The three liberals, of course, made the argument that denying bail to criminal aliens in deportation proceedings would violate the Constitution (their version of it), and as such, Congress could not pass a law sidelining them from such litigation. But we already knew they would say that. However, even under their system, although bail against indefinite detention without deportation is a constitutional right, there is no right to immigrate or not to be deported, and there is no reason Congress cannot strip the courts of the power to adjudicate such cases.

It is more clear than ever now that in cases pertaining to life, marriage, immigration, election law, religious monuments, and religious liberty, five justices should easily agree that Congress can certainly prospectively strip the courts of jurisdiction when the statute is not aimed exclusively at a particular pending case as a means of siding with one party. And most certainly Congress can do so just for the lower courts, which have posed the most serious problems for our country. Even the four most liberal justices, who assert that Congress can’t strip the Supreme Court of power to hear an appeal on what they deem is a constitutional right, must agree that since Congress could abolish the lower courts altogether, Congress can strip the lower courts of jurisdiction while leaving an avenue to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

So why is almost nobody in Congress or at the White House demanding legislation that says, in effect, “any legal action relating to litigation against a deportation or the granting of affirmative rights to illegal aliens shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed”? Or on life and Christian memorials?

The sad thing is that so many members of Congress are ignorant about the powers of their own branch of government. Thus, we will continue to be ruled by unelected federal judges who serve for life. (For more from the author of “Congress Can END the Tyranny of the Courts TOMORROW” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Huckabee Resigns From Position on Country Music Group

On Wednesday, the Country Music Association announced the newest members of the board of its charitable foundation: singer Chris Young and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R).

The announcement of the latter immediately raised eyebrows in Nashville, because the CMA actively tries to stay out of politics — and some in the industry protested because of his political views. Then, about 24 hours after the announcement, Huckabee resigned.

“The CMA Foundation has accepted former Governor Mike Huckabee’s resignation from its Board of Directors, effective immediately,” a CMA spokeswoman said in a statement on Thursday afternoon.

The harshest public condemnation came from manager Jason Owen, who called Huckabee’s appointment “grossly offensive” and “a detrimentally poor choice by CMA and its leaders.” Owen’s management company, Sandbox, represents country music stars such as Faith Hill, Kacey Musgraves and Little Big Town, currently featured on the front page of the CMA Foundation’s website. He also co-owns the label Monument Records, a division of Sony Music, with high-profile songwriter-producer Shane McAnally. (Read more from “Huckabee Resigns From Position on Country Music Group” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Just Like Vegas, Authorities Are Hiding the Surveillance Footage of Parkland Shooting

In the weeks since the tragic shooting occurred in Parkland, Florida, we have learned that cops cowered outside instead of helping, the police and FBI were all warned on multiple occasions that the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, told people he was going to shoot up the school, nearly two dozen people reported Cruz for death threats, and first responders were told to stand down. Now, we are finding out that the surveillance footage from the school — which the public has a right to see — is being deliberately kept secret by the Broward county sheriff — which many say is illegal.

Broward county sheriff Scott Israel, who has already been caught contradicting the official story, is claiming that the surveillance footage must remain secret.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel, the Miami Herald and CNN have filed an open records lawsuit against the Israel and school Superintendent Robert Runcie for their role in this secrecy.

Officials claim that the video is exempt from Florida sunshine laws because its release would somehow put lives at risk and expose the district’s security system. However, as the NY Post reports, this is not true.

First, disclosure of the videos would pose no danger to students because Building 12, where the shooting took place, will be demolished.

Second, key investigative records, transcripts and logs in the active criminal probe against the Parkland school shooter have already been released to the public. Israel himself coughed up call logs documenting 23 times the shooter’s family or neighbors called deputies to the house. Additional dispatch records obtained by local and national media outlets revealed 22 more calls to law enforcement dating back to 2008 that had not been initially communicated by the selectively disclosing sheriff.

Moreover, the open-records lawsuit notes that Israel has already publicly described in detail what the video shows about Peterson’s actions: He arrived at the west side of Building 12, took position, got on his radio, had a view of the western entry of Building 12 but never went in for “upwards of four minutes” while the shooter slaughtered 17 innocent students and teachers.

By refusing to release the video, police are creating an environment that fosters distrust, and rightfully so.

In case after case of “terror” attacks in the United States, the surveillance footage is immediately released in almost every incident. However, in Parkland and Las Vegas — two shootings that have been surrounded by controversy and cover ups — the public has seen nothing.

Within hours of a terrorist attack in New York City, the surveillance footage of Akayed Ullah walking into the underground tunnel between Times Square and the Port Authority Bus Terminal and detonating a crudely-made pipe bomb was released.

Before that, a suspect, identified as Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, rented a pickup truck, drove it onto a busy bicycle path and mowed down innocent people before getting out and brandishing toy guns. Almost immediately after the horrific attack that left 8 dead and a dozen more injured, video of Saipov, an Uzbekistan native, was released.

It has been months since the attack in Vegas and officials have yet to release a single still image of Stephan Paddock in the Mandalay Bay Casino. This is in spite of the thousands of cameras both inside and outside of the casino.

Now, it appears, this same secrecy and cover-up is going to happen in Parkland. Hopefully, for the sake of the victims and their families, and in the interest of the public, the lawsuits will resolve successfully, and the evidence will be released — even if it is damning to the image of the Broward sheriff. Indeed, the Broward Circuit Court agrees.

“If there were shortcomings,” Broward Circuit Court Judge Charles Greene concluded, “the public has the right to know.” (For more from the author of “Just Like Vegas, Authorities Are Hiding the Surveillance Footage of Parkland Shooting” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Oprah Is Worse Than Obama

. . .Liberals buzzed about Oprah Winfrey possibly running for president in 2020 after she gave a phony, preacher-style speech at the Golden Globe Awards. She congratulated Hollywood women for accusing men of sexual harassment in the latest trend called “Me Too” or “Time’s Up” – a movement to destroy all men and get rid of due process.

At first, Oprah said she doesn’t have it in her “DNA” to run for president. But with so many people saying they’d support her, she’s thinking about it. She said that she would need to hear from “God” very clearly in order to run . . .

If you want to know what liberal black women do when in charge, just look at any ghetto in America, where black women run the homes. The children are out of control. The men are weak. Gangs, drugs and violence rule the areas. Black women vote for liberal Democrats – at a rate of 98 percent in Alabama’s recent election – and evil people worship them for doing so . . .

Oprah props up transgenders and homosexuals as “enlightened” people living “authentically,” such as Janet Mock, a black man who thinks he’s a woman. Barack Obama pushed transgenders in the military, put them in the wrong bathrooms and locker rooms, gave “sex-change” treatment to criminals, and let Chelsea Manning out of prison early. He made wrong people feel right (as Oprah called it, living “your truth”), but he attacked decent people as wrong.

Obama declared in a speech that illegal aliens wouldn’t receive socialized health care. Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie!” Wilson was right; despite lip-service wording in the Affordable Care Act, hundreds of millions of dollars went to give Obamacare to illegals. But Oprah accused Wilson of showing “disrespect” because Obama is “African-American.” What an evil lie! (Read more from “Why Oprah Is Worse Than Obama” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kasich: Don’t Ask Permission on Gun Control, Just Do It

Ohio Gov. John Kasich advised lawmakers in Congress to pass legislation on gun control and relief for so-called Dreamers and then ask permission from President Trump once the bills have reached his desk.

The Republican bemoaned the pace at which Congress is working and how Republicans continually seek the president’s approval before bringing bills to the floor.

“I think the president will sign something, and if he doesn’t, send it to him anyway,” Kasich said of the gun control measures floating around Congress. “Don’t ask permission.”

Kasich said he’s been pressured by millennials frustrated by how long it takes to pass legislation in statehouses and Congress. (Read more from “Kasich: Don’t Ask Permission on Gun Control, Just Do It” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI’s Dossier Work May Have Been ‘Criminal’

By WND. The FBI’s decision to use the unverified “dossier” about President Trump in a top-secret spy court that authorized surveillance on the Trump campaign may have been a crime, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.

The dossier contains the salacious claims that were assembled by a former British spy using Russian sources for a company linked politically to and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.

The dossier was the basis for the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s campaign, including special counsel Robert Mueller’s so-far failed hunt for evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Fox reported House Intelligence Committee chief Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the FBI, “in this instance,” violated “basic operating guidance.”

“The FBI may have violated criminal statutes, as well as its own strict internal procedures, by using unverified information during the 2016 election to obtain a surveillance warrant on onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee charged Thursday,” Fox reported. (Read more from “FBI’s Dossier Work May Have Been ‘Criminal'” HERE)

___________________________________________

Rep. Devin Nunes says the FBI violated its own rules, and may have skirted federal law, by using a Democratic Party-bought dossier to spy on a Trump campaign volunteer.

By The Washington Times. Rep. Devin Nunes says the FBI violated its own rules, and may have skirted federal law, by using a Democratic Party-bought dossier to spy on a Trump campaign volunteer. . .

The manual, Mr. Nunes says in his March 1 letter, states, “The accuracy of information contained within FISA applications is of utmost importance …. Only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications [FISA] to the court [FISC].”

He said that Justice Department and FBI witnesses confirmed that the unverified dossier made up a big part of the warrant application and without it there would have been no application.

Mr. Sessions already announced Tuesday that Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz will investigate how Justice Department and FBI agents handled the warrant presentation, which was renewed three times. (Read more from “Nunes: FBI on Shaky Legal Ground With Use of Dem-Funded Dossier to Wiretap Trump Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

On FIRE: Watch This GOP Senate Candidate Stun Second Amendment Snowflakes Into Recess

A Virginia lawmaker running in the Republican primary to challenge U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., outraged Democrats in the state legislature Friday with his fiery speech in support of the Second Amendment.

In response to recent attacks from Democrats on pro-gun Republicans, Delegate Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, asked his fellow lawmakers to have an “open and honest debate” on the factors that lead to mass shootings. Freitas noted that most mass shootings seem to occur in “gun-free zones” and that most mass shooters “come from broken homes.”

“Most of the shooters come from broken homes. What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes?” Freitas asked. He also noted that the presence of firearms can deter violent crime and that there is a natural right to self-defense.

“So when people on this side talk about the importance of the Second Amendment, please understand it’s not just some base philosophical conviction that we all have,” Freitas said. “It is rooted in the idea that while we may be a post-Enlightenment society, the vast majority of horrible atrocities we’ve seen have happened in those post-Enlightenment societies. It’s happened as a result of government systematically disarming citizens and claiming themselves to be the sole responsible party for their security and then turning on those same citizens and punishing them.”

“That’s the most egregious cases, but in the individual cases of self-defense, that’s why people on this side of the aisle hold the Second Amendment in such high esteem. Because we honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself. And your ability to defend yourself should not be excluded to your size.”

Democrats in the chamber were not pleased with his speech, according to Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter Graham Moomaw.

Freitas said that Democrats are making an open debate on gun policy difficult by comparing Republicans to “Nazis” and “segregationists.” He fought back, noting that it was the Democrats who were the party of slavery and segregation.

“I just want to remind everyone very quickly, it was not our [Republican] party that supported slavery, that fought women’s suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and put them in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation, supported mass resistance. That wasn’t our party, that was the Democrat party.”

Democrats were reportedly so upset that they asked for recess, while Freitas received cheers from Republicans.

Freitas has earned a reputation in Virginia politics as an exceptional public speaker. This is not the first passionate speech he’s delivered in the House of Delegates. (For more from the author of “On FIRE: Watch This GOP Senate Candidate Stun Second Amendment Snowflakes Into Recess” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leftists SLAM New Bruce Willis Movie as ‘Racist’, ‘Evil’ ‘NRA Commercial’

Leftists are slamming a new Bruce Willis movie as a “racist” “commercial for the NRA.”

Opening this weekend, “Death Wish,” a remake of the 1974 film of the same name, stars Willis as Paul Kersey, a Chicago doctor who turns vigilante to exact his revenge on a group of men who murdered his wife and brutally attacked his daughter. Here’s a synopsis from RottenTomatoes:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures presents director Eli Roth’s reimagining of the 1974 revenge thriller Death Wish. Dr. Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis) is a surgeon who only sees the aftermath of his city’s violence when it is rushed into his ER – until his wife (Elisabeth Shue) and college-age daughter (Camila Morrone) are viciously attacked in their suburban home. With the police overloaded with crimes, Paul, burning for revenge, hunts his family’s assailants to deliver justice. As the anonymous slayings of criminals grabs the media’s attention, the city wonders if this deadly avenger is a guardian angel or a grim reaper. Fury and fate collide in the intense action-thriller Death Wish. Paul Kersey becomes a divided person: a man who saves lives, and a man who takes them; a husband and father trying to take care of his family, and a shadowy figure fighting crime; a surgeon extracting bullets from suspects’ bodies, and a man seeking justice that detectives are quickly closing in on.

Sounds awesome, right? Leftist critics are hating on this movie, blasting it as “NRA-Agitprop” and white man “wish fulfillment.”

And then there’s NPR’s take: “A film ruthlessly engineered to target the pleasure-centers of the most fearful and fragile cohort of American maleness.” NPR!

So with all the leftist hate for this film dragging the NRA into another cultural controversy, conservatives are excited to see it.

The critic score on RottenTomatoes may be a measly 15 percent, but 80 percent of the audience loved it so far. “Death Wish” opens this weekend. Will all the leftist hate turn out conservatives to see this movie? (For more from the author of “Leftists SLAM New Bruce Willis Movie as ‘Racist’, ‘Evil’ ‘NRA Commercial'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.