Jimmy Kimmel as Tom Paine? Absolutely! Raskin’s comparison of Jimmy Kimmel to Thomas Paine shows just how little today’s leaders understand about America’s founding—and how dangerously they govern because of it. By Stephen Soukup

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/20/jimmy-kimmel-as-tom-paine-absolutely/

he other day, after Disney/ABC decided to suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, rather than allow him to do his show and further attack President Trump and his supporters, Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin appeared on MSNBC and compared Kimmel and other talk show hosts to one of this nation’s best-known revolutionary figures. “They’re like modern Tom Paines,” the congressman intoned.

While some on the Right were upset by the comment, believing that Raskin had plied Kimmel and his ilk with undue praise, the comparison is, in many ways, quite apt. While it is true that none of the late-night hosts is smart enough or brave enough to inspire a nation to war with his writing—as Paine is said to have done with “Common Sense”—they are very much like him in other ways. You see, in addition to being an inspiring pamphlet writer, Thomas Paine was…how do I put this in a family-friendly publication? …an enormous jackass.

It’s important to note that Paine emigrated to the British American colonies in 1774, which is to say after the Boston Tea Party and after the proverbial die had already been cast and a conflict of some sort seemed inevitable. In other words, unlike most of the Founders, Paine came to America to be a part of the revolution. He didn’t live here and experience colonial rule, eventually concluding that his rights as an Englishman were being violated. He came specifically to agitate, to be revolutionary. His fundamental loyalty was not to the new American polity but to himself and his belief in the need to sweep away the old and start the world anew.

After the American Revolution, Paine eschewed the duties of a statesman to build the new nation and craft its new government, instead moving on, almost immediately, to his next adventure. In the subsequent years, Paine became an ardent supporter of the French Revolution, managed to win election as a representative to the French Revolutionary National Convention, was imprisoned for two years by Maximillien Robespierre, refused to learn that ironic lesson, plotted with Napoleon to invade Britain, returned to the United States only to be denied citizenship and the franchise by Gouverneur Morris (who actually wrote the Preamble to the Constitution), was refused burial by the local Quaker cemetery, and had his bones dug up by a fan who died with them in his house, from whence they were lost to posterity. Paine lived ignominiously and deservedly died ignominiously. Of all the American revolutionaries, he is the least deserving of the title “Founding Father” and the most deserving of being compared to a hack like Jimmy Kimmel.

Unfortunately, this is not what Congressman Raskin meant to do when he made the comparison. He meant to lionize Kimmel and convince people that the former host of “The Man Show” is a noble creature and a venerable patriot. In so doing, Raskin inadvertently revealed something annoying and potentially troubling about himself and those in his social circle (including his wife, Sarah Bloom Raskin, a highly respected law professor at Duke University and a former member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors): they don’t know a damn thing about this nation, its founding, or the purpose of the government its Founders established. If your go-to compliment for someone you respect and admire is to compare them to Thomas Paine, then that’s only because you don’t know anything about Thomas Paine. And that, in turn, suggests that you don’t know much at all about the founding of this great nation.

Dying to Get Out of Canada Canada’s euthanasia surge reveals the postmodern death cult’s grip—eroding truth, coercing the vulnerable, and exporting its lethal creed beyond its borders. By Thaddeus G. McCotter

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/20/dying-to-get-out-of-canada/

Postmodernism is a death cult—one to be defended against at every cancerous step this doctrine of disorder and destruction takes in its attempt to eradicate truth and tradition. What prompts this latest warning to be vigilant and proactive in thwarting the postmodern death cult? It is coming for the most vulnerable among us.

As I warned back in 2023 about Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD):

“Why should you care about Canada and assisted suicide? Well, in the first place, the American Left is constantly importing other nations’ insane and injurious policies…

“Best to keep an eye on Canada’s MAiD policies. The American Left does, and they like what they see. It’s why they want to ensure Canada’s assisted-suicide laws roll downhill to America. Sure, all life’s paths lead but to the grave. But we shouldn’t hurry to get there.”

Leftist Canadians disagree. And, since they run the country, that is bad news not only for the rest of Canada but also for the world, for the postmodern death cult is transnational.

In the years since 2023, euthanasia-mania has swept the sterile white hallways of Canadian government-run healthcare. Per a recent article by Breitbart’s John Hayward:

“Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), Canada’s preferred euphemism for euthanasia, has become so popular that practitioners struggle to meet demand.

“According to government figures for 2023, the last full year of statistics available, MAiD accounted for 4.7 percent of deaths nationwide, making Canada second only to the Netherlands. In Quebec, the figure is over seven percent, giving it the highest euthanasia rate in the world.”

The disciples of the postmodern death cult will argue, “So, what is wrong with personal autonomy?”

Firstly, there is increasing evidence that the patient’s personal autonomy no longer has primacy in the decision to end their life. As Hayward notes, “The Canadian public still seems to support MAiD, but with growing unease that lofty talk of ‘patient autonomy’ is a smokescreen for people being pushed into euthanasia as a cost-effective alternative to prolonged medical treatment.” This is especially disconcerting, as the government-run healthcare system is severely strained financially. In Canada, Grandma being pushed into taking, as Dr. Obama suggested, the blue pill is a distinct prospect—and a not-too-distant one for Americans?

Iran Regime’s Long Game: Today Diplomacy, Tomorrow Retaliation by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21915/iran-regime-long-game-retaliation

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has made it clear that if biting UN sanctions are reinstated by the West, there will be no nuclear inspections.

Whenever the Iranian regime begins to speak the language of cooperation and compromise, it is not because its leaders have chosen moderation out of principle or newfound goodwill.

Iran’s leadership is using the threat of non-cooperation as leverage: it is signaling that nuclear inspections will be blocked and compliance will be withheld unless the West grants concessions or delays reinstating sanctions. The leadership in Tehran understands that failure to prevent this could most likely spell the beginning of the end for its rule. That is why it has chosen to play the card of conditional diplomacy and intimidation.

What Tehran seeks now is exactly what it received a decade ago during the Obama years: time and relief. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action “nuclear deal” was portrayed by the West as a breakthrough for peace and nonproliferation. In reality, it offered the Islamic Republic a lifeline. Billions of dollars were unlocked through sanctions relief, oil revenues surged, and access to the global financial system was restored.

Rather than moderating, Iran used those resources to arm Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and other proxies.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never responded to anything but credible force. The destruction of its nuclear facilities this summer proved this, and the knowledge that further strikes could follow is one of the few things restraining the regime’s ambitions. Verification, not promises, must be the standard. Inspections should be immediate, intrusive and unconditional. Any attempt by Tehran to delay, restrict or politicize access must be met with swift consequences.

Its threats regarding nuclear inspections make it clear that Tehran is trying to force the West into concessions while maintaining the ability to obstruct verification. This is the old game it has played time and again. The West cannot afford to be deceived once more. The victims of 1983, 1994, 2001 and October 7, 2023 stand as a reminder of what happens when Iran is given space to recover.

The snapback sanctions must proceed, military pressure must remain, and the West must deny the regime the “oxygen” it seeks.

Iran’s threats demonstrate that its “cooperation” comes with strings attached, designed to intimidate and extract concessions. Do not fall again for its trap. Do not let the devil get up.

The Iranian regime has suddenly shifted its tone in recent weeks. It is now — sort of — presenting itself as willing to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Headlines have been dominated by announcements that Tehran is – maybe — prepared to allow inspectors back into its nuclear facilities, to resume talks with Western powers, and to abide by stricter oversight of its atomic activities.

At first glance, these gestures may seem like a breakthrough. Unfortunately, history demands a more skeptical reading. This is not a sign of fundamental change within the regime. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has made it clear that if biting UN sanctions are reinstated by the West, there will be no nuclear inspections. Iran’s willingness to “cooperate” is conditional and coercive. The regime is threatening to withhold compliance to pressure the international community into softening sanctions and granting concessions, all while seeking a carefully staged maneuver designed to buy time, regain breathing space, and prepare for a stronger counterpunch down the line.

Syria: Al-Sharaa’s Campaign of Extermination against Druze, Minorities by Uzay Bulut

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21914/syria-sharaa-extermination-druze-minorities

“Other groups were reported held hostage in Dar’aa and Idlib, locations where the Jolani regime is still utilizing ‘extra judicial’ prisons and has a market for the ‘spoils of war,’ as they call the abducted people. The regime provides no information about their current status or condition.” — Socrates Naufal, a Druze from Syria, to Gatestone.

“The Jolani regime (HTS/al-Nusra) declares…its attacks on [the Druze] as a jihad (holy war). The deeper reason, however, is that Sweida and the Druze community have consistently called for a secular, democratic Syria based on equal citizenship, human rights, and the rule of law. This vision directly contradicts the Islamic state government that Jolani seeks to impose…. The Druze stand for an alternative Syria that extremists cannot tolerate.” — Socrates Naufal, to Gatestone.

“The Druze are hoping that the US and EU will recognize the true nature of this threat. Washington says it is committed to eliminating ISIS, yet ISIS is part of the forces aligned with the Jolani regime. HTS/Al-Nusra is merely another name for ISIS. Normalizing relations with such a regime means nothing but supporting terrorists and empowering them to expand their influence.” — Socrates Naufal, to Gatestone.

“The West needs to be clear-eyed: these groups are built on an ideology that rejects democracy as a ‘heresy’ against Allah’s law, denies universal human rights by placing Muslims above all others, and suppresses any attempt at building national institutions in favor of an ‘Islamic nation.'” — Socrates Naufal, to Gatestone.

“The Druze….are hoping that the US and EU will not only to refuse to legitimize extremist regimes but also that they will recognize the threat to its existence the Druze community face. The Druze are hoping that they will provide protection, and support their right to self-determination. They need to demand the safe return of abducted civilians, clarify of the fate of the missing – and establish a humanitarian corridor, an independent international commission of inquiry, and unfettered access for the media and the press.”— Socrates Naufal, to Gatestone.

“Jolani committed the massacre in July under the pretext of ‘extending state control over all Syrians.’ In Sweida, however, he acted selectively. He demanded the disarmament of Sweida but did not demand the disarmament of the Sunni Arab tribes, who are surrounding and attacking Sweida …” — Amr Fahed, a Druze from Syria, to Gatestone.

“The Druze are hoping that the US and EU will recognize the real nature of this threat. Washington says it is committed to eliminating ISIS, yet ISIS is part of the forces aligned with the Jolani regime. HTS/Al-Nusra is merely another name for ISIS. Normalizing relations with such a regime means nothing but supporting terrorists and empowering them to expand their influence.” — Amr Fahed, to Gatestone.

“Strategically, controlling Sweida means controlling the border with Jordan, which al-Sharaa’s regime seeks as part of its political project. The ultimate goal of the regime is to subjugate Sweida and integrate it into the ‘Islamic administration’ project promoted by the regime, but strongly rejected by the people of Sweida.” — Amr Fahed, a Druze from Syria, to Gatestone.

“The Western governments also have not contributed to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which calls for a political transition in Syria with the participation of all Syrians.” — Samer Fahed, a Druze from Syria, to Gatestone.

How much longer will the West tolerate this “experiment”?

On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners, flew them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, murdering approximately 3,000 people and wounding thousands of others.

In 2012, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — the leader of ISIS — tasked Ahmed al-Sharaa (aka Abu Mohammad al-Julani) with forming a contingent of al-Qaeda in Syria. Sharaa then set up this al-Qaeda branch, naming it the Nusrah Front (Jabhat al-Nusra) and put in into action taxing civilians, looting factories, and kidnapping civilians for hefty ransoms. At one point, the Nusrah Front was helping support the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq. In 2013, Sharaa declared the organization’s allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and expressed their “pride in the banner of the Islamic State in Iraq.”

Spain arrests 19 on suspicion of torture and murder after 50 disappear from migrant boat: George Wright

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jm11lmx71o

Spanish police say they have arrested 19 people suspected of murder and torture after more than 50 went missing from a migrant boat that was travelling from Senegal to the Canary Islands.

Police suspect some of the victims were accused of being “witches” after several incidents during the journey, including engine failure, bad weather and food shortages.

The wooden vessel was rescued south of Gran Canaria on 24 August with 248 survivors on board, the Spanish National Police said.

But officials believe that about 300 people were originally on the boat, and that some had been thrown overboard.

Survivors told police that some of their fellow passengers began “attacking dozens of people, beating and abusing them in various ways”, a police statement said.

“In some cases, they threw migrants into the sea alive and refused to rescue those who fell in by accident.”

Suspected killings were also documented “simply because some people protested or expressed their dissatisfaction with the conditions of the voyage”, the statement said.

One male passenger died in hospital after being found seriously ill when the vessel was intercepted, according to police.

Those on board included people from Senegal, Guinea, Mali, Gambia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea-Bissau, local media reported.

All 19 suspects are in pretrial detention facing charges of facilitating irregular immigration, homicide, assault and torture.

Spain is one of the frontline entry points for irregular migration into Europe, with most entering via the Canary Islands.

Almost 47,000 migrants reached the archipelago in 2024, setting a record for a second year, but numbers have been far lower so far this year, the Spanish Interior Ministry said.

The problem is the normalization of hate, not cancel culture Firing those who dissent is troubling. But progressive hate cheering for Hamas and the murder of Charlie Kirk, along with right-wing conspiracy theories, shouldn’t be platformed. Jonathan Tobin

https://www.jns.org/the-problem-is-the-normalization-of-hate-not-cancel-culture/?utm_campaign=

For many readers of The Washington Post who care about the normalization of antisemitism, it was a case of good riddance. Karen Attiah was named the newspaper’s first Global Opinions editor in 2016 and has been a columnist since 2021. This week, she claimed that she was fired over what the newspaper said was a series of posts about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which the paper said were “unacceptable,” and constituted “gross misconduct” and “endangering the physical safety of colleagues.”

Are her posts about Kirk’s murder reason enough to lose her job?

Corrupted institutions

Her publishers’ excuses and disingenuous “safety” language notwithstanding, the real issue with Attiah or any other similar situation isn’t really about cancel culture.

It’s what it says about the Post, The New York Times and other corporate media institutions that employ many people like her. That they thought placing radical hate-mongers like Attiah in charge of influential platforms was a good idea in the first place is the problem.

We should be extremely wary of engaging in a culture war in which the goal is to silence, shame and even hound out of the public square people with whom we disagree. The question we should be asking in the wake of this latest example of political violence is not about how best to punish those who use their social-media accounts to say terrible things. It’s why we have allowed institutions that should be the bulwark of democracy, like journalism, to be so corrupted as to normalize the sort of public discourse from people like Attiah, whose goal is to tear down the foundations of the American republic and Western civilization.

Attiah has every right to say what she likes. And the same goes for anyone else who unfairly and insensitively defamed Kirk after his death. The same applies to those extremists on the far right who sought to exploit the assassination to promote their own brand of conspiracy theories, whether it was the libelous claim that Israel was responsible or other antisemitic insinuations about the crime.

No one should interfere with the ability of those who behave in this fashion to post on social media (so long as they are not directly advocating violence), stand on street corners or march in the streets while spouting their lies, whether about Kirk, other conservatives, or Israel and the Jews. Still, that doesn’t entitle them to a job at the top newspapers in the country, a tenured professorship at an Ivy League university or a position at a private company whose owners want no part of such madness. And it ought not to grant immunity from criticism or legal action when they violate the law or help fund radical groups like Antifa or Students for Justice in Palestine, both of which promote violence and hate.

Why the Oxford Union’s Charlie Kirk scandal matters The president-elect’s crass comments offer an alarming insight into Britain’s next generation of rulers. Lisa McKensie

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/18/why-the-oxford-unions-charlie-kirk-scandal-matters/

The president-elect of the Oxford Union, George Abaraonye, has prompted outrage after making comments that appeared to celebrate the murder of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk. On WhatsApp, Abaraonye said, ‘Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s fucking go’. On his Instagram account, another post read: ‘Charlie Kirk got shot loool.’

These posts were widely condemned. And no wonder – Abaraonye had actually met and debated Kirk at the Oxford Union. To respond so callously to his murder reflects very badly on him. But the controversy hasn’t just shed light on this particular president-elect’s lack of decency and moral judgement – it has also focussed attention on the Oxford Union as an institution.

Indeed, since Abaraonye’s posts came to light, there have been questions asked of how the union is run and how he came to be its president-elect. There have even been public demands in national newspapers for his resignation, for his sacking, for new elections. At first sight, all this focus on a debating society might seem odd. But the Oxford Union is not just any debating society. It is also a key institution in the production of Britain’s ruling elites. Its reputation matters.

Having personally debated at both the Oxford Union and its equally prestigious counterpart at Cambridge, I understand the almost sacred status these institutions hold. They are the oldest debating societies in the world – Cambridge was established in 1815, followed by Oxford in 1823. Above all, they are central to the perpetuation of the British class system. Over the years, influential and famous individuals have graced their floors, from Michelle Obama to Malcolm X to Winston Churchill. An invitation to speak is rarely refused, even by former US presidents.

Tal Fortgang The Dangerous Celebration of Luigi Mangione It’s his admirers’ adulation, not the court’s decision to toss first-degree murder charges, that should concern us most.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/luigi-mangione-murder-terror-charges

Luigi Mangione appeared to get off easy on Tuesday. The judge overseeing his New York State prosecution tossed first-degree murder charges against Mangione, who stands accused of shooting health-care executive Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Outside, scores of adoring onlookers cheered for the apparent murderer.

Enthusiasm for Mangione—not because anyone thinks he is not guilty, but because his fans revel in Thompson’s death—does not seem to have diminished. Meantime, many who rightly want Mangione punished for his heinous crime are perplexed by the judge’s conclusion that Mangione should not be considered a terrorist because he merely wished “to draw attention to what he perceived as the greed of the insurance industry.”

That may seem like splitting hairs. And it’s not clear why the judge should decide the question of Mangione’s motives rather than put the question to a jury. Nonetheless, the law will take care of Mangione. It’s his fans glee, not the court’s decision, that should concern us.

Why the change of charge? In New York, first-degree murder requires proof that the defendant intentionally killed someone else plus an additional factor, such as the victim being a cop or first responder; the homicide occurring in furtherance of other heinous crimes like kidnapping; the killing committed as an act of terrorism; and other possible aggravated circumstances.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg tried to get Mangione charged for terrorism, defined in statute as an attempt to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation.” It’s not obvious that Mangione’s crime fits that bill, though it is arguable.

If Mangione had been convicted of first-degree murder, he would receive life imprisonment. He now instead faces a second-degree murder charge. That crime carries the same penalty, except that life imprisonment is now merely a maximum sentence rather than a mandatory one. D.A. Bragg will surely push for that maximum if and when the time comes.

The UK Will Make Middle East Navigation Harder by Recognizing Palestine as a State Starmer dodged Trump in London but still backed UK recognition of Palestine—moves critics say reward Hamas and endanger Israel’s security. By Fred Fleitz

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/19/the-uk-will-make-the-middle-east-harder-by-recognizing-palestine-as-a-state/

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer thought he could avoid a public spat with President Trump during his two-day visit to the UK by postponing his government’s controversial decision to recognize Palestine as a state until after Trump left the country. Although Starmer avoided a confrontation with President Trump over this issue, the president expressed his strong disagreement with the prime minister at a press conference before he departed.

A total of 23 European states will have recognized Palestine as a state by the end of September. Most recognitions were before 2015. Five occurred last year: Armenia, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain. This month will see four more: Belgium, France, Italy, and the UK.

France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK, and other European states also voted for a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution on September 12 that overwhelmingly passed and endorsed a two-state solution with a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.

Israel and the U.S. believe that the UK and other states recognizing Palestinian statehood and endorsing the two-state solution are very harmful to the peace process at a time when Hamas is refusing to negotiate in good faith to implement a cease-fire or to end the war.

The decisions by European governments to recognize Palestinian statehood also ignore Israel’s grave security concerns.

It is worth noting that the Palestinians did have their own state in Gaza after Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005 until Israel invaded following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre. Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in 2007 and used it to attack Israel in the years that followed, with over 20,000 rockets and mortars. Hamas staged the October 7 massacre against Israel from Gaza, involving about 6,000 militants and killing more than 1,100 Israelis, including many children. An additional 251 Israelis were taken hostage.

Israel invaded Gaza after the Hamas massacre to destroy Hamas and free Israeli hostages. The massacre also led Israeli officials to declare that the two-state solution and the idea of a Palestinian state were dead for the foreseeable future until security threats from the Palestinians can be resolved and the Palestinians are deradicalized.

Israeli officials have also been clear that it will never again allow Gaza to be ruled by Hamas or become a terrorist haven to conduct more attacks against Israel.

Many Western leaders initially agreed with the Israeli government’s response to the October 7 massacre and its decision to invade Gaza to destroy Hamas. However, over time, these leaders’ resolve to stand with Israel weakened due to negative press coverage, pressure from the anti-Israel Left, and Hamas propaganda.

Over the last two years, several weak Western leaders sided against Israel and endorsed a Palestinian state as a way to end the war, largely in response to constant media criticism of Israel. They chose to ignore not just Israel’s security concerns but also the Palestinian leadership’s consistent rejection of Israeli offers for a Palestinian state.

Reflections on the Coming Days of Rage There can be only one. by Mark Tapson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/reflections-on-the-coming-days-of-rage/

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was already positively impacting the world with his indefatigable, peaceful, joyful, godly work to change hearts and minds, but in mere days, his assassination by a cowardly sniper’s bullet has already launched a tsunami of change he likely could not have imagined. The world is entering a different epoch now, and as with all shifts into a new age, there will be birthing pains.

I can’t recall whose insight this was, but someone online observed that Charlie’s murder was an “Archduke Ferdinand moment” – referring to the assassination that triggered World War I. I think that captures the sobering magnitude of Charlie’s martyrdom (yes, literal martyrdom; as others have pointed out, Charlie was killed not for his politics but for his Christian faith, which shaped his political positions). But his brutal murder drives home the point that we are already in a hot civil war in this country – not just a culture war, not a figurative civil war, but a hot civil war.

But so far only one side has been waging that war. From the assassination of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson at the hands of a terrorist-turned-Left-wing-folk-hero, to the slaughter of Catholic schoolchildren at the hands of a demonic trans terrorist, to Charlie Kirk at the hands (allegedly) of a Left-radicalized young man (with a trans partner) who declared that “some hate can’t be negotiated out,” the Left has already declared war on the political opponents they deem to be fascist threats to democracy who must be exterminated like vermin (hence their dehumanizing rhetoric over the years since the reign of Barack Obama, intensified under Joe Biden).

I am old enough to remember another time when the Left normalized political violence in America. As Bryan Burroughs notes in his book Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, “radical violence was so deeply woven into the fabric of 1970s America that many citizens, especially in New York and other hard-hit cities, accepted it as part of daily life.” Burroughs quotes a retired FBI agent who noted, “People have completely forgotten but in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States. It was every day. Buildings getting bombed, policemen getting killed. It was commonplace.”

My record at predictions is mixed at best, so I hope I’m wrong about this one, but I believe we are about to enter a new Days of Rage. Political violence is about to become even more “commonplace.” The Left’s repugnant response to Charlie’s murder has already demonstrated that they are not going to be shocked into policing themselves and de-escalating the violence, much less their demonizing, vicious rhetoric. Some Democrat leaders, like Barack Obama, have issued obligatory, tepid statements denouncing political violence, but do not expect that any “moderate” elements on the Left will prevail. The Democrat Party is controlled by the radical Left, and has been since well before the calculated, meteoric rise of Barack Obama.