Liberal Hypocrisy

Security for Minneapolis Council members who called to defund police totaled $152G

The taxpayers of Minneapolis will foot a $152,000 bill for security services given to three members of the City Council who received death threats following their calls to defund the police in the wake of George Floyd’s death. According to an investigative report by the local Fox 9 news outlet, the three council members, Andrea Jenkins (Ward 8), Phillipe Cunningham (Ward 4), and Alondra Cano (Ward 9), were granted a security detail shortly after Memorial Day, which cost the city about $4,500 a day and ended on June 29. Two security firms Aegis and BelCom were reportedly hired because police officials were overwhelmed with security needs following George Floyd’s death in police custody and the demonstrations that ensued for weeks after. “This security service was intended to be temporary and bridge to other security measures implemented by council members themselves,” a City spokesperson said. The City Council does not need to approve any expenses unless they exceed $175,000. The costs were therefore approved by City Coordinator Mark Ruff. “The contracts are within existing department budget limits,” the spokesperson said. “The contracts will not impact future tax rates,” they added. The Mayor’s office could not be reached for comment, but a spokesperson for the City said that the cost of the security detail a day, was roughly the same for the taxpayer as Minneapolis Police Department services. The threats on the council members’ lives were reportedly made after all three members were outspoken about defunding the police. The largely White police force has had a difficult time in gaining the public’s trust, and a proposal to defund the police and replace the force with “a department of community safety and violence prevention” is being reviewed. A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday for members of the community to ask questions or voice their concerns. According to a Fox 9 news report from earlier this week, 150 Minneapolis police officers are seeking disability for post-traumatic stress following the George Floyd protests. A total of 25 police officers have quit since the demonstrations and an additional 25 have sought extended leave.

This is so rich..  These idiot Minneapolis council members had personal security AFTER they pandered to the defund police mob.  They probably don’t realize the breathtaking hypocrisy of that.  But, hey..  They’re liberal Dems.  So, I’m repeating myself.  As for that comment about the mostly white police force there..  Yeah?  And?  Therefore what?  The Chief is black.  And, he’s a standup, good guy trying to do the right thing in his city, in spite of the idiocy and lack of support from those fools on the city council.

Opinion/Analysis: Dems attacking Trump for Roger Stone clemency defended outrageous Clinton and Obama pardons

President Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother for felony distribution of cocaine. And a key witness in the Whitewater scandal for which he and Hillary Clinton were under investigation. And three others convicted in independent counsel Ken Starr’s probe. And Marc Rich, in what was a straight-up political payoff. And his CIA director. And his HUD secretary. And eight people convicted in an investigation of his Agriculture Department. No surprise there: The Clintons and their supporters then, like President Trump and his supporters now, regarded the special-prosecutor probes into the administration as witch hunts. Clinton also commuted the sentences of convicted terrorists, some of whom hadn’t even asked for clemency. Shameless as he was, though, even he couldn’t bring himself to pardon Oscar Lopez Rivera, the defiantly unrepentant FALN leader. President Obama took care of that. Obama also commuted the sentence of a U.S. soldier who passed top-secret information to WikiLeaks. He pardoned his former Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman, who’d been convicted of making false statements about a leak of classified information to The New York Times. And when he couldn’t get Congress to amend federal drug laws the way he wanted them amended, Obama used the pardon power to slash hundreds of sentences, under an executive initiative later sharply criticized by the Obama-appointed Justice Department inspector general. That doesn’t even account for the Obama administration’s penchant for making sure things never got to the pardon stage by distorting the law to give Hillary Clinton — the same Hillary Clinton who was nearly indicted in the aforementioned Clinton-era scheme — a pass, asserting executive privilege to obstruct the Fast and Furious investigation (for which Obama’s attorney general was held in contempt of Congress), ignoring his CIA director’s spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and turning a blind eye to the abuses of power and obstructions attendant to the scandal that engulfed his IRS. So, as abuses of the pardon power go — and they do go — I can’t get too whipped up over President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s 40-month sentence for non-violent criminal obstruction of a bogusly based and ridiculously over-prosecuted investigation.

Agreed..  As many of you know, one thing we love to point out here at The Daily Buzz is the breathtaking hypocrisy of Democrat politicians and their willing accomplices in the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  This whole hand-wringing by them over President Trump’s recent pardon of Roger Stone is such an example.  Where was their collective outrage when Presidents Clinton and Obama gave some of the pardons mentioned above?  Nowhere, of course.  What a bunch of self-righteous, self-serving, political hypocrites!  Anyway, … former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew C. McCarthy is the author of that piece.  Andrew led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, and is a respected attorney and former federal prosecutor.  He’s also the author of “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.”  To read the rest of this article, click on the text above.  Thanks Andrew!

Kat Timpf: Celebs, don’t preach – why Madonna, other rich elites shouldn’t lecture us on consumerism

More than 200 celebrities, scientists and Nobel Prize winners have signed an open letter rejecting the idea that things should “go back to normal” after the coronavirus pandemic ends – arguing that we must, instead, stop “the pursuit of consumerism.” Now, to be clear, I’m not attacking them for their success – or even for them enjoying it with lavish lifestyles. What I am saying, however, is that I can’t help but be irked by the unconscionable lack of awareness you’d have to have in order to sign something like this while you’re sitting in an extravagant home surrounded by servants. After all, if any of the super-wealthy people who signed this letter had any real interest in stopping the “pursuit of consumerism,” they would certainly have started with taking a look at their own habits in that area. The letter, which was published in the French publication Le Monde on Wednesday, states, in part: “The pursuit of consumerism and an obsession with productivity have led us to deny the value of life itself: that of plants, that of animals, and that of a great number of human beings. Pollution, climate change, and the destruction of our remaining natural zones has brought the world to a breaking point.” Many of these people – such as Madonna, Robert De Niro, Iggy Pop, Christian Louboutin, Penelope Cruz and Jane Fonda, to name a few – are incredibly rich and famous. Madonna, for example, is actually totally free to sell her multimillion-dollar mansion in Lisbon and give all of the cash to Greenpeace if she wanted to. No one is stopping her – and actually, with a net worth that Forbes estimated at $570 million in 2019, she could probably part with a lot of her assets and still live far more comfortably than the vast, vast majority of us could ever even imagine. I’m not singling out Madonna, either – because there were a lot of people on that list who probably haven’t exactly had to resort to eating boxed macaroni and cheese in a while. Celebrity Net Worth, for example, estimates Jane Fonda’s at about $200 million. Oh, and Robert de Niro? A cool $500 million. Perhaps what’s most insane of all is the fact that Christian Louboutin signed this letter, when it’s public knowledge that the most basic pair of Louboutin heels sell for nearly $700. Louboutin doesn’t hate consumerism – he lives and breathes it. Obsession with material status symbols isn’t just acceptable to him, it’s actually his entire business model. It’s the entire reason why he, the child of a cabinetmaker and stay-at-home mother, was able to launch a business that made him worth an estimated $85 million today. The thing is, I actually think stories like his are amazing; I’m not attacking any of these people for having success or money. Far from it. Madonna is worth hundreds of millions of bucks, but she has also worked very hard and is incredibly talented. (I’m serious. It’s hard to believe that “Like a Prayer” came out more than 30 years ago because it still gets me on my feet any time I hear it.) No, their money doesn’t bother me and neither does their fame. What does bother me, though, is the hypocritical virtue-signaling they all displayed in signing something like this. In fact, it’s hard to see it as anything other than an insult to the intelligence of the rest of us. After all, we’re not stupid, and we know these people aren’t schlepping it. We know that Penelope Cruz, for example, is in fact not sleeping on a bale of hay in an abandoned barn somewhere – and we also know that both capitalism and her devotion to productivity are two major reasons why. If you’re rich and you’re famous, go ahead and live like you are. You’ve earned it! But please at least respect the rest of us enough to not pretend that you’re devoted to minimalist living – after all, if you really were, you would start by trying it yourself.

No kidding!!  Thanks to Katherine “Kat” Timpf for calling out these self-righteous, sanctimonious, arrogant, elitist, and entitlement-minded HollyWEIRD celebs out for their brazen hypocrisy.  It’s truly nauseating.

Gutfeld on the Joe Biden story CNN hates to cover

In case you missed it, check out this CNN headline: “Trump goes into hiding.” I guess CNN should know. Hide and seek is their expertise. Take the story of Tara Reade, former Vice President Joe Biden’s accuser. As she gains credibility, who loses it? CNN. After all, they’ve avoided this story, even as evidence appeared on CNN decades ago, when the accuser’s mom mentioned the alleged assault to Larry King: LARRY KING: San Luis Obispo, California, hello. JEANETTE ALTIMUS, MOTHER OF BIDEN ACCUSER: Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him. KING: So she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it? ALTIMUS: That’s true. You’ve got to love CNN for avoiding a story that appeared on CNN. This video was not unearthed by Fox News, but by The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald’s progressive outfit. And what did CNN do? What do you expect? Forget President Trump “hiding.” CNN is now hiding from CNN. CNN ran hundreds of stories on Brett Kavanaugh — with flimsier accusations. Meanwhile, the Biden accuser: Actually worked with him (unlike Kavanaugh’s accusers) Was a Democrat, not an ideological foe (unlike Kavanaugh’s accusers) Told her mother, who then called Larry King during a segment on sex harassment and there’s actual evidence of it! So, where’s CNN’s story? Their silence is the story. They’re protecting Biden so he can be president. And Reade? The media has tossed her story into the Juanita Broaddrick file of crimes that never happened because liberals allegedly committed them. Thank God, CNN did some heroic work during Trump’s first term, though. Chasing down people who posted memes. Which is really the second part of this story. The media will protect you if they like you — and destroy you if they don’t.

Agreed 100%!!  And, we’re all to happy to document yet another glaring, brazen example of CNN’s hypocrisy and double standard in covering the news.  Thanks to Greg Gutfeld’s usual biting wit and sarcasm.  That little ditty was adapted from Greg Gutfeld’s monologue (or “Gregologue” as they’re called) on “The Five” on April 27, 2020.  To see it and the discussion that followed with his fellow co-hosts on “The Five,” click on the text above.      🙂

Gunman’s left-wing views thwart Democratic efforts to pin mass shootings on Trump

Democrats blaming President Trump for last weekend’s mass shootings saw their argument continue to unravel Tuesday as more details emerged indicating that the suspected gunmen held some avowedly left-wing views. Connor Betts, the 24-year-old killer in the deadly shooting in Dayton, Ohio, expressed pro-antifa, pro-socialist and anti-ICE positions on a now-suspended Twitter account believed to be his, as well as support for Democratic Sens. Bernard Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Tuesday she was “hopping mad” that media outlets have given “scant coverage” to the Dayton suspect’s leftist beliefs while reporting heavily on Democrats accusing Mr. Trump of stoking the El Paso massacre with his border-security broadsides. “The president did not respond in kind. They politicized this over the weekend. They all blamed him, and I want to name and shame them now, because he did not respond in kind,” said Ms. Conway on “Fox & Friends.” They include former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who said Mr. Trump “helped create the hatred that made Saturday’s tragedy possible,” referring to the El Paso shooting that left 22 dead. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, said at a Monday rally that Mr. Trump’s rhetoric was “directly responsible for what happened in El Paso,” according to the New York Daily News, prompting conservatives to point out that the congresswoman may have inspired a recent attack. An armed antifa protester was killed by police earlier this month as he tried to bomb an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Tacoma, Washington, after posting a manifesto in which he used her “concentration camps” dig at border detention centers four times. “Based on her own standard, which I reject, she is ‘directly responsible’ for a violent armed attack,” said Townhall’s Guy Benson. “Will she accept blame? Will she turn herself in to authorities?” The El Paso suspect, 21-year-old Patrick Crusius, is believed to have authored a 2,300-word manifesto saying he was motivated by the “Hispanic invasion of Texas,” criticizing “race mixing,” and warning of “cultural and ethnic replacement.” Along with such white-nationalist stances, however, are positions that would fit in with the agenda of the climate-change movement, including blasts at corporations, consumerism and environmental degradation. “[O]ur lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country,” said the document. “The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources.” The manifesto went on to say that “water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations” and consumption is “creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent.” The “next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources,” said the document. Craig Rucker, president of the free-market group CFACT, called out 2020 Democratic presidential contenders for being “quick to take cheap shots at the President for supposedly fueling this gunman’s bigotry.” “[W]hat’s particularly irksome in this case is that if these presidential candidates are going to point fingers, then [they] ought to be very careful it doesn’t come back on them,” Mr. Rucker said in a statement. “That’s because this so-called manifesto does not just point to anti-immigration as a motivating factor, but also deep green ecology.” He said other mass shooters have also sounded “eco-terrorist” themes, including the gunman who killed 51 worshipers in March at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and the 2011 Norway attacker who killed 77, both of whom also railed against immigration. “What then, should we point the blame of this attack and others on the fearmongering of liberal politicians on subjects like climate change, overpopulation and resource depletion?” Mr. Rucker asked. “No, and we won’t, because these are the rantings of a madman, and tragedy is not the time to score political points.” Indeed, mass shooters aren’t known for their coherent political philosophies. The Dayton suspect, for example, had expressed support for gun control and was “actually anti-Second Amendment,” a former classmate told the Dayton Daily News.

Wow..  That’s some pretty Inconvenient info for the dominantly liberal mainstream media, isn’t it?  Doh!!  For more, click on the text above.

Betsy Ross flag now decried by 2020 Dems, pundits was flown during Obama’s 2nd inauguration

While Democrats and media pundits pounce to decry the Betsy Ross flag as racially problematic — with one even likening the symbol to Nazi swastikas — the very same flag flew prominently during then-President Barack Obama’s second inauguration ceremony in 2013. The reminder that the flag was displayed during Obama’s inauguration came amid the controversy from Nike halting the release of shoes bearing the flag, which flew during the Revolutionary War. The company worried that the flag could “unintentionally offend” people, after controversial football player Colin Kaepernick expressed concern over the design, claiming it recalled the slavery era and has been appropriated by white nationalists. The controversy quickly worked its way into the national political bloodstream, with some Democratic presidential candidates siding with Nike. President Trump’s campaign fired back by noting the flag’s otherwise broad appeal. “Democrats running for president have officially lost it. Beto & Castro strongly imply that the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of hatred. Do the rest of the Dems agree? Pictured here, of course, is the notorious flag prominently featured at President Obama’s 2nd inauguration,” tweeted Tim Murtaugh, director of communications for Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, also mocked those suddenly criticizing the flag, tweeting that “weird that no one had a problem with The Betsy Ross Flag when it flew over Obama’s inauguration.” Liberal pundits and 2020 presidential candidates alike jumped on the controversy, with former HUD Secretary Julián Castro saying he was “glad to see” Nike removed the shoes over the “painful” symbol that he compared to the Confederate flag. “There are a lot of things in our history that are still very painful,” Castro told CBS News. As an example, he cited “the Confederate flag that still flies in some places and is used as a symbol.” Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, meanwhile, also gave thumbs up for Nike’s decision, noting that “white nationalist groups” have “appropriated” the Betsy Ross flag, without providing evidence.

One thing we love to do here at The Daily Buzz is to show the brazen hypocrisy of the left.  This story is an example of that.  Colin K., and all of these Dems never had any problem with the so-called “Betsy Ross” American flag when it hung behind then-President Obama at his 2nd inaugural in two prominent positions.  in fact, it’s never been an issue at all!  But, when Trump became President, suddenly it became a symbol of slavery and white supremacy; both of which are factually, historically inaccurate and  simply ridiculous.  Then again, the left isn’t interested in facts or history.  They’re just interested in dividing America, and history revisionism to serve their liberal, anti-America agenda.

Sen. Cory Booker’s 1992 column detailing ‘groping’ of high school friend resurfaces

A 1992 column by now-Sen. Cory Booker detailing his “groping” of a high school friend has resurfaced as he pushes to delay Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings over a sexual assault allegation. In the 1992 column for The Stanford Daily, then-Stanford University grad student Mr. Booker wrote about the New Year’s Eve incident in 1984 that he will “never forget.” In the column, titled, “So much for stealing second,” Mr. Booker said he was 15 when he fondled an intoxicated female friend. “With the ‘Top Gun’ slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast,” he wrote. “After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark.’ Our groping ended soon and while no ‘relationship’ ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn’t really know what she was doing.” Mr. Booker said he was conditioned to believe that sex was “a game,” and that hooking up was best achieved through “luck, guile, strategy or coercion,” and lots of alcohol. He wrote about how his attitude toward sex dramatically changed after just a couple years at Stanford, and how his work as a peer counselor listening to the “raw truth from men and women discussing rape” was a real “wake-up call” for the future senator. “I now see the crowds, no, not the spectators, but the thousands, the millions who are rarely seen or heard,” he said of sexual assault victims. Mr. Booker, who said this week that it would be “irresponsible” for him to not consider a 2020 presidential run, has been recently ridiculed by conservatives after he appeared to dub himself “Spartacus” by revealing confidential records during the Judge Kavanaugh hearing. The senator now wants the FBI to investigate a claim by a woman who accused Judge Kavanaugh of trying to rape her more than 35 years ago before the hearings continue.

Wow..  Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is a breathtaking hypocrite!  This is a story you will NOT see on MSNBC or CNN.  The nerve of this self-righteous, sanctimonious blow-hard is unreal!

 

Timpf: How Ocasio-Cortez Makes the Case against Socialism

On Wednesday, it was reported that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign had spent $4,000 on Uber rides — despite the fact that the self-described Democratic socialist herself had previously decried the company on Twitter: “NYC’s fourth driver suicide. Yellow cab drivers are in financial ruin due to the unregulated expansion of Uber. What was a living wage job now pays under minimum.” This is, of course, nothing short of hypocrisy. If you really thought a company was so bad, you’d probably make sure your campaign didn’t use it. If you really thought something was a problem, you probably wouldn’t give that problem $4,000. What’s more, if you were really concerned about the plight of NYC taxi drivers, you might, you know, give them some business, instead of giving your business to the very company you’d criticized for ruining them. What we have with this revelation is just another example of how Ocasio-Cortez’s time in the spotlight has made an argument against socialism, instead of for it. Her words may say that the heavily regulated taxi companies are better, but her actions say that she prefers Uber — a service that is only possible because of the thing she stands most opposed to: capitalism. Now, this is not the first time that something like this has happened. As Investor’s Business Daily notes, Ocasio-Cortez seemed to make an argument against herself again last week when she expressed her sadness over the closing of a restaurant where she used to work. In her post about the good times that she’d had there, she failed to mention that the reason it was closing was because it could not comply with New York City’s soon-to-be-implemented $15 per hour minimum wage. Perhaps unknowingly, she had expressed regret over something that had been caused by the very sort of policy she supports. Then there is, of course, the repeated and complete breakdown of her positions whenever they are evaluated through the lens of reality and facts. On August 7, she stated flatly that the “upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America” — undoubtedly an argument for a socialist-style redistribution of wealth — when the reality is that the upper-middle class has actually grown under our capitalist system in the last few decades. The very next day, she claimed that “Medicare for all is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now,” when the reality is that her plan would actually “raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion over 10 years,” according to a fact check of her comments by the Washington Post. What’s more, her recent interview with Trevor Noah proved that many of her positions come from a foundation of a complete misunderstanding of the facts. As my colleague Charles Cooke notes, that interview “revealed that she does not know the difference between a one-year and a ten-year budget; confused the recent increase in defense spending with the entire annual cost of the military; implied that the population of the United States was around 800 million strong; and, having been asked to defend her coveted $15 minimum wage, launched into a rambling and inscrutable diatribe about ‘private equity’ firms that would have been a touch too harsh as a parody on South Park.” Many people might be tempted to see the rise of Ocasio-Cortez, and particularly her popularity in the media, to be some sort of sign that her version of socialism might actually be viable in this country. Anyone who is actually paying attention, however, would see that the opposite is true. At almost every turn, the spotlight on Ocasio-Cortez’s socialist ideals has shown how completely infeasible they are, and how often they are rooted in false information and misunderstanding. No one should know this better than Ocasio-Cortez herself. After all, if you look at her actions instead of her words, it seems that even she herself understands the benefits of capitalism — and her campaign has the Uber bill to prove it.

Alexandria is such a spectacular hypocrite…  But, hey..  She makes for fun tv because she’s a complete idiot.  And, she’s too scared to debate people like Ben Shapiro and others who would mop the floor with her.  Thanks to millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf for sharing this piece with us.

Anti-Gun CA Lt Gov, Newsom, Spends Taxpayer Millions on Armed Guards

California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom (D) wants to lead a fight against gun ownership–yet has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to surround himself with armed security. Breibart News previously reported Newsom’s belief that the Paris attacks would have been worse if citizens had been armed for self-defense. He told HBO’s Bill Maher that the whole idea of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy is “mythology.” Newsom’s exact words on Maher’s show, Real Time, were: “I just simply, this sort of mythology, the guy with the gun that’s going to come save the day, I mean, so right out of the movies, sort of this gun-slinging fantasy. The reality is, it’s most likely to create more harm, more damage, more lost lives in those circumstances.” Rewind a few years to Newsom’s tenure as Mayor of San Francisco. He was mayor from 2004 to 2011, and toward the end of that time–on July 7, 2009–reports emerged that Newsom had spent “millions” surrounding himself with armed security. Moreover, those “millions” came out of city funds–otherwise know as taxpayer monies–which paid for the police detail from which protective services were rendered. NBC Bay Area reported Newsom’s security spending as follows: How much does it cost to protect the mayor of a major metropolitan city? In Los Angeles, about $450,000 a year. In Houston, about $339,00 a year. In San Francisco, anywhere between $1 and $72 million. [On July 7, 2009] SF Appeal revealed…the budget for Newsom’s personal police bodyguards comes out of the San Francisco Police Department’s Investigations Detail, which boasts a $72.9 million budget. So, depending on how you look at it, Newsom’s protective detail cost at least seven figures–money few average citizens would have for personal self-defense. Then Newsom was elected to the position of Lt. Governor in 2010, and assumed that office in 2011. And the very next year, in July 2012, the Los Angles Times reported that the cost for providing security for Lt Governor Newsom was up nearly $30,000 above what it had been for his predecessor. According to the Times: The state spent $93,379 through May in the just-completed fiscal year on CHP protection for Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who took office at the start of 2011. The amount is up from the $65,954 spent in the previous fiscal year, the first half protecting Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, and the second half protecting Newsom. The Times inquired whether the elevated price for armed security was the result of Newsom taking “a CHP officer…to the taping of his weekly hour-long talk show, ‘The Gavin Newsome Show,’” but Newsom’s spokesman said they do not discuss details related to security. Here is the bottom line: Newsom does not think allowing average Americans to be armed for self-defense does any good. In fact, he thinks “it’s most likely to create more harm, more damage, more lost lives in those circumstances.” But he had no problem spending millions to surround himself with armed security as mayor and to increase expenditures for armed security by $30,000 once he became Lt. Governor. Maybe it is time for Newsom to live up the standards he wants to force onto average Americans and forgo the confidence derived by having guns around for self-defense. Talk is cheap–perhaps Newsom can lead by example, disarming his security detail and going through a few days thinking about how citizens feel when state and local governments disarm them via myriad gun control scenarios.

Gavin is your typical, self-righteous, sanctimonious, anti-gun, extreme, limousine liberal who is spectacularly hypocritical.  He doesn’t want you or me to be able to protect ourselves with our Second Amendment rights.  BUT, he’ll spend MILLIONS of our hard-earned taxes for HIS personal protection and his ARMED guards.  Then, he’ll go on some late night show and say he’s not carrying any guns.  What a brazen hypocrite.  It truly is breathtaking.  But hey folks..  This is what these liberal elitists are like.  They have NO shame.  What a tool..