Hollywood Elites Blast Clint Eastwood’s Film for Not Portraying “Sympathetic Terrorist”

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

If the anti American Hollyweird elite hates this film then it is a must see for me.


Islamic terrorist Ayoub El-Khazzani boarded a train headed from Amsterdam to Paris in 2015, wielding an AK-47 rifle, handgun and box-cutter, with the goal of murdering innocent passengers in a jihadist attack.

Little did he know, there were three Americans on that train — Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone. When the jihadist experienced difficulties operating his rifle, these brave men sprang into action, thwarting the attack and saving countless lives.

The heroic actions of those three friends was recorded in a book that was then adapted into a film by conservative Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood. Eastwood cast the three friends to play themselvesin a movie portraying their bravery.

Despite all this, elitist Hollywood liberals have found reason to hate it, as was evidenced by numerous reviews of the film by left-leaning media outlets, according to Hollywood In Toto.

Liberal film reviewers had already made their opinions of Eastwood and American patriotism known following the 2014 release of “American Sniper,” but they have reiterated their anti-Americanism and sympathy toward Islamic extremists in their reviews of “The 15:17 To Paris.”

The reviewer for the National Post complained that the movie was akin to sitting through somebody else’s vacation, and lamented that the terrorist didn’t receive enough screen time. He wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”

The reviewer for Slate also griped about feeling like he was watching a slideshow of another person’s vacation in Europe, and took up too much of the film too boot, and wrote, “The sense of wheelspinning only underlines the movie’s failure to make its antagonist more than a cartoon scowl with a Kalashnikov. The geese in Sully (a Tom Hanks film about a passenger jet which crash landed on the Hudson River) were more well-rounded characters.”

The Slant Magazine reviewer, when not sneering at conservatives, Christianity, the military and Eastwood’s method of film-making, took issue with the film’s departure from the “surprisingly visceral and nuanced book,” and wrote, “One misses the prismatic structure of the 15:17 to Paris book, which fuses multiple points of view—including El-Khazzani’s—and which is reduced by (screenwriter) Dorothy Blyskal’s script to cut-and-pasted bromides.”

Over at The Daily Beast, the reviewer stated that the film was “more mind-numbing than his empty chair speech” and called it a “stunning misfire.” Of the terrorist, he wrote, “As for the villain in question, Eastwood primarily films his hands, sneakers, arms, and back, all as a means of making him some sort of faceless existential threat — a symbolic vehicle for Stone’s ‘greater purpose.’ Mostly, though, it’s just another example of The 15:17 to Paris’ regrettable blankness.”

What these reviewers all seem to have missed is that the movie was intended to tell the story of the three heroes that day, and not the story of the bad guy those heroes defeated. But it wasn’t just the lack of character development of the terrorist that reviewers took issue with, as others used their reviews to take shots at American patriotism, Christianity, President Donald Trump and our nation’s gun culture.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette review, which did lament the exclusion of “any hint of the terrorist’s motivation,” led the way with an open bashing of American patriotism combined with a not-so-subtle shot at Trump, and wrote, “There’s a certain repellent hubris about (Eastwood’s) patriotic formula: Make America grate again, on the rest of the world, in paint-by-numbers (red, white and blue), which happen to be the same as the Tricouleur — not that Mr. Eastwood makes any use or reference to that.”

The reviewer for the The U.K. Daily Mail wrote of the three heroes, “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms,” and continued with, “The ­narrative throbs with Eastwood’s ­conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”

Last, but certainly not least, we have the review from The New Yorker, in which the reviewer called the film a “reactionary fable” and described a scene in which a young Sadler and Stone play with an “arsenal” of toy guns, about which the reviewer wrote, “As I watched the scene, I thought, You could cut it out of this movie and paste it, unchanged, into another one, about a nice suburban kid who grows up and carries out a mass shooting.”

That New Yorker reviewer also criticized the lack of answers to questions about the terrorist, and wrote, “Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter? Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”

Over at Truth Revolt, who also took note of the terrorist-sympathizing reviews, one commenter summed it all up with a rather provocative “thought experiment” that simply must be shared: “Amtrak train, Northeast Corridor, people commuting between NY/Phil and Washington. Some ‘White Nationalist’ whips out a gun and announces he’s going to blow away ‘all you Lefties, Jews and people of color.’ He’s overpowered by some people who unaccountably have become courageous in their old age. How much sympathetic treatment would these critics want for THAT character in a film of the incident?”

I think we already know exactly how that would play out in today’s liberal media.



Local Reporter Goes Rogue, Tells Truth About Guns, Enrages Liberals on Air

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

I can see liberal heads in Minnesota exploding.

During a report this week, a local Minnesota reporter blew some uninformed liberal minds by touting some basic facts about gun ownership in his state.

“We took a very hard look at these numbers, and we did find that Minnesota has a very high rate of gun ownership — one of the highest in the country — but it has a relatively low rate of violent crime,” revealed Minneapolis station WCCO reporter Pat Kessler in a segment Thursday.

He added that in 2017, Minnesota “set a new record for firearms background checks,” processing 473,975 checks on permits, 94,383 checks on handguns and 125,516 checks on long guns.

In other words, more people attempted to purchase weapons in the state last year than ever before.

“Minnesota set another 2017 record, too,” his report continued. “The State Department of Public Safety reports 283,188 Minnesotans now have permits to legally carry firearms in public.”

Listen to the full report below:

Interestingly, these numbers coincide perfectly with the research of economist, commentator and gun rights advocate John R. Lott, whose award-winning 1998 book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” centers around the thesis that a well-armed population deters crime.

“Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself,” he explained in an interview that year with the University of Chicago Press.

“There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate — as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”

Other research bears this out. Five years ago Forbescolumnist Larry Bell pointed to a then-recent Pew Research Study that found that “(n)ational rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes” had dropped significantly since the mid-1990s.

But as noted by Bell, “Those gun crime rates certainly aren’t diminishing for lack of supply…at least not for law-abiding legal buyers.”

“Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before,” he wrote.

And according to data from the FBI, the number of background checks conducted annually have only grown since then, jumping from a total of 19.6 million in 2012 to a high of 25.2 million in 2017.

More people are seeking out and obtaining guns, and yet America’s top metropolitans are continuing to see record “drops in crime and murder.”

Why is that? I’m not going to speculate because I’m not a trained researcher, but I will quote John R. Lott, who has said many times over, “More guns, less crime.”


After Thug Shoots 4 Times, and Misses Homeowner Shows Him How to Aim Homeowner Teaches Home Invader How a Gun Should be Aimed

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

There is an old saying to beware the man with only one gun; he knows how to use it.                     

When convicted felon Chris Born decided to invade a Francis, Oklahoma, home with another man in the middle of the night on Feb. 5, he likely didn’t expect that he would need to use his gun — as much as an invading thug ever “needs” to use a weapon.

That might explain why he not only missed with the first shot he fired, but he fired three more — and missed with all of them.

The homeowner he shot at was quite a bit handier with his weapon, as KXII-TV reported

Dennis Reif was woken up by sounds in the kitchen — someone was forcing a way inside.

“I got my gun out of the drawer because I heard someone smashing in here and I saw a flashlight beam,” Reif told the station.

In moving to defend his home, Reif came face-to-face with Born, who fired four shots at the homeowner.

And didn’t hit once.

Not to make the same mistake as his attacker, he returned fire with his .38 caliber revolver and snapped off two shots. Both struck Born directly in the chest.

“I just quickly leveled at him and fired to protect myself and he screamed and yelled he was hit,” Reif said.

When the shots were fired they dropped everything and left the residence.”

Born fled the property with his accomplice, Dustin Hoots. After a short chase, Born was caught. He was put into the hospital in critical condition — as often happens when one is shot twice in the chest. Hoots managed to escape, but he was also eventually found and apprehended — at Born’s home.

Also arrested were Jeanette Matthews and Tara Whittecar, who authorities believed were serving as lookouts.

While searching for Hoots, police also found stolen property at Born’s residence connected to at least 10 other burglaries.

And it turns out Born has quite a story, according to KXII. Not only was he shot while breaking into a home, he’s also facing felony charges in separate cases, including domestic abuse. He also has two sons, one of whom is in prison on a murder charge, the other who is facing trial for murder, the station reported.

Now, thanks to the quick thinking of one man, an entire crime spree was cut short.

The lesson here is clear:

Be sure to take the time and effort to construct a solid home defense plan to best protect yourself and your loved ones.

And most of all, be responsible about your Second Amendment rights, and make sure you can hit what you’re shooting at.

After A String of Amtrak Crashes Top Official Points Finger at Schumer

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

Little Schmucky Schumer has the blood of innocent people on his has because of his obstructionism of President Trump’s nomination of Ronald Batory as the nation’s top railroad safety regulator and head of the Federal Railway Administration.

In keeping with the left’s “resist for the sake of resistance” movement against everything President Donald Trump does, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has blocked or delayed dozens of Trump’s top executive branch post nominees.

Now, at least one official has suggested this tactic could be placing lives in danger.

That official is Deputy Secretary of Transportation Jeff Rosen, and according to The Daily Caller, he has taken exception to Schumer’s prolonged refusal to confirm the nomination of 40-year rail veteran Ronald Batory as the nation’s top railroad safety regulator and head of the Federal Railway Administration.

Rosen sent a letter to Schumer on Jan. 31 following the crash of an Amtrak train in Virginia that was carrying congressional Republicans to their annual retreat in West Virginia. The train had struck a garbage truck on the tracks, killing the driver and injuring some of the train passengers.

According to USA Today, that crash was but one of several high-profile Amtrak train crashes or derailments over the past few years, the most recent of which occurred Feb. 4 in South Carolina when an Amtrak train was accidentally shifted to a side rail and slammed into a parked CSX freight train, killing the conductor and engineer.

Other prominent accidents included the Dec. 18, 2017 derailment in DuPont, Washington, which killed three and injured dozens more, as well as two separate incidents in Philadelphia in 2015 and 2016 that killed a total of 10 people and injured hundreds more.

Unfortunately, statistics show that the number of fatalities in train accidents are on the rise, as is the rate of accidents per million miles traveled, a trend Rosen suggested could be slowed if not reversed if Schumer were to withdraw his objection to the appointed new leader and allow him to be confirmed.

“At that time, (Republican South Dakota) Sen. (John) Thune, who chairs the Commerce committee, said months have gone by and now we’re dealing with the aftermath of this tragedy, it’s time to confirm Ron Batory, and he asked for unanimous consent,” recalled Rosen, in reference to remarks in the Senate following the Washington state derailment, according to The Daily Caller.

“Senator Schumer stood up and just said ‘I object’ and then he walked away and didn’t elaborate,” Rosen continued. “So he didn’t say when he objected what the grounds were. It’s inexplicable that after those months and after the tragedy he was unwilling to put safety first, but he didn’t give the rationale.”

Rosen stated that Schumer has yet to respond to the letter he sent him, nor did Schumer respond to requests for comment from The Daily Caller.

“My letter was to call attention to the situation that we are all in together,” Rosen explained. “It’s in our national interest, it’s in the interest of the people of New York as well as our national interest, to have the top rail safety official in place, so I was appealing to his concern for his constituents and the rest of the country.”

Though Schumer offered no rationale in December, he had previously noted that he was holding up Batory’s confirmation in order to obtain federal funding for a new rail tunnel project connecting New York and New Jersey under the Hudson River — a project for which $15 billion has been requested even as the transit program’s budget is only $2.2 billion. Rosen insisted that was unrelated and a local matter.

Rosen argued that the blockage of Batory’s confirmation was preventing an adequate appraisal of safety issues and the implementation of policies to address them, but according to NBC News, Democrats countered by stating that Batory was already serving at the agency in an advisory role so it was unfair to blame any incidents on his lack of confirmation.

“Than no one would ever need to be confirmed,” Rosen replied in response to that narrative. “He’s playing a different role as an advisor. He’s not able to make decisions, he’s not able to sign things, he’s not able to direct resources. He’s not able to fill that leadership role.”

“That’s like saying there’s good senior staff to the senator and if we didn’t have a senator from New York it would be fine because there’s senior staff there,” he added.

“Mr Batory is one of 64 nominees who’s been filibustered by the Senate minority and that’s a new world record,” Rosen stated. “That’s never happened in any prior administration so that one might wonder, is it really about the transit funding but whatever it is its just wrong. It’s both inexplicable and irresponsible.”

The deputy secretary is absolutely right that the obstinate blockage or delayment of Trump’s nominees for a variety of positions over unrelated partisan issues is “irresponsible,” and hopefully his time-consuming resistance tactics will soon run their course so the appointed leadership can get down to business, as people’s lives could very well be at stake.


NY Liberal Lawmakers Actually Blame Tide for Idiots Eating Pods Liberal Lawmakers Blaming Tide for “Tide Pod Challenge”

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

Anybody stupid enough to eat Tide Pods because of a challenge and you die the world is better off without you.

I can understand young children and people with dementia eating Tide Pods because of the lack of mental capacity to understand the danger. 

NY Liberal Lawmakers Actually Blame Tide for Idiots Eating Pods

Generally speaking, conservatives believe individuals should be held personally responsible for their actions, while liberals seek communal responsibility and governmental regulations in response to the actions of individuals.

This generality was recently reinforced by a pair of elected Democrat lawmakers from New York City who want to force laundry detergent manufacturer Tide to produce less appealing and more difficult to eat laundry pods, so idiots won’t be so tempted to poison themselves,according to WABC.

The two Democrats, Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas and state Sen. Brad Hoylman, provided more details of their proposal on Tuesday at the New York Capitol in Albany.

According to USA Today, Hoylman and Simotas sent a letter to Tide parent company Proctor & Gamble urging the company to make Tide Pods less colorful and enticing and to secure them in more difficult to open packaging, in the hope that fewer teens and young children would be able to consume them as part of the absurd and dangerous “Tide Pod Challenge.”

“We want to make sure these poisonings are prevented. It’s easy. All we have to make sure is that public safety trumps their profits,” stated Simotas at a news conference.

“We’re asking for all laundry detergent pods to be uniform in color. We don’t need them to look like Gummy Bears in order for consumers to use them,” stated Hoylman. “We need to impose clear warning labels on all packaging, including each pod.”

In their demand letter to P&G, the two New York City Democrats wrote, “While our legislation would only protect New Yorkers, we urge Procter & Gamble and all manufacturers of colorful detergent pods to offer the same protections to the nation and immediately commit to the precautions set forth in our legislation.”

But, according to USA Today, a statement from P&G essentially dismissed the demands of the lawmakers as “nothing new” and explained both how they have already made packaging more difficult for children to open and how the color of the pods really plays no role in the accidental exposure of children to the toxic substances contained inside.

As to the notion of individually wrapping each pod, that would “not be helpful in reducing incidents and may have unintended consequences,” such as producing more plastic waste that would have an impact on the environment, something Democrats should be keenly aware of and on track to avoid.

“Finally, consumers have a choice: Those who prefer a single colored pac can use Tide Free and Gentle, which is all-white. Tide is also available in a liquid and powder product form,” the company concluded.

According to the New York Daily News, P&G spokeswoman Petra Renck stated last month that “nothing is more important to us than the safety of the people who use our products” are took note of the fact that the company had already taken several steps to address the misuse of their product, such as adding a bitter taste to the outer layer of Tide Pods and rolling out a public safety ad campaign featuring popular New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski to discourage abuse of the product.

Brian Sansoni of the American Cleaning Institute trade association stated, “There are major things that have already been done to prevent unintended exposure,” and added that legislation would be both unnecessary and ineffective in countering the idiotic Tide Pod challenge.

“This is blatant intentional misuse,” he said. “It’s tough to legislate against that kind of decision making.”

Really what it all boils down to is the personal responsibility of parents with small children and the moronic teens who know better than to eat the pods, according to upstate Republican Assemblyman Joseph Errigo, who said the legislation would place additional unnecessary burdens on the manufacturer.

“There’s no easy way to spin it other than to say the people who are participating in this trend are old enough to know laundry detergent is not safe for consumption, and the people behind this legislation should know that it’s not the manufacturers who are to blame when people make stupid decisions with their products,” Errigo stated, according to the Daily News.

We couldn’t agree more, and hold that this legislation is pointless and little more than an effort to place blame for consumer actions on manufacturers while simultaneously absolving the consumers of responsibility for their own negligence or misuse of a perfectly legitimate product that is safe when used as directed.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to let everyone know about the New York City Democrats who want to hold Tide’s parent company responsible for the utterly stupid “Tide Pod challenge.”

Walgreens Caves to Latest Liberal Trend, Puts Children in Danger Walgreens Caves to Latest Liberal Trend, Puts Children in Danger

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

It is time to boycott Walgreens the same way we did Target let them fell the economic pinch.

In the wake of a commotion by the American Civil Liberties Union, Walgreens is allowing any customer to use whatever bathroom their little heart — or gender identity — desires.

According to NBC News, the  policy — which actually dates back to November, “All individuals have a right to use restroom facilities that correspond to the individual’s gender identity, regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth.”

“Walgreens family of companies subscribes to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression/presentation,” the statement adds.

The policy announcement happened after the ACLU’s Southern California chapter intervened last year in the case of Jessie Meehan — a man living as if he’s a woman.

According to NBC, Meehan “was on her way to a Los Angeles LGBTQ pride festival last year when she stopped at a Walgreens in Hollywood.

After spending approximately $20 in the store, she asked a sales associate to open one of the bathrooms for her. Meehan said the employee refused to allow her in the women’s restroom and instead insisted Meehan use the men’s facility. The store manager, according to ACLU SoCal, agreed with the sales associate and denied Meehan use of the women’s bathroom.” It didn’t take long for Meehan to contact ACLU SoCal, and make this video.

After discussions between Walgreens and ACLU SoCal, the eventual policy was hammered out.

This probably shouldn’t be surprising, considering that Walgreens was on the Human Rights Campaign’s “20 Best Places to Work for LGBTQ Equality” for 2018 (along with Target, natch).

However, if you think this is only about LGBTQ rights, think again. We’ve chronicled numerous times where men have threatened women and children in public bathrooms, or how individuals have abused Target’s transgender dressing room policies and have committed alleged acts of voyeurism.

As counterintuitive as it may sound, transgender bathroom policies have very little to do with transgender individuals. I worked in retail while I was in school in the days long before transgender bathrooms were a thing. However, I was in a position where I would have heard of or seen any sort of person being denied entry to the restroom.

In my time there, I never heard of a case of someone who looked even remotely like the gender of the bathroom they were trying to use get stopped by anyone. I can remember, however, a small but significant number of men — and it was always men — who were either mentally unbalanced or potential sexual predators and decided to use the women’s restroom for untoward purposes.

No, we never had any cases of rape or molestation, although there were a few instances of sexual harassment and intimidation. These were quickly dealt with by security to the best of their ability.

For anyone worried that what happened to this individual is a widespread phenomenon, at a practical level, it would be impossible for any store to have someone stand by the entrance to the bathroom and check driver’s licenses to make sure the individual in question legally fit the gender of the bathroom in question.

What happened at Walgreens seems to be an aberration, particularly since the bathrooms themselves were locked. In a Walgreens where the stores aren’t locked, this wouldn’t be a problem.

As much as I really do feel for transgender individuals, this policy isn’t about them. It’s about the fact that anyone can use whatever bathroom they like. Most of the time, those using bathrooms that don’t correspond to their biological sex are transgender individuals, and almost all of the time they aren’t stopped. In rare cases, this policy is taken advantage of by individuals whose reason for being in a bathroom intended for the opposite sex is far more iniquitous than using the sink or the toilet.

This, on its face, puts people — women and girls — in danger. Stores are either going to have to find a way to deal with this danger or deal with the mass exodus of customers that Target saw when they implemented this policy. You can bet that now that the policy is out of the bag, a boycott is coming quickly.

Joy Reid Claims Only Fox Viewers Believe in MS-13… That’s When Trump’s SOTU Guest Fires Back

1 Comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

To call Joy Reid a mental midget would be an upgrade for her IQ.

During his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump spoke briefly of the crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and highlighted the tragic story of two young girls from Long Island, New York, who had been brutally murdered by MS-13 gang members, an especially savage central American gang.

The four grief-stricken parents of those two girls were honored guests of the president and first lady at the speech, and they received a heartfelt standing ovation from the majority of the crowd for their bravery and strength in spite of their horrific loss — though many Democrats refused to applaud and remained seated.

After the speech, MSNBC host Joy Reid took issue with Trump’s highlighting of illegal immigrant crime and mention of the murderous MS-13 gang, who she claimed were all but unknown to anyone outside of Fox News viewers, according to The Washington Times.

He gives a speech tonight, in which he makes it sound like the biggest issue in the United States, the biggest threat is MS-13, a gang nobody that doesn’t watch Fox News has ever heard of,” Reid stated. “So he makes it sound like they’re the biggest threat.”

.@JoyAnnReid thinks nobody outside of Fox News viewers has ever heard of MS-13 before.

Also, listen to Chris Matthews egg her on.

What a circus. lol

Set aside for a moment her unwitting admission that mainstream media networks aren’t covering serious stories that matter to their viewers, such as a murderous gang composed largely of illegal immigrants who prey on other immigrants and American citizens, or her ignorance of the reams of non-Fox produced documentaries about the gang, and consider how marginalized Reid’s comment would make victims of the gang feel.

According to TheBlaze, that is what Fox News host Laura Ingraham wanted to know of the parents of one of the murdered girls, Elizabeth Alvarado and Robert Mickens, who joined her on her program Wednesday evening.

Asked to respond to Reid’s comments, Alvarado could only roll her eyes and shake her head as she initially said she had “no words.”

“These are gang members that just, you know, decided to be a judge and a jury to take my daughter out like that,” Alvarado said. “It’s unacceptable. I don’t want it to happen to anyone else’s family, but something needs to be done.”

Mickens was asked how he felt about all of the Democrats who remained seated and refused to applaud while they and their slain daughters were honored, an obvious slight he didn’t appreciate one bit

“I felt it was very disrespectful,” Mickens said. “For the simple fact that the Democrats who … did not stand up were African-Americans. So that hurts me a lot to show that they did not have respect.”

“Regardless of how they feel about the president,” he added, “they should show the respect because I would show them the respect if that was their loved one.”

Both parents also expressed how honored they were to not only meet with, but be invited guests of the president at his State of the Union address, and described him as being a very “nice” and “genuine” person who cared about the ordeal they had suffered through.

Reid knows nothing outside of her hatred for Trump, and her trivialization of the heartbreaking loss and intense pain felt by these parents and the families of thousands of other victims of MS-13 and other violent gangs makes her staunch anti-Trump bias all the more shameful … if she even understands what shame is anymore.


Owners Thwart Armed Robbery… When They Remove the Mask an All Too Familiar Face Appears

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

The former pizza shop manager is lucky nobody was armed or he could have been killed.

Employees at a pizza shop in a small town in central Massachusetts were going about their business Tuesday evening when a masked man holding what appeared to be a handgun entered the store, hopped the front counter and demanded all of the store’s cash.

But according to WCVB, the employees of Northeast Pizza in Barre would have none of it, and fought back against the would-be robber and wrestled him to the ground in the lobby. They then held him pinned until police arrived to take the man into custody.

At some point during the scuffle, the employees became aware that they were quite familiar with the robber who turned out to be armed with a fake gun. He was later revealed to be a former manager of the store, Sean Coulson.

WHDH reported that the entire incident was captured on the store’s surveillance cameras. Coulson has been charged with multiple crimes including armed robbery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.

“He jumped over the counter and had the gun pointed at my friend’s head while choking him against the wall,” recounted employee Trevor Kosla, who recognized his former manager during the struggle and was the one who ended up sitting on top of the attempted robber for several minutes until the police arrived.

TRENDING: Sanders Sends CNN Into Frenzy With Hilarious Comment on Pelosi’s Face

“He kept yelling at me to stop, that it was a joke,” Kosla said. “I said, ‘I don’t care who you are, this is not a joke.’”

According to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, store owner Steve Barrett said he was proud of his employees, who he considered to be heroes, and revealed that Coulson — who lived right across the street from the pizza shop — had been fired from his manager position last year.

Sgt. William Recos of the Barre police agreed that the employees had exhibited bravery in fighting off the would-be robber, even as he reminded people that the police don’t recommend citizens fight with robbers over property. “We don’t want people putting their lives at risk,” he said.

Once Coulson’s attempted robbery was thwarted by his former co-workers, he attempted to explain to both them and the police that he wasn’t really trying to rob the store, but was instead just playing a joke on them.

Obviously, the employees and police saw things quite a bit differently and weren’t buying the “joke” excuse.

“He jumped over the counter and demanded money,” stated Recos. “We don’t think that was a joke.

Coulson is expected to appear in Western Worcester District Court for a hearing on Feb. 5 that will determine whether he poses a threat to the community or is safe to release on bail.

You can watch the incident unfold right here, with compelling play-by-play commentary from Kosla over much of the footage:

This former manager of a pizza shop thought he could rob the place of their earnings for the night, but the employees he used to work with weren’t about to let that happen on their shift, and instead served up an order of instant justice.

Share this story on Facebook so everyone can see what happened when this attempted robbery was thwarted.

Top 10 Cities by Homeless Population All Have Something in Common

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

The homeless population in these cities are victims of DemocRat compassion.

Reality doesn’t care about politics. No matter how good a policy or political program looks on paper, the ultimate test is whether it actually works in real life.

There are plenty of “good intentions” that turn into disasters. It’s the job of the entire country to take a hard look at real-life results, and avoid denial when the evidence shows that something might be wrong.

One piece of that evidence is homelessness. It’s not a comfortable topic, but living on the street is an unfortunate reality for over a half-milion Americans. If you listen to the left, it’s greedy, money-grabbing Republicans who hurt the poor — but what does actual reality show us?

t turns out that the 10 cities with the most homeless people in the United States are not conservative at all — they’re Democrat enclaves where big-government policies are failing miserably.

According to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the worst American cities for homelessness tend to have strong Democrat leanings, and some have been run by the left for decades.

Infographic: The U.S. Cities With The Most Homeless People | Statista

The top of the list is New York City, with an estimated 76,501 homeless people. Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, has led the Big Apple for the last four years.

Before him was Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who started his tenure as a Republican but then dropped that party affiliation, and was by almost every measure a Democrat without the official label. Going back from Bloomberg’s time to the 1970s, there has been only one Republican amid a long series of Democrat mayors.

It’s even more dramatic on New York’s City Council: Democrats hold a staggering 92 percent of the seats in the city with the most homelessness in America.

That story repeats itself for the other cities that top the dishonorable list. Los Angeles has an estimated 55,188 homeless people and — you guessed it — has been run by Democrats for years.

Democrat mayors have controlled L.A. for nearly two decades, and 93 percent of its city council is Democrat. Are you noticing a trend?

Liberal policies are so bad in California overall that the Golden State now has the highest poverty rate in all of America.

How about Seattle, with 11,643 homeless? While the mayoral position in that city is officially non-partisan, the current Mayor Jenny Durkan — their first female mayor and a lesbian and gay rights advocate — is strongly liberal and Democrat.

Seattle’s city council is so one-sided it borders on parody. Eight out of nine council members are Democrats. No, the ninth isn’t Republican… he’s openly part of the Marxist-left “Socialist Alternative” party. So diverse!

The definition of insanity is often described as repeating the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. If that’s true, then the far left belongs in a padded room.

There is a clear and undeniable trend of Democrat-run cities with shocking poverty rates and widespread homelessness, yet liberals seem to be in complete denial that their failed policies are part of the problem.

Ignorance is not bliss. Ignoring overwhelming evidence only makes a disaster worse, and the reality is that the left is turning once-great cities into places of despair. Something needs to change.

Welfare Leeches Furious at New Bill

Leave a comment

H/T Conservative Tribune.

There needs to be a law nationwide with work requirements for people getting food stamps.

A bill intended to cut down on the number of people abusing welfare is making its way through the West Virginia state house… but not everyone is happy about it.

Many Americans agree that there should be requirements in place to keep government handouts reserved only for people who are truly in need. House Bill 4001 does exactly that.

“A legislative committee in West Virginia has narrowly voted to advance legislation that would establish a 20-hour weekly work requirement for many food stamp recipients,” The Associated Press reported. “If passed the bill would go into effect on Oct. 1, 2018.”

In basic terms, the proposed law would mean that people of working age who are not legally disabled and do not have dependent children can’t receive food stamp benefits for sitting on the couch and doing nothing.

Instead, they would have to work at least part time, with fairly broad definitions of what type of work qualifies.

“The bill would require recipients to work, volunteer or be involved in a work force training program for 20-hours a week or 80-hours a month,” continued the AP. “The time can be accrued in any combination of those programs.”

In other words, somebody who genuinely cannot find a job could still qualify if they were performing volunteer work or were involved in workplace training via Job Corps or similar organizations.

Proponents of the bill, including its Republican sponsors, believe that it will cut down on welfare fraud while promoting a strong work ethic.

“Advocates say it will eliminate fraud and get people back to work, even if only volunteer work,” summarized the AP.

Opponents say it will push struggling poor people out of the program, cut federal funding to West Virginia and increase demand on food pantries.”

According to data from the USDA, 128,000 households in West Virginia received food stamps in 2016. With around 590,000 households in the state, this means that about 21 percent of the state is on food assistance via the government.

In other states where similar work requirements were implemented, the results were impossible to ignore.

“According to Alabama Media Group, 13 counties in the southern state recently reinstated work requirements for their government food programs, and the results were staggering. Food stamp usage dropped by 85 percent,” Conservative Tribune reported last June.

“Based on the trend, the number of (able-bodied adults without dependents) recipients for SNAP benefits is expected to continue to decline statewide and in the formerly 13 exempted counties,” said John Hardy, who works with the Alabama Department of Human Resources.

If the bill in West Virginia passes, that state could see cost savings similar to Alabama. That would mean less dependence on the government and more people involved in the workforce.

It’s human nature to want to help people in need… but it’s also human nature to become lazy and passive when something is handed out for free. The key is to find a balance between assisting those who truly need it, while making sure that able-bodied workers are not milking the system.

There’s nothing wrong with having a safety net. It’s a safety hammock that needs to be eliminated.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: