Vegas Police Union Wants Black Lives Matter Pins Banned From Courtrooms

Judge orders defense attorney to remove hers at a sentencing hearing involving no jury.


Alex E Proimos/flickr

A Vegas judge ordered a defense attorney to remove her Black Lives Matter pin yesterday during a sentencing hearing for her client, arguing it constituted political speech. The attorney refused, saying she was defending her free speech rights, and the judge scheduled a hearing for tomorrow to discuss buttons in court. The jury was not in the courtroom at the time.

The judge, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal, said he was enforcing a neutral policy meant to avoid outside influences in the court. No word on whether the judge, has, or will, prevent police officers for showing up en masse at police trials in what could be perceived as an attempt to influence the jury.

Last week, the executive director of the Las Vegas Police Protection Association wrote a letter to the chief judge of Nevada's eight judicial district, urging him to ban such Black Lives Matter pins from courtrooms in the district, as Huffington Post reports. Steve Grammas compared the message "black lives matter" in the courtroom to permitting messages urging the death penalty for killers or castration for sexual predators. "We are certain that the courts would not allow similar public displays," Grammas wrote. "While we embrace the First Amendment, we do not believe that such statements should be made in the halls of justice."

Grammas is the second police union boss to say he supports the First Amendment, "but." Read the whole letter, or any letter from a police union, and ask yourself if it sounds like something a "public servant" would say?

NEXT: Mass. High Court Rules Black Men May Have Legitimate Reasons To Run From Police

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Contemptible!

    1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

  2. Grammas is the second police union boss to say he supports the First Amendment, “but.” Read the whole letter, or any letter from a police union, and ask yourself if it sounds like something a “public servant” would say?

    Police unions don’t serve the public. They serve themselves. Their goal is to make sure police are never punished, never questioned. And they succeed very well.

        1. And observe the 3rd Amendment while they’re at it.

          1. The last 3rd Amendment lawsuit was dismissed.

      1. And require Congress to give individual permission for each police department to even exist. (“No State shall, without Consent of Congress… keep Troops or Ships of War in Time of Peace.”)

        And subject the police to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

        1. I’d be happy if they were restricted to military ROE.

    1. They indeed serve the public. The public means everyone else. No individual matters, because they are not the public. The public is everyone except you or any other individual whom they come into contact with. The only way they can effectively serve the public is by forcing every individual to serve them. Individual rights do not matter because they interfere with serving everyone else. Public servants can not do anything worthy of punishment, because that would mean that individuals matter. They don’t. Only everyone else matters.

    2. RICO is the solution to police unions.

  3. Is there any creature quite so contemptible as the head of a police union?

      1. What’s the odds that anyone with ethicist anywhere in their job title is a nanny state douchebag? I’m thinking it’s pretty high.

    1. A pimp. But that may be repeating myself.

      1. Pimping is a more difficult profession than being the head of a police union

        1. Is this how the kids say “Pimpin’ ain’t easy” nowadays?

  4. Are jury nullification T-shirts permitted in court? I should wear one if I ever get called for jury duty again*

    (*something I suspect will never happen unless I move to a different county or state)

    1. Without commenting on what the *law* allows, I’ll venture a guess on the *practical* implications of wearing such a T-shirt in court – they wouldn’t like it and would try to find a way to retaliate against you.

      1. There is no law inside a courtroom. Only the judge.

        1. What sarcasmic said. Sort of. “Contempt of court” covers a whole lot of ground. See, e.g., this guide to contempt of court in Texas.

          I’m not sure whether your proposed shirt would rise to the sort of penalties Colorado ended up throwing at Laura Kriho, but I can easily see the judge forcing you to do some inane task as a punishment for doubting their authority. We’ve a few federal judges down here that seem to think part of their job is to act as a 2nd grade schoolteacher with respect to their interaction with the jury, making recalcitrant jury pool selectees write essays on why the jury system is important, etc…

          A judge has a lot of latitude for how they run their courtroom.

          1. The judge is supposed to represent the law. As such s/he should prohibit anything that favors one side or the other, in their judgment.

    2. Just don’t hang around the courthouse in Denver.

    3. Better off getting on a jury, keeping quiet, then nullifying from the inside.

      1. I blew that one a while ago. No more jury summons!

        1. Not I — another request pending in a few weeks, although I’ve yet to even sniff a trial for an offense where I would consider nullification. Instead it’s murder, rape, assault, and rape. I did survive two days of voir dire as Juror #2 for a DUI case that I think may have had some *interesting* behavior by the police, but on day three he pled out.

  5. I think no political buttons/shirts, etc. in court would be reasonable. As long as police not actually on duty are also forbidden from wearing uniforms.

    1. OK, but who wants to see those guys in their underwear?

    2. Define “on duty.” Because I’m sure that they put in for overtime when they go to court to support their brothers. So technically they probably are “on duty” because they have a duty to support their fellow criminals in blue.

      1. OK, unless they are the bailiffs or other officers or marshals required to be there as armed security for the court.

  6. In more, I mean probably less interesting news. Nasa makes announcement that they have a ‘big’ announcement, again, and the press always says ‘Is there life on [fill in the blank planet]?’ What they’ll announce is evidence of water above the surface on Europa, maybe some sort of water spouts caused by the immense gravitational pull of Jupiter.

    Nasa big announcement? Or Meh, again, really?

    I’m gonna go with meh.

    1. Liquid water on the surface of Europa is pretty interesting if you are a big extra-terrestrial geology nerd.

      I’m sure it will be something like that, not terribly interesting to normal people. I guess they have to remind people that they still exist without the shuttle.

    2. They’ve doubled their budget to get more women interested in science?

      1. Yeah, close as in 4 light years.

      2. Anybody in the Southern Hemisphere, start hunting fo Zeta Beams!


  7. It would be a subtle hint for jury nullification to black jurors.

    Are defense attorneys allowed to explicitly argue for jury nullification otherwise?

    “The attorney refused, saying she was defending her free speech rights, and the judge scheduled a hearing for tomorrow to discuss buttons in court.”

    Free speech in the courtroom?

    Since when?

    This is free speech in the court room:

    NSFW. If you watch the following video at work, you will be fired.


    1. On the flip side, it could cause some jurors to be more inclined to convict their client.

      1. You only need one to refuse.

  8. No word on whether the judge, has, or will, prevent police officers for showing up en masse at police trials in what could be perceived as an attempt to influence the jury.

    I don’t think the judge CAN control who shows up to attend trials. They have no legal ability to do so.

    Whereas, they do have some degree of say in how attorneys are permitted to behave. Wearing slogans/symbols/signs of affiliation with any given 3rd party group would seem to be attempts to associate one side with what may be popular causes/groups which juries may be predisposed to favor.

    I doubt people would want prosecutors being allowed to wear big, ostentatious crosses around their necks in very-christian regions of the country, associating themselves as ‘true believers’ and therefore more credible than the slimy, heathen defenders.

    similarly, i think a judge would have reasonable cause to bar defense from wearing “I”M WITH YALL BLACK FOLKS” symbols, creating the impression that disagreeing with them was a betrayal of ‘their cause’.

    I do agree that police showing up @ trials may have an undesirable influence; i just don’t think its an intellectually honest comparison to what’s being discussed here.

    1. Police should be allowed to show up for trials– out of uniform.

      1. …or in shackles.

    2. I thought judges did have powers to tell the gallery what to do, or kick people out. I could be wrong.

      1. They do. There’s not a lot of First Amendment inside the courtroom. If one of the attorneys does an interpretive dance of “Mein Kampf” he’s gonna shut down pretty fast, no matter how important artistic expression is.

      2. I thought judges did have powers to tell the gallery what to do, or kick people out.

        Yup, I was kicked out of a courtroom last Monday, over and over again. (I wasn’t read in on some confidential info that was being discussed)

  9. “We need to talk about your flair.”

    1. I have fifteen pieces.

      1. Now, it’s up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare
        minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a
        terrific smile. And he probably won’t stab the jury with the wealth of stabby pointyness on his vest.

  10. Steve Grammas compared the message “black lives matter” in the courtroom to permitting messages urging the death penalty for killers or castration for sexual predators.

    LOL Ok, sure. Why not?

  11. Interesting that the head of the police union would be so forcefully public about his disagreement with the idea that black lives matter. It seems to me if he were politically smart, he’d have all his officers wearing black lives matter pins.

    1. Brilliant! And therefore beyond the range of his understanding.

    2. I haven’t actually seen the entirety of what the guy said, so i can’t address that –

      but there’s a difference between “Objecting to a group” and “objecting to what that group ostensibly ‘advocates’

      e.g. I can be an environmentalist, and still hate the fuck out of Greenpeace and Sierra Club

      *(and i’d also argue that any ‘real’ environmentalist should as well – because these groups suck hundreds of millions of dollars out what could have been productive use ‘defending wild-lands’, and apply them to radical leftist political advocacy which is mostly about fucking with Energy companies, passing laws hurting landowners, causing massive disruptions of water-use, etc. – in short, they’re WORSE than doing nothing about their own cause; they actively work against their own cause.)

      I think there are probably police-reform advocates who feel exactly the same about BLM; they’re not helping – or at least some of what they do doesn’t help, enough so that they’d prefer to dis-associate their own advocacy from their brand.

      1. e.g. I can be an environmentalist, and still hate the fuck out of Greenpeace and Sierra Club

        The only complication is that two sects of a group will typically differentiate from one another once their differences are far enough. For example, most non-prog environmentalists have embraced the “conservationist” label.

        Once that split happens, you can more easily object to the group as a whole rather than the nuanced approach of objecting to their positions.

        1. I get your point, but mine was more general –

          I don’t care about the semantic difference in goals = I object to the actual shit they do. Forget the niggling difference in the ‘environmental’ policy example – i’m talking about ‘advocacy groups’ whose stated purpose and behaviors are often entirely antithetical

          e.g. I’d argue that most of BLM’s agitation up until they formed the campaign zero thing (and more-recently actually protested @ an actual police union) was completely counter-productive and did more to turn people *against* them than rally people to their amorphous cause.

          The same could be said of Occupy Wall St. One might say, ‘well look, presidential candidates are offering up “free college” and shit, which was on their menu” … but that would probably be the case whether or not they’d camped out for weeks down in lower manhattan. Not only did they do zero to actually influence any of the financial institutions they were supposedly railing against, they probably did themselves a disservice by simply spreading idiotic misconceptions which still harms many young people today, making them less-able to even understand the problems they *think* affect them (e.g. the nature of ‘debt’)

          The simple point is that, “you can be supportive of a cause, and still hate the ‘advocacy’ groups claiming to represent that cause”. Because groups are generally more interested in promoting *themselves*, simply using the cause as a means to that end.

      2. I think there are probably police-reform advocates who feel exactly the same about BLM; they’re not helping

        That would describe most of us on H&R, I think.

        1. Sure, but we’re not exactly provoking demonstrations all over the country, subject of discussions for talk-show hosts, or used as an excuse to postpone midterms.

          iow, for all our lack of utility, at least we’re not chewing up lots of human-bandwidth.

    3. The premise of black lives matter is that police are not infallible. His job is to say the opposite.

      1. When we say Black Lives Matter, we are broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.We are talking about the ways in which Black lives are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity.

        How Black poverty and genocide is state violence.

        How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence.

        How Black women bearing the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families is state violence.

        How Black queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us, and that is state violence.

        How 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows.

        How Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war.

        How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence.

        #BLM must have missed the memo

    1. as Sprinkle had reportedly announced her new gender identification as a washing machine.


      1. What is “Katniss Sprinkle”, chopped liver??

        1. She’s no Annie Sprinkle.

          1. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s a net positive. Even for fictional characters.

    2. …the fried, grated potato dish…

      Tater Tots are baked! TRIGGERED

  12. OT: Couple visiting US from Netherlands have apparently never seen US-style school buses before, so they took some pictures.

    School officials respond by teaching kids, “If you see people doing something you don’t like, sic the state on them!” That, and they’re teaching children to be scared of everything.

    Sadly, the parents and reporters all think this is virtuous.

    1. Superintendent Angelina Maloney says the “see something, say something” motto is working.

      Yes, it is…if your goal is to fuck with Dutch tourists

    2. Well maybe if a few people had dared to notice that the Japanese tourists in Hawaii were sure taking a LOT of photos in 1940, things would have turned out differently…..

      1. How the hell do you case a school bus?

    3. Hell, look at the comments there. Anyone even suggesting this was an overreaction was called out as having their heads in the sand ignoring what’s going on in the world. One even saying that “our children are in danger.” Really? In this world that has a lower rate of crime and abductions than the one that person grew up in? Reminds me of these parents I’ve seen that talk about never letting their children outside without one of them watching, absolutely paranoid that their son or daughter will be snatched from the front yard if all these sleazy child-predators that we apparently live around see them unsupervised. Next time I hear one of them I should ask them if they played outside when they were children without mom or dad watching them every second.

  13. OT:

    “Stanford medical student falls to death in Sierra climbing accident”

    Because of the location and the ‘earth-people’ culture, we get several of these each year.
    I didn’t know the woman, and it was her life to do with as she pleased, so screw those who presume they knew better than she did.
    But we also get the obligatory ‘she died doing what she loved!’ bullstuff. OK, what about the woman who kicks off at 80 from lung cancer after smoking her whole life? Didn’t she ‘die doing something she loved’?
    Maybe I’m too picky about this sort of stuff, but it smells of the mud-mamma religion. Hey, tobacco is ‘natural, ain’t it?
    (no, I don’t smoke).

    1. look, cranky old man =

      a promising young female medical student with an interesting background who falls off a mountain makes a better story than “poor person who never did anything interesting dies in very predictable manner”

      i don’t expect you to like it; but it would be silly to expect newspapers to not milk pathetic appeals to “lost potential” where it exists.

      1. Bleeds = leads? Especially if she’s kinda cute?

        1. Bleeds out of her wherever?

      2. Oh, and from the number of climbers/number of fallers, I wonder when that becomes ‘predictable’?

        1. As a former avid climber: major mountaineering/climbing-related accidents are rare (even as a percentage of the people involved) compared to things as banal as skiiing/skateboarding, ‘parkour’, any extreme-sport etc.

          they’re more sensational, and get written up in the papers, so you always hear about the ‘major whippers’ (*when protection fails). But not so much the local kid who broke his neck slamming into a wall skateboarding.

          from what i read there, she wasn’t even “climbing” anyway, and rather just trying to cross a narrow ridgeline sans protection. Which is bloody stupid, and an example of how its not the actual “climbing” that’s dangerous – its the stuff people *think* is ‘safe enough’ that they don’t need to bother with all the normal climbing precautions.

          *my most serious accident(s) happened 15 feet off the ground in one case. in fact, i think statistically, most injuries happen at very relatively small heights because people simply don’t take it seriously enough.

          1. I rode bikes for near 50 years; my worst accident was a laydown at ~35MPH (outside turn on Mt. Tam; used the berm to keep from going over the edge).
            But I can’t recall getting on one without a lid; those who really get hurt are (like your example) hoping they’re bullet-proof.

            1. Yep, its sort of a consistent fact that applies to lots of things – when people are doing “dangerous stuff”, they tend to have their guard up and look forward and prepare for potential risks; its when they mentally transition to thinking, “this part is less-dangerous” that they suddenly experience brainfarts which cause serious injury/death.

              I don’t recall the exact %, but its a ridiculously high #, like 80% of fatal mountaineering accidents happen during descent.

              part of it is genuinely due to the fact that, in many ways, ‘going down’ is in fact harder (and you’re already physically shot as well); but the more significant part is that people mentally relax and stop paying attention to every detail.

              in rock climbing, its the very-beginning/very-ends which seem to be the risk-zone, in my experience. people mentally assume “lower down is easier” and will write-off a quick fall as unlikely; up top, there’s an “i already made it” attitude which lets them climb into bad positions that they can’t undo because their brain has already left the building.

              1. “its when they mentally transition to thinking, “this part is less-dangerous” that they suddenly experience brainfarts which cause serious injury/death.”

                There is (or was) a monthly report from the FAA on GA accidents, pretty detailed, I hope they were and are paid by the GA fees.
                It won’t take long reading it to see that most of them involve pilots with enough hours to get a ticket and not enough to really know what they are doing. Some of those guys put a 172 into the ground, which ain’t easy to do!

            2. 35mph on a bicycle? Must have been some steep hill you were descending!

              Unless by “bike” you mean motorcycle…… 🙂

  14. More OT:

    “North Korea accidentally revealed it has just 28 websites”
    “Madory, […]had noticed that North Korea’s system administrators had made a mistake that allowed outside users to query websites that used the “.kp” name. His discovery soon made its way to Reddit, where thousands of users quickly began exploring the websites they found.
    “Bet NK has one less DNS administrator now,” one Reddit user observed.”

    One less living one, at any rate. Hope his of her family didn’t end up the same.

  15. I’m surprised no one has said those women in the picture are the kind of cops they’d be happy to be stop and frisked by and allow them to violate their rights.

  16. BLM vs. Police Unions is a pretty good analogy for this election.

    1. *** pumps fist ***

      Yes! Yet another excuse to link this!

  17. I like Ed. He’s maybe my favorite Reason contributor, other than AgileCyborg, of course.

  18. “While we embrace the First Amendment, we do not believe that such statements should be made in the halls of justice.”

    “The Executive Director miswrote. He obviously meant: ‘While we embrace our wife, we do not believe that such displays of affection should be made in the halls of justice.'”

    1. “The Executive Director miswrote. He obviously meant: ‘While we embrace our wife, we do not believe that such displays of affection should be made in the halls of justice.'”

      I had something clever, with (strike) and everything. But, cool trivia fact: people smoking pot, while drinking whiskey and beer, have a very short span of… uh… what were we talking about?

  19. I was expecting some cosmo #BLM-derp over the police shooting a rioter in the head down in the Queen City.

      1. Police say a civilian killed the rioter.

        1. Some lovely comments for that article.

          1. Examples:
            black savages thank God for the men in blue without them it would be the law of the jungle

            Obama has their backs, Blacks need to be sent back to Africa, period.

            This is what happens when the chimps escape the zoo.

            1. People are going to lose their fucking minds when that Nat Turner flick comes out.

              1. V.I. Warshawski 2?

              2. The Haitians had a much better Kill-Whitey mindset. So much so that hardly anyone today knows there ever were white Haitians at one time.

  20. Paging Sugarfree. Sugarfree, please pick up the white courtesy phone.


  21. Today was my second and last day of not being picked for jury duty. I just had to be one of about 80 people dragged into a courtroom so that they could slowly and boringly sort through us to find 14 who were unobjectionable to the defense, prosecution, and the judge.

    The most dramatic moment came from the guy who, when asked if there was any reason he thought he couldn’t be fair, said that he felt the country’s criminal justice system was horribly prejudiced against blacks, and so he wouldn’t believe the testimony of police officers. (Apparently the case rests on the testimony of police, the defendant is black, and the abused woman won’t testify against her boyfriend.)

    Oh and also, he took an online test created by people at Harvard, and he’s not proud of it, but it turns out he’s very prejudiced against blacks.

    It seemed like overkill, but he was “thanked and excused,” as I’m sure he wanted.

    1. “You question *my* impartiality? Me, Napoleon Bonaparte?”

    2. A trial attorney explained it to me this way (paraphrasing):
      Cherry-picked evidence serves only to bolster the ‘stories’ both prosecution and defense attorneys have spent time developing, which ‘stories’ they intend to use to convince the jury. They prefer the jury be full of those who accept those ‘stories’ without question.
      A prospective juror may be biased toward one ‘story’ or the other, and the questioning is of course designed to determine that, but in general, if you are inclined to question a ‘story’ presented to you, you are not likely to end up on a jury.
      Simply asking why a question was asked seems to have kept me from wasting a lot of time.

      1. I had a number of questions ready should I have been asked. The biggest one: they kept asking about feelings and experiences with domestic violence, but the term was never defined. That’s crucial, because another question was whether people thought the state should pursue charges when the victim didn’t want to cooperate. I think the only logical answer is: “It depends.” If the violence was a punch to the head, sure. If the violence was a grabbed arm, then probably not.

        1. How about:
          “How do you define ‘domestic violence’?

          1. Yes, that’s one I was going to ask.

  22. Patton’s Speech to the 3rd Army, adapted for today’s college students

    [This person skips onstage to the strains of “Imagine” and stands in front of giant screen showing frolicking puppies.]

    Be seated.Happy!

    [the snowflakes snap vigorously in approval]

    MenHappy people, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.

    1. You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would be killed in a major battle. Every man is scared in his first action. If he says he’s not, he’s a goddamn liar. But the real hero is the man who fights even though he’s scared. Some men will get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour, and for some it takes days. But the real man never lets his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.

      All through your army career you men have bitched about what you call ‘this chicken-shit drilling.’ That is all for a purpose?to ensure instant obedience to orders and to create constant alertness. This must be bred into every soldier. I don’t give a fuck for a man who is not always on his toes. But the drilling has made veterans of all you men. You are ready! A man has to be alert all the time if he expects to keep on breathing. If not, some German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of shit. There are four hundred neatly marked graves in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job?but they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before his officer did. just wonderful!

    2. An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, and fights as a team. This individual hero stuff is bullshit. The bilious bastards who write that stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know any more about real battle than they do about fucking. And we have the best team?we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor bastards we’re going up against.

      All the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters. Every single man in the army plays a vital role. So don’t ever let up. Don’t ever think that your job is unimportant. What if every truck driver decided that he didn’t like the whine of the shells and turned yellow and jumped headlong into a ditch? That cowardly bastard could say to himself, ‘Hell, they won’t miss me, just one man in thousands.’ What if every man said that? Where in the hell would we be then? No, thank God, Americans don’t say that. Every man does his job. Every man is important. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the quartermaster is needed to bring up the food and clothes for us because where we are going there isn’t a hell of a lot to steal. Every last damn man in the mess hall, even the one who boils the water to keep us from getting the GI shits, has a job to do.

      1. (from your link)
        I read it in another form which makes me wonder if it is apocryphal, but if not, it is a wonderful statement of military leadership:
        “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country”

    3. Eh, this isn’t as funny as I thought it would be. You get the idea- they’d censor the whole thing. I do encourage you to read the original speech. It has a lot more pizzazz than the one from the movie.

      Man, if those whiners wet their pants over Trump 2016, just imagine if someone said or wrote this in their vicinity:

      “We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket.”

      “We’re going to hold him by his balls and we’re going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We’re going to go through the enemy like shit through a tinhorn.”

      “We want to get this war over with. But you can’t win a war lying down. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the bastards who started it. We want to get the hell over there and clean the goddamn thing up, and then get at those purple-pissing Japs.”

      Purple-pissing Japs is a great band name.

      1. Replace “Hun” and “Jap” with “Zionist” and they’d be perfectly hunky-dory with such invective.

      2. Purple-pissing Japs is a great band name.

        Could be a horrible STD also

    1. Theaters? It’s coming to the whole country!

  23. Saw today that the riots in Charlotte are being called “violent protests”. Sure, man whatever.

    And when Trump said the cop who shot that guy with his hands maybe should not have been allowed to be a cop, the caption said “TRUMP SLAMS FEMALE POLICE OFFICER”.

    1. The other day, when he called for profiling, CNN helpfully changed his words to “racial profiling.”

      1. I should by stock in Depends. The pants-shitting is building to a crescendo.

  24. Good evening, this is Alistair Cooke, and welcome to Monsterpiece Theatre.

    1. Alternative punchline to Trump can’t be Hitler….

      -Hitler had better hair

      1. Hitler had better facial hair

        1. If a politician suddenly reveals that the book re wrote before taking power is the blueprint for how he governs, then I’d rather it be Art of the Deal and not Mein Kampf

          1. I’ll say this, based on hair styles, they both wrote Dreams of My Mother

  25. Wow. Usually Hillary Clinton voter rallies aren’t very well attended, but that one in Charlotte has been so popular it’s been extended for another day!

    1. Charlotte is a Sanders rally if anything….

      1. No, blacks gave Sanders very little support.

        1. What about the waifish hipsters who are like 50% of the people at these “protests”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.