Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon is the sort of progressive prosecutor who thinks it is his job to curb mass incarceration. Last week, the L.A. DA announced he is reviewing the sentencing of Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were convicted of the savage shotgun killing of their parents in 1989 and sentenced to life without parole.  The brothers are the subject of a Netflix series, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” and a Netflix documentary, “The Menendez Brothers.”  Gascon told Newsweek his office is reviewing the case because of a 1988 letter that Erik Menendez wrote to a cousin about alleged sexual abuse by his father and a statement from a former Menudo band member who alleged Jose Menendez sexually assaulted him.  Be it noted, Lyle and Erik Menendez were 21 and 18 at the time they slaughtered their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.  Cooper Koch (right) portrays Erik Menendez on the Netflix series “The Menendez Brothers.” (MEGA/GC Images via Getty Images) The sons were adults who could have walked away from their wealthy lifestyle in Beverly Hills, but instead chose to turn two shotguns on their father, who sexually abused them, they said, as well as their mother, using her substance abuse in the face of her husband’s affairs as a reason to put her “out of her misery.”  Then they went on a spending spree—loading up with high-end watches, clothing, and cars.  The murders were premeditated. They were extremely violent. The brothers killed their parents. So, why would the headline-seeking Gascon revisit the sentence?  California has no shortage of gullible journalists and politicians who want to believe that convicted killers, even in parricides, are underdogs—though the brothers admitted they killed their unarmed parents, as Jose and Kitty Menendez were watching TV.  Some family members have pushed for the brothers’ release—as the pair, now in their 50s, have been in prison for decades after enduring a childhood of abuse by their father.  In the Netflix documentary, prosecutor Pamela Bozanich confirmed that she asked around about Jose Menendez, and she couldn’t find a single person who said anything nice about him, except for his secretary. Bozanich called the father a monster whose death presented “an actual plus for mankind.”  “The only reason I’m doing this after 33 years is that this poor woman who gave birth to both of them was treated like a doormat by her husband and her sons, and she was slaughtered like a wild animal inside of her own home,” she said of her decision to talk about the case.  Bozanich also believes that there would be no push to reconsider the case if not for TikTok, which has elevated the inmates’ celebrity status.  There’s a political angle to the Menendez brothers’ saga as well.  Gascon’s career in elective office took off after Kamala Harris won the California attorney general’s race in 2010 and then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom named him to succeed her as San Francisco DA. The careers of the two prosecutors from San Francisco have been intertwined for years.  In February 2020, Harris and other progressive Democrats endorsed Gascon as he ran for Los Angeles district attorney. That 2020 endorsement was not a pro forma statement of support. Harris got behind Gascon during a contested primary, in which he challenged incumbent Democrat DA Jackie Lacey.  Then-Sen. Kamala Harris said, “George Gascon is a proven leader of national significance when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system. As DA of San Francisco, George led fights to reform the Three Strikes Law, decrease the state prison population, and get people convicted of nonviolent offenses greater opportunities to get their lives back on track. As DA of L.A. County, I know George Gascon will work every day to keep our communities safe and demand real accountability from our justice system and real justice for every Angeleno.”  In short, Harris, who wants voters to believe she was a hard-nosed prosecutor, endorsed Gascon because he weakened California law on repeat offenders and sent fewer criminals to prison.  But now, according to a recent Los Angeles Times/UC Berkeley poll, the incumbent DA has garnered 21% of support, 30 points behind lead challenger Nathan Hochman.  Those politics aren’t going to help Harris in 2024. So this go-round, she has not endorsed Gascon.  COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The 2024 Angle to the Menendez Brothers Saga  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On the latest episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” we examine one of the greatest dichotomies in a two-party presidential election. Former President Donald Trump canvasses the nation seeking to create as big a tent for the Republican Party as possible, resulting in massive events sold out, even in traditionally blue cities. Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has spent her entire political career excluding those not on the far left, specifically many men, Christians, and Republicans. In California, there are enough on the far left that one doesn’t need moderates or bipartisan support to win elections. In swing states? Not so much. Trend lines continue to increase for Trump and slide further down for Harris. Both of these approaches come down to overflow. Do you seek it or throw it away? We go live to The Daily Signal’s Virginia Allen in North Carolina to learn about the continuing hurricane disaster-recovery efforts, how the Tar Heel State’s communities perceive federal assistance, and whether the past few months have changed any hearts or ballots. Speaking of ballots, join us on Nov. 5 beginning at 6 p.m. EST that fateful evening for our ultimate election coverage, straight from the show’s new studio! We’ll go until we’re ready to call the race, even if that means our producers collapse from lack of sleep. Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. EDT on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook—and subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode or exclusive interview. The post OVERFLOW CROWDS: What Trump Gets and Harris Can Only Hope For appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There are a number of reasons why raising chicks can be a highly rewarding experience. Whether you’re drawn to their bright, quirky personalities that make them ideal for a pet, or if you’re more interested in creating a sustainable source of nutrition for yourself, raising chicks is a simple and easy process that can fit into any type of lifestyle. Raising Chicks On The Homestead Baby chicks can be purchased and raised from any stage of development. There are three main options in this sense: 1. The first is to buy the chicks at one day old from a hatchery. Most farm suppliers will sell baby chicks along with regular animal feed, and they are typically cheaply priced – most farmers will charge between $3-5 per chick. Keep in mind that most farms will do orders for chicks at a maximum of two times per year, so the period of waiting time is something to consider if you are wanting to go this route to acquire your chicks. 2. Another option is to purchase some ready-to-lay pullets at 20 weeks old, just when they are about to start the laying process. This option is, of course, more expensive than buying the day-old chicks, but it is a much more pragmatic choice if you are needing your eggs quite quickly. Like the day-old chicks, the ready-to-lays can be purchased from a farm supplier at a hatchery. 3. The final option, while sometimes hard to come by, is to purchase a mature laying hen. This might require that you know someone with a flock who is trying to sell older hens; otherwise, the first two options might be a more sensible choice to begin the process of raising your chicks. Benefits: One of the many positive benefits of raising chicks is that they do not require much maintenance, constant monitoring or intense care. Buy the basics for your chicks first, which include chick starter, clean water, and a draft-free brooder pen complete with a brooder lamp that will monitor the interior temperature of your chicks’ home. The temperature of the brooder will need to start off at 90-95 degrees for the first week of the chicks’ life.  A thermometer is helpful to monitor the correct temperature, but you might also observe the chicks’ behavior to ensure that the interior is of the correct warmth. Chicks in a too-hot environment will pant or huddle in corners of the brooder that are farthest away from the light; chicks that are too cold will be clustered underneath the brooder lamp in an attempt to gain some warmth. The size of the brooder that you select will depend on the number of chicks you are planning to purchase and raise. A general rule of thumb is to allow 2.5 square feet per chick, but the more room possible, the better. The brooder should also start off to be raised 2 inches off of the ground. Once the chicks reach approximately one month, the brooder needs to raised to 4 inches in order to encourage the chicks to start their own roosting process. It is necessary to keep an eye on how the chicks feather out; once they begin and fully feather, you should reduce the interior temperature by 5 degrees per week until they reach 6 weeks old. At this time, chick feed will also need to be swapped for grower mash. Always make sure that the chicks have plenty of fresh water at all times. Growth: You will be amazed at how quickly your chicks feather out and grow! In just a week, you will notice a stunning transformation where small babies comprised mostly of chick fuzz will grow almost full wings with the beginnings of crests and tail feathers. It is important that the chicks have a comfortable environment while they are being raised. To do this, spread pine shavings across the floor of their pen along with layers of newspaper to create a cushion for the chicks. Sprinkle plenty of chick feed on the ground for them to eat at their leisure. Make sure to change out the newspaper at least once a day, otherwise the chicks will be walking on an unclean floor. Cleanliness: Cleanliness is of high importance when raising your chicks. The babies are prone to contracting an illness called coccidiosis that arises from walking through and tracking their own excrement in a particularly damp environment. One other important requirement to note is that the brooder lamp should contain a red light bulb as opposed to a white. Using red light will ensure that the chicks do not peck at each other, as it conceals any potential injuries that the chicks might have. If the other chicks see an injured peer, they will have no problem pecking and potentially causing further harm, or even potential death, to the wounded. In Conclusion: Raising baby chicks will increase your healthy lifestyle in a number of ways that you might not have even considered. You will have direct control over what type of product you are consuming, whether you are just enjoying the fresh eggs that your chicks will one day provide, or if you are planning to use their meat once they are raised in full. Baby chicks will also eat your table scraps and convert them into organic fertilizer that will ensure your plants will thrive and grow. Additionally, you will be surprised at the cutback of insects you find in your yard – the chicks will eat those pesky pests which will allow you to enjoy more days outside to spend time with your chicks. They are cheaply bought, easy to raise, and do not require an extreme amount of attention, making baby chicks an ideal option for either a family pet or an addition to a sustainable way of living. Happy raising! What did you think of our post on raising chicks? Let us know in the comment section below. Up Next: Energy Saving Tips For Spring Cleaning Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook!

Justin Trudeau May Be Running Out of Time

Yes, Some Democrats Are Tired of the Hitler Comparisons Too

The New York Times published a think piece last week strategizing how leftists might be able to thwart the will of American voters and rescue democracy from President Donald Trump should he win on Nov. 5. Using the term "democracy" euphemistically for a state of things in which Democrats or leftists of other stripes are in power, the authors — a pair of Harvard University professors hostile to Trump, the Constitution as written, and the Electoral College — recommended "societal mobilization" should the powers that be fail to get their way. Daniel Ziblatt and Steve Levitsky's call to action, which critics have noted sounds a lot like color revolution, appears to be the desperate finale following a series of failed efforts by Democrats to remove Kamala Harris' opponent from the ballot or to kneecap him with lawfare. The duo, working under the assumption that Trump would "dismantle" the republic's electoral system of which they themselves are critics, identified "five strategies that pro-democratic forces around the world have employed" against so-called "authoritarian threats." The first four are as follows: laissez-faire — the "self-correcting power of electoral competition," which the Harvard authors say is "distorted by an 18th-century institution, the Electoral College"; militant or defensive democracy, whereby public officials who self-identify as pro-democracy censor supposedly undesirable speech, outlaw undesirable groups, and criminalize opponents — a tactic Germany's leftist establishment is presently bringing to bear against the popular right-leaning populist party Alternative for Germany; partisan gatekeeping, whereby establishmentarians neutralize popular candidates deemed "antidemocratic" or prevent their ascent through the ranks; and containment, where establishmentarians form coalitions across party lines to deny voters the option of a choice deemed "antidemocratic" by the ruling elite. Ziblatt and Levitsky, convinced that these four strategies have failed, noted that there is yet a fifth way by which supposed champions of democracy could rob the electorate of their desired outcome: "societal mobilization." "Democracy’s last bastion of defense is civil society," wrote the duo, who made no mention of the antidemocratic provenance of Harris' candidacy. "When the constitutional order is under threat, influential groups and societal leaders — chief executives, religious leaders, labor leaders and prominent retired public officials — must speak out, reminding citizens of the red lines that democratic societies must never cross. And when politicians cross those red lines, society's most prominent voices must publicly and forcefully repudiate them." 'It was always a Color Revolution.' The Harvard duo's German and Brazilian examples suggest that they are advocating far more than for Americans simply to "speak out." These examples, when coupled with their other other coercive strategies, call to mind violent demonstrations — not just those of yesterday, such as the Black Lives Matter riots, but the bloody roundup executed by the republican radicals ahead of the Spanish Civil War. The duo wrote, The U.S. establishment is sleepwalking toward a crisis. An openly antidemocratic figure stands at least a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency. The Supreme Court and the Republican Party have abdicated their gatekeeping responsibilities, and too many of America’s most influential political, business and religious leaders remain on the sidelines. Unable to rise above fear or narrow ambition, they hedge their bets. But time is running out. What are they waiting for? Jeffrey Tucker, president of the Brownstone Institute, said of the piece, "That is one chilling article: abolishing democracy to protect it. Amazing. Harvard. Notice how at the end, they tip their hand and call for a defense of 'the U.S. establishment.' Every single one of the cases they mention concerns a populist movement against elites." Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to the Times piece, writing, "Once again, NYT publishes something fundamentally un-American." "This op-ed is advocating pure authoritarianism under the guise of guarding against authoritarianism," wrote Jeremy Carl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. "It's amazing how far Harvard's Government department has fallen that it would have professors express such views." The Federalist's editor in chief, Mollie Hemingway, noted, "I just read a bat guano insane NYT op-ed that said four ways to stop MAGA had failed (hoping it loses, banning the GOP/Trump from ballot, having GOP overturn its voters, establishment resistance) and now recommends what sounds like a color revolution." "It was always a Color Revolution," wrote Blaze News senior editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford. Color revolutions — such as the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004 — are political upheavals aimed at toppling supposedly illegitimate or abusive regimes and replacing them with supposedly liberal democratic regimes. Blaze News previously highlighted that in many cases, the revolutionaries appear to have been afforded help and direction by state actors and/or by non-governmental organizations. Christopher Rufo noted in April, "The West's favored methods of supporting Color Revolutions include fomenting dissent, organizing activists through social media, promoting student movements, and unleashing domestic unrest on the streets." New Hampshire state Rep. Mike Belcher tweeted, "Communist have no qualms about a (any) solution to the paradox of toleration. Our republic tried, but failed to solve for this problem re: Communist subversion about 80 years ago and failed. Recognize that, even in a Trump victory, we are still counter-revolutionary to the established Marxist Regime." In June, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck detailed the seven conditions that must be met for a color revolution to successfully topple a government. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tens of thousands of people reportedly attended the campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in Houston, Texas, on Friday night in hopes of seeing Beyoncé perform, but many left very disappointed. The Harris campaign estimated that 30,000 attended the rally at Shell Energy Stadium in Houston, the hometown of the popular R&B singer-songwriter. 'They booed the hell out of everybody. They thought she was going to perform.'“We are at the precipice of an incredible shift, at the brink of history," Beyoncé told the crowd. "I’m not here as a celebrity. I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live, a world where we have freedom to control our bodies, a world where we are not divided — our past, our present, our future meet us here.”MSNBC and other outlets cited a campaign source to report that Beyonce would be performing at the rally, but she instead only spoke for a few minutes and left. After she walked off the stage, the audience appeared to turn on Harris. A Blaze News review of Harris' speech available on YouTube confirmed that the Democrat was constantly interrupted by large portions of the crowd booing and shouting. Videos posted to social media captured some of the moments when outraged attendees interrupted Harris, but it's unclear if those were edited. Former President Donald Trump mocked and ridiculed Harris over the apparent debacle. "Beyoncé went up and spoke for a couple of minutes and then left, and the place went crazy," Trump said at a rally in Michigan. "They booed the hell out of everybody. They thought she was going to perform. What happened was my opponent got up and started speaking, and they booed the hell out of her. It’s crazy." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former President Donald Trump has pulled ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris in New Hampshire, according to a New Hampshire Journal/Praecones Analytica poll released Sunday. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won New Hampshire was over two decades ago, when George W. Bush was running in 2000. Trump has managed to gain momentum in the longtime blue state, polling at 50.2% while Harris trails at 49.8%, according to the poll. Although Trump's lead is slim, this poll may sound the alarm for Democrats who have otherwise dominated the state in seven of the last eight presidential elections. 'She's on defense and knows President Trump is on the path to victory.'Trump previously lost the state to President Joe Biden in 2020 by 7.3% and to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 0.3%. In 2012 and 2008, former President Barack Obama won the state by 5.6% and 9.6%, respectively."There's a reason Kamala Harris has been spending money in New Hampshire," Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman and New Hampshire native, told the New Hampshire Journal. "She's on defense and knows President Trump is on the path to victory."Nearly half of adults in New Hampshire, 44%, self-identify as Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters, while just 35% self-identify as Republican or Republican-leaning and 20% self-identify as having no partisan leaning, according to a Pew Research study. Despite having more Democratic-leaning voters, Trump is pulling ahead of Harris, likely due to a growing favorability among independents. "To my fellow Granite Staters who want to keep our beautiful state safe, business-friendly, and free — get out and vote for President Trump," Leavitt told the New Hampshire Journal. "Kamala is a radical liberal who would destroy New Hampshire and America forever." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Abortion is the biggest issue that the Democrat Party is running on, but Democrats never tell you how dangerous the procedure really is. Which is why when young mother Amber Thurman died after taking the abortion pill, the mainstream media went after the abortion laws in Thurman’s home state of Georgia rather than the pill that killed her. “She left Georgia, where she could not get an abortion at the time of her pregnancy that she was in, she went to another state, got abortion pills, took them, came back, was told everything is going to be fine, no big deal,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” explains. “She took them, had a very, very big deal, and she wound up going to the hospital. They didn’t treat her for a long time, and she wound up dying. Now, she didn’t go to the hospital because of the Georgia abortion law. She went to the hospital because the pills she was told were going to be totally innocuous wound up putting her in a situation where she needed to go to the hospital,” he adds. The babies in her womb were already dead from the abortion pill, so no abortion laws would have applied to her situation when she went to the hospital. The poor infants were not evacuated from her system, so that’s when sepsis set in. While the Democrats jumped on this story because they felt they could mess with the truth and pin Thurman’s death on abortion laws, one story they ignored was the case of Eliana Dickson. Dickson, a Nevada woman, also died of sepsis after taking abortion pills. “You might note that Nevada does not have the Georgia abortion law,” Stu says, commenting that these women are sold a much different idea by doctors, politicians, and the media — so they have no idea what they could be getting themselves into. “If you have a woman in your life that, God forbid, has gone down this road and is having these problems, please let them know, because the media is not going to do that. They’re going to do the exact opposite of that. They’re going to try to hide that information from them because they want political points. It’s disgusting,” he adds. And they don’t just hide that information, but they lie about it. CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins even compared the abortion drug mifepristone’s “safety” to being “on par with those of common over-the-counter pain relievers like ibuprofen and acetaminophen.” “Forget for just a moment all the stats I’m about to bring up and just, does that pass the sniff test to you? Have you ever had Tylenol? Have you ever had Advil?” Stu asks, disturbed. “Do you think that has a safety profile equal to the abortion drug? Do you think that? But no, experts are telling you it, so it must be so.” Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

"The View" host Whoopi Goldberg issued a crazed warning about what will happen to interracial couples under a second term of President Donald Trump, whose re-election prospects look high.On Monday, Goldberg said Trump will split up couples in which one spouse is an illegal immigrant and reassign the white "guy" to another woman.'These are the final hours.'"He is talking about you. It’s us. He’s not going to be — he’s not going to, you know, say, ‘Oh, you’re with a white guy, I’m going to keep you from being deported.’ No, he’s going to deport you and put the white guy with someone else. The man is out there," Goldberg yelled.Goldberg and the other hosts of "The View" were in hysterics on Monday following Trump's massively attended rally in New York City at Madison Square Garden on Sunday. Guest Mika Brzezinski added to the hyperventilating over the rally, calling it a "Nazi-type" gathering, even though minorities and Jewish supporters were at Madison Square Garden for the event."It was everything that you need to know about Donald Trump in one weird, white nationalist, Nazi-type rally and, of course, there are historic parallels to where and when this happened," she continued. "I come with such dire warnings, and I mean them from the bottom of my heart!""These are the final hours. We need you, we need you, you, you, you, and all of you to vote," Brzezinski added.The prospect of mass deportations has become more stark with Trump leading in the polls against Vice President Kamala Harris. Tom Homan, who was the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under former Trump, said if there are concerns about families being split up because some are in the country illegally, then "families can be deported together."Trump has proposed using the National Guard and local law enforcement to help ICE officers track down and remove illegal aliens since that population has grown exponentially under the Biden-Harris administration. Democrats and open-border advocates have claimed the deportation process will be too costly and will do more harm than good.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!