Nick Shirley completely humiliated a weird protester on the streets of New York City who did not appreciate the way he had exposed rampant government corruption for the past several months.

On Saturday, Shirley released footage of his interactions with people on New York City’s Canal Street. Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman and social media influencer Joe Sweeny joined him.

The New York Post reported that this was part of an effort to show support for locals and business owners plagued by illegal street vendors, drug use, and rampant crime.

The Post also notes that Canal Street has become a magnet for illegal aliens selling counterfeit goods on the sidewalk.

Shirley and Sweeny later helped a group of volunteers in painting over a slew of storefronts and a nearby Broadway building defaced by graffiti.

At one point during his visit, Shirley ran into an odd protester who was apparently wearing a mask to disguise himself.

The man accused Shirley of targeting children with his form of journalism and called him creepy.

Shirley then dropped a seven-word truth bomb in response to the agitator’s assertion: “The point is, there were no kids.”

Indeed, the fraud Shirley exposed involved only grown adults.

The protester was not happy hearing this and started spiraling. He went from denying the truth to uttering nearly indecipherable nonsense, then back to calling Shirley’s actions creepy.

Then, he apologized at one point to Shirley before screaming at him as he walked away.

Talk about a person out of control.

WATCH:

HOLY SMOKES: Nick Shirley just DESTROYED this NYC Protester with only SEVEN WORDS:

Protestor: “If I showed up to your kids’ house with cameras demanding to see kids, would you think it’s creepy?”

SHIRLEY: “The point is there was no kids”

MIC DROP
pic.twitter.com/JebjKuj5Ve

— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) May 30, 2026

The post WATCH: Independent Journalist Nick Shirley Sends Wacky Protester SPIRALING with a Seven-Word Truth Bomb During NYC Street Interview appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Patriot Perspective has recently switched its main platform from YouTube, and we would greatly appreciate it if you subscribed to us there. [HERE]

The American judiciary is supposed to be different from Congress and the executive branch. Members of Congress openly run as Republicans or Democrats. Presidents are elected through campaigns, party platforms, and political coalitions. 

Judges, however, are supposed to apply the law, interpret the Constitution, and decide cases without allowing personal politics to guide the outcome.

That ideal becomes much harder to believe when former federal judges go on partisan television and sound almost exactly like Democrat political commentators.

On MSNOW Saturday, former U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin joined the network to discuss a federal court fight involving the Trump administration, the IRS, and a proposed $1.776 billion fund intended to compensate people who claim they were unfairly targeted by the government. 

The segment framed the fund as a “slush fund” for Trump allies and repeatedly tied it to January 6 defendants, even though the broader issue concerns whether citizens who were wronged by the federal government deserve compensation.

Scheindlin, who previously served as a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, claimed that the judicial system was being used for an improper purpose and argued that Trump was effectively “on both sides” of the case. 

She described the situation as “collusion” and suggested there was never a real case or controversy. She also referred to the proposed compensation fund as a “slush fund” and criticized the idea that Trump allies or people connected to January 6 could receive taxpayer-funded compensation.

For a political activist, those comments would be expected. For a former federal judge, they raise a much larger problem.

The judicial branch is not supposed to be another political battlefield. Alexander Hamilton famously described the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch because judges were not supposed to control the sword or the purse. 

Their authority depended on judgment, restraint, and public trust. 

But when judges, even former judges, openly join partisan media panels and attack one political side in language that sounds indistinguishable from MSNOW commentary, Americans naturally begin to wonder how impartial the system ever was.

The left spent years insisting that the justice system was independent while Donald Trump faced criminal charges, civil lawsuits, gag orders, raids, investigations, and legal attacks unlike anything previously directed at a major presidential candidate. 

Trump’s enemies called that accountability. Millions of Americans saw something else: lawfare.

Now, when the Trump administration seeks to address people who may have been mistreated by the federal government, the same political and legal class suddenly discovers deep concern about process, jurisdiction, collusion, and taxpayer money. 

Their concern appears far more selective than principled.

The most revealing part of the interview came when Scheindlin discussed who might benefit from the fund. She suggested that people who pleaded guilty, were convicted, or served prison time should not receive compensation. 

But that misses the core point. 

A guilty plea does not automatically prove that a prosecution was fair, that a sentence was proportionate, or that government power was used properly. If federal power was abused, then the public should want accountability regardless of whether the victim was politically unpopular.

Judges do not need to be Republicans or Democrats to damage public confidence. They only need to appear political while pretending the system remains neutral.

Too often, the people defending the system sound like they are protecting one political side from accountability while using the language of law to do it.

The Patriot Perspective has recently switched its main platform from YouTube, and we would greatly appreciate it if you subscribed to us there. [HERE]

The post Former Federal Judge Goes Full MSNOW Pundit While Claiming the Courts Are Neutral (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A Framework for Evaluating Arizona’s Attorney General Candidates

Arizona’s 2026 Attorney General race has drawn significant attention, much of it focused on legal pedigrees, courtroom records, and years in practice. But before voters can fairly evaluate the candidates, there’s a more fundamental question worth asking: what does the Attorney General actually do — and which background genuinely prepares someone to do it?

Part 1 – What is the Role of the Attorney General?

Every election cycle, voters hear candidates compare résumés, courtroom victories, military service, endorsements, and years of experience.

But what if we are asking the wrong question?

Instead of asking:

“Who is the better lawyer?”

Perhaps we should ask:

“What does the Attorney General actually do?”

Arizona law assigns the Attorney General broad responsibilities including representing state agencies, providing legal opinions, directing litigation involving the state, enforcing specific laws, and serving as Arizona’s chief legal officer. (See A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 1, Article 5.)

Arizona law provides the answer.

And Arizona law RULES!

Most voters assume the Attorney General spends his or her days personally trying cases in courtrooms across Arizona. While courtroom experience can certainly be valuable, that is only a small part of the job.

The Attorney General is not simply Arizona’s highest-ranking attorney.

The office is responsible for directing one of the largest public law organizations in the state. Hundreds of attorneys, investigators, support personnel, and divisions operate under the authority of the Attorney General.

Success in that role requires more than legal knowledge. It requires executive leadership.

An Attorney General must establish priorities, manage budgets, supervise personnel, coordinate litigation strategies, work with elected officials, communicate with the public, and make decisions that affect every Arizona taxpayer.

For that reason, voters should ask a different question:

Which experiences best prepares a candidate to lead a large governmental legal organization?

Is it the experience of managing complex public institutions, building consensus, overseeing budgets, leading committees, negotiating legislation, and directing statewide policy?

Or is it primarily the experience of practicing law within a more limited organizational structure?

The answer may determine whether voters are evaluating candidates based upon legal credentials alone or upon the broader leadership skills the office actually demands.

Part 2 – Which Experience Best Matches the Job?

 Once voters understand the role of the Attorney General, a second question naturally follows:

What type of experience best prepares someone to perform that role effectively?

The answer may not be as obvious as many campaign advertisements suggest.

Attorney General is certainly expected to possess legal knowledge and sound judgment. However, the office requires much more than the ability to argue individual cases in court.

The Attorney General serves as the chief legal executive for the State of Arizona. The position requires the management of large organizations, supervision of personnel, oversight of budgets, coordination of complex legal strategies, and leadership across multiple divisions with differing responsibilities.

In practical terms, the Attorney General must make decisions affecting hundreds of attorneys, investigators, and professional staff while representing the interests of millions of Arizona residents.

That raises an important distinction.

There is a difference between practicing law and leading a large legal organization.

Both require valuable skills.

But they are not the same skills.

A successful trial attorney may excel at presenting a case before a judge or jury. A successful executive leader must be able to establish priorities, allocate resources, manage personnel, coordinate multiple operations simultaneously, and ensure accountability throughout an entire organization.

The Attorney General’s office demands both legal understanding and executive leadership.

Therefore, voters should consider not only whether a candidate possesses legal experience, but whether that experience closely resembles the responsibilities of the office itself.

The question is not simply:

“Who has practiced law the longest?”

The more important question is:

“Whose experience best prepares them to lead Arizona’s largest public law office?”

That is the standard voters should use when evaluating every candidate seeking the office of Attorney General.

Part 3 — Experience Matters, But the Right Experience Matters

The debate over qualifications has largely focused on legal experience.

That is understandable. After all, the Attorney General is Arizona’s chief legal officer.

But legal knowledge alone is not enough to perform the job effectively.

The Attorney General does not personally handle every case. Nor does the Attorney General spend every day standing in a courtroom arguing motions before a judge.

The office oversees hundreds of attorneys, investigators, and support personnel. It manages budgets, establishes legal priorities, coordinates litigation strategies, represents state agencies, and makes decisions that affect millions of Arizona residents.

In that sense, the Attorney General functions as both an attorney and a chief executive officer.

That distinction matters.

Leadership at scale is fundamentally different from practicing law within a smaller organizational structure.

Managing a large statewide operation requires experience in administration, personnel management, budgeting, policy development, strategic planning, and public accountability.

For voters, the question is not whether legal experience matters.

It does.

The more important question is whether a candidate’s experience closely resembles the responsibilities of the office they seek.

Experience matters…

But the right experience matters more.

For voters, the question is not whether legal experience matters.

It does.

The more important question is whether a candidate’s experience closely resembles the responsibilities of the office they seek.

Not all experience prepares a person equally for every position.

A skilled trial attorney may possess talents that differ significantly from those required to manage a large statewide legal organization. Likewise, an individual with executive leadership experience may bring strengths that extend far beyond the courtroom.

The challenge for voters is to determine which experiences most closely align with the actual responsibilities of the Attorney General’s office.

Experience matters…But the right experience matters more!

Part 4 – Applying the Standard: Evaluating the Candidates

Having established the responsibilities of the office and the experience required to perform those responsibilities, voters can now evaluate how the candidates’ backgrounds compare to those requirements.

In every election, candidates bring different strengths, experiences, and perspectives to the table. The question is not whether one form of experience has value and another does not. Rather, the question is which experiences most closely align with the duties of the office being sought.

In Arizona’s Attorney General race, much of the public discussion has centered on courtroom experience, years of legal practice, and the number of cases handled during a candidate’s career.

Those considerations are certainly relevant.

However, as discussed earlier, the Attorney General’s responsibilities extend far beyond the courtroom.

The office requires leadership, organizational management, strategic decision-making, budget oversight, personnel supervision, public accountability, and the ability to direct one of the largest legal organizations in the State of Arizona.

Viewed through that lens, voters may wish to examine not only a candidate’s legal credentials, but also whether that candidate has demonstrated the executive leadership skills necessary to manage a complex statewide operation.

For example, serving in legislative leadership positions often requires managing large organizations, overseeing budgets, directing staff, building consensus among competing interests, negotiating policy, coordinating legal strategy, and making decisions with statewide consequences.

These responsibilities involve many of the same leadership and management skills required of a chief executive.

Likewise, legal experience obtained through private practice, military service, public service, or prosecutorial work can provide valuable insight into the operation of the justice system and the application of the law.

The challenge for voters is not determining whether one type of experience has value.

The challenge is determining which combination of experience most closely resembles the actual responsibilities of the Attorney General.

That is the standard by which every candidate should be measured.

Leadership at Scale …

One of the most overlooked aspects of the Attorney General’s office is the sheer size and complexity of the organization itself.

The Attorney General does not operate as a solo practitioner. Nor does the office function like a small private law firm where a handful of attorneys handle a limited number of cases.

The Attorney General oversees one of Arizona’s largest legal organizations, consisting of hundreds of attorneys, investigators, professional staff, and specialized divisions responsible for matters ranging from consumer protection and criminal appeals to civil litigation and agency representation.

That reality introduces a concept rarely discussed during political campaigns:

Leadership at Scale

Leadership at scale requires a unique combination of skills. It demands the ability to manage large organizations, establish priorities, oversee budgets, direct personnel, coordinate strategy, build consensus among competing interests, and make decisions whose consequences extend far beyond a single case or client.

The skills required to lead a statewide legal organization are not necessarily the same skills required to successfully litigate an individual case.

Both are important.

But they are different.

The question for voters is whether a candidate has previously exercised responsibilities that resemble those of a chief executive managing a large and complex public organization.

In evaluating candidates for Attorney General, voters may wish to examine not only legal credentials but also experience in leadership, administration, policy development, budget oversight, personnel management, and strategic decision-making.

Those responsibilities are at the heart of what the Attorney General does every day.

Warren Petersen’s Executive Leadership Experience

Having established the responsibilities of the Attorney General’s office and the importance of leadership at scale, voters can now evaluate how Warren Petersen’s experience aligns with those requirements.

Petersen’s supporters often point to his legal background, legislative service, and courtroom experience. Those qualifications are certainly relevant. However, what may be most significant in evaluating his candidacy is the breadth of executive leadership responsibilities he has assumed throughout his public service career.

As President of the Arizona Senate, Petersen serves in one of the highest leadership positions in state government. The role extends far beyond voting on legislation. It requires managing a large legislative organization, overseeing staff and operations, coordinating committee activity, guiding policy priorities, building consensus among members, negotiating with executive branch officials, and helping shape the direction of state government.

Prior to serving as Senate President, Petersen held several other leadership positions, including House Majority Leader, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, and Chairman of the House Commerce Committee.

Each of these positions required leadership, management, strategic planning, personnel oversight, policy development, and decision-making affecting millions of Arizona residents.

In addition to his legislative leadership roles, Petersen has frequently been involved in legal actions affecting Arizona law and public policy. Those efforts have required coordinating with attorneys, developing legal strategy, evaluating litigation risks, and participating in matters with statewide implications.

Whether one agrees with every position he has taken is ultimately a matter for voters to decide.

The more relevant question for purposes of this analysis is whether the skills required to serve successfully in these leadership positions resemble the skills required to lead:

Arizona’s largest public law office.

Many voters may conclude that they do.

The Attorney General must manage people, establish priorities, oversee budgets, coordinate legal strategy, communicate with stakeholders, and provide executive leadership across a complex statewide organization.

Those are responsibilities that closely mirror many of the duties Petersen has performed throughout his legislative leadership career.

Rodney Glassman’s Professional Experience

Rodney Glassman brings a different background and set of experiences to the Attorney General’s race.

His supporters point to his legal career, military service, and years of professional experience as evidence of his qualifications for the office.

Military service, particularly in positions involving legal and leadership responsibilities, can provide valuable experience in discipline, decision-making, organizational structure, and public service. Likewise, legal practice can provide important insight into the application of the law, courtroom procedures, client representation, and case management.

These experiences should not be discounted.

However, the standard established throughout this analysis is not simply whether a candidate possesses legal experience. The question is whether that experience closely resembles the responsibilities of Arizona’s Attorney General.

As discussed previously, the Attorney General serves as the chief executive of one of Arizona’s largest legal organizations. The position requires managing hundreds of attorneys, investigators, and professional staff while directing legal strategy, overseeing budgets, coordinating statewide operations, and establishing organizational priorities.

Voters must therefore determine which experiences best prepare a candidate for those executive responsibilities.

Glassman’s supporters may argue that his legal and military background provides leadership experience and valuable management skills. Others may conclude that the responsibilities of the Attorney General more closely resemble positions involving large-scale governmental leadership, organizational management, policy oversight, and executive decision-making.

Reasonable voters may differ in their conclusions.

The purpose of this analysis is not to diminish any candidate’s accomplishments or public service. Rather, it is to encourage voters to evaluate candidates based upon the actual duties of the office being sought.

Ultimately, every voter must decide which candidate’s experience most closely aligns with the responsibilities of Arizona’s Attorney General and which candidate is best prepared to lead the office on Day One.

Conclusion

As voters evaluate candidates for Arizona Attorney General, they will undoubtedly hear discussions about years of experience, courtroom victories, legal résumés, endorsements, and campaign rhetoric.

Those discussions are important.

But they may not be the most important questions.

Throughout this analysis, a different question has emerged:

What does the Attorney General actually do?

Arizona law provides the framework. The office serves as the state’s chief legal authority while overseeing one of the largest legal organizations in Arizona government. The responsibilities extend far beyond individual courtroom appearances and require executive leadership, organizational management, strategic decision-making, personnel oversight, and public accountability.

Once voters understand the role, the evaluation becomes clearer.

The question is no longer simply who has practiced law the longest, handled the most cases, or accumulated the most years of professional experience.

The question becomes:

Which candidate’s experience most closely resembles the responsibilities of the office itself?

That is a different standard.

And perhaps it is the standard voters should have been using all along.

Arizona voters will ultimately make that decision for themselves.

Experience matters. But the right experience matters more.

• Linda Brickman

The post A Framework for Evaluating Arizona’s Attorney General Candidates appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A brand-new scandal is embroiling Maine Democratic Senate Candidate Graham ‘Nazi tattoo‘ Platner’s campaign after he previously assured America that there was nothing more salacious in his background.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, previously told a campaign aide about finding sexually explicit texts with several women on her husband’s phone.

The New York Times revealed that she disclosed the texts to Genevieve McDonald, a former state legislator who was the Platner campaign’s political director before leaving in October. McDonald explained that Gertner reached out just days before a Labor Day rally with Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT), and that she was worried that her husband’s behavior could hurt his political prospects.

McDonald added that Gertner told her that Platner had been exchanging sexual messages with up to a dozen women.

The Platner campaign, though, ultimately dismissed the texts as a private matter and moved on.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

Amy Gertner, who married Platner in 2024, told the campaign about messages she had found early in their marriage in the spring of 2025. In late August, as some aides were conducting opposition research on their own candidate, Gertner disclosed the texts to a campaign aide to make sure they didn’t pose a risk to her husband’s nascent campaign, those people said.

The campaign had been preparing for a major rally over Labor Day weekend last year with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was set to officially endorse Platner at the event.

Aides ultimately decided the texts were a private matter that was being handled by the couple in marriage counseling, a campaign official said. The rally proceeded as planned, with thousands in attendance.

Gertner, though, is standing by her man. In a statement released by the Platner campaign, she accused McDonald of orchestrating a grave betrayal:

I confided deeply personal details about my marriage to someone I considered a friend. I trusted this person with the most private chapter of our lives — the early days of our marriage, before any campaign was on our mind.

Our marriage today is stronger than ever before. I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life.

That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.

Back in March, New York Times reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked Platner whether there was something “new” he wanted to get ahead of.

Platner replied, “No, I have lived my life. I’ve been there for the whole thing.”

“I know what I’ve been through. I know what my behavior has been.”

WATCH:

Reporter: “…something new you want to get ahead of?”

Platner: “no…” pic.twitter.com/wA8sEFwAZK

— Kaeley Gemmill (@KaeleyGemmill) May 30, 2026

As The Gateway Pundit has previously reported, Platner has been embroiled in several major scandals. These include having a Nazi tattoo, mocking wounded soldiers, and trashing rural Maine voters.

He has also called himself a communist.

Despite these damaging revelations, polls show that Platner is favored to defeat longtime liberal Republican Senator Susan Collins in November. Collins, though, does have a history of defying the odds.

It remains to be seen whether these new texts will matter to Maine voters.

The post Democrat Senate Candidate Graham ‘Nazi Tattoo’ Platner’s Words Come Back to Haunt Him as a Salacious New Scandal Threatens His Campaign (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Federal law enforcement just exposed another jaw-dropping failure of Los Angeles’ radical “reimagine public safety” experiment under Mayor Karen Bass.

Michael Angel Alvarez, 41, aka “Diablo,” a convicted first-degree murderer and alleged active 18th Street gang member, was arrested by federal agents after being paid over $58,000 last year by a city-contracted nonprofit to serve as a so-called “Peace Ambassador.”

The arrest went down on May 18 near MacArthur Park. LAPD officers responding to a stolen vehicle call detained Alvarez. He reportedly told them he worked for Mayor Karen Bass’s Crisis Response Team (“CRT”).

Take a look at the absolute insanity of this operation, according to the DOJ:

• The Suspect: A hardened gangster convicted of first-degree murder in 2002. He was sentenced to 50 years to life but was cut loose early by California’s broken justice system. Federal authorities state he is still an active 18th Street gang member who was recently caught on jailhouse phone calls plotting to assault people who broke gang rules.

• The Scam: Alvarez didn’t just sneak onto the payroll. He was funded through “Healing Urban Barrios” (HUB), a Lincoln Heights-based Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that secured a lucrative contract with the city.

• The Taxpayer Cost: Under the guise of a “Peace Ambassador program”—which the city website laughably describes as an initiative to “prevent violence before it starts”—the city of Los Angeles approved a staggering $450,000 from its general fund to flow into this NGO between 2024 and 2027.

• The Payout: In 2025 alone, this taxpayer-funded NGO handed Alvarez $58,156 to patrol the streets as an unarmed “peacekeeper.”

Federal authorities noted that during the search of “Diablo’s” vehicle, they discovered top-tier, military-grade body armor plates in his trunk — marketed as the highest level of protection available on the civilian market.  Apparently, being a “Peace Ambassador” requires a lot of tactical gear when you are actively running with a cartel-linked street gang.

If convicted, Alvarez would face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.

OMG. Federal law enforcement have arrested an LA Mayor Karen Bass “PEACE AMBASSADOR” who’s also a convicted murderer and active 18th Street gang member — and the man did it via an NGO

SPENCER PRATT: “Karen Bass has turned LA City into a criminal cartel.”

DOJ says Michael… pic.twitter.com/66Y6bmY25M

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 31, 2026

First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli wrote on X:

According to Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez:

“Peace Ambassadors are embedded in the communities they serve. Their presence strengthens safety networks and ensures families have someone to turn to outside of law enforcement when facing non-emergency conflict or community stress.”

Alvarez is charged in a federal criminal complaint with possession of body armor by a violent felon, which carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.

According to an affidavit filed with the complaint, Alvarez was paid more than $58,000 last year for his work for Healing Urban Barrios, an organization that contracted with the city for its Peace Ambassador program that is run in the city’s Council District 1, which includes MacArthur Park.

Alvarez was convicted in 2002 for first-degree murder for which he was sentenced to 50 years to life in state prison, but was released by the State of California after serving just 24 years’ imprisonment.

There is no indication Alvarez has ever stopped associating with the 18th Street gang. In fact, in jailhouse telephone call recordings of Alvarez since his release from state prison, he discussed assaulting individuals for breaking gang rules.

@LAPDRampart
officers who searched Alvarez’s car near MacArthur Park on May 18 discovered two body armor plates in the trunk. The plates are from Las Vegas and are marketed as “the highest protection level available on the civilian market.”

The hardworking tax payers of Los Angeles deserve better than to see their money shelled out to a convicted gang murderer.

MacArthur Park Update

This morning, @FBILosAngeles arrested Michael Angel Alvarez, 41, a.k.a. “Diablo,” an active 18th Street gang member, convicted murderer, and Los Angeles “Peace Ambassador” who is being paid with L.A. city taxpayer dollars.

According to Councilwoman… pic.twitter.com/zXMMoItNIq

— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) May 29, 2026

This is how the modern Left operates. They defund the police, weaponize the justice system against everyday Americans, and then funnel millions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars into sketchy NGOs that put active gang bangers and literal murderers on the public teat.

The post Federal Agents Arrest Karen Bass-Linked “Peace Ambassador” — Convicted Murderer and Active 18th Street Gang Member Was Being Paid with Taxpayer Dollars Through NGO Program appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.