Italy Once Conquered the World, Today Citizens Aren’t Allowed to Defend Themselves

Italy Once Conquered the World, Today Citizens Aren’t Allowed to Defend Themselves

Italy Once Conquered the World, Today Citizens Aren’t Allowed to Defend Themselves
July 24, 2026

Despite rising violent crime rates, gun ownership in Italy is extremely restricted, while self-defense and use-of-force laws are generally unfavorable to both civilians and police. Photo courtesy of City News Roma Today.

Watching the news and conservative social media feeds from Italy, one sees that migrant crime has exploded across the country. Even global tourism destinations such as Rome have become unsafe at night, while robberies and other violent or sex-related crimes are occurring at an alarming rate, even during the day.

For two thousand years, Rome projected power across three continents, building an empire on the discipline of its legions and the authority of its law. Today, Italy is being overrun with invaders, and an Italian citizen who fights back against a criminal in their own home or shop faces a mandatory criminal investigation and often a prison sentence longer than the one handed to the person who attacked them.

Gun ownership is highly restricted, castle laws are virtually nonexistent, and even the police are discouraged from defending themselves or using force to apprehend noncompliant criminals.

Under the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, any use of lethal or serious force against an intruder or attacker automatically triggers an “iscrizione nel registro degli indagate,” a formal entry into the register of criminal suspects. Prosecutors typically open the case as manslaughter or “eccesso colposo di legittima difesa” (culpable excess in self-defense), pending forensic and ballistic review.

A 2019 reform, Law no. 36/2019, was intended to strengthen self-defense rights, establishing that proportionality between defense and offense is presumed inside one’s home or business. In practice, judges continue to draw a hard line: force used against an active, ongoing threat is defensible; force used against a suspect who is already fleeing is not, and courts have consistently classified the latter as excessive or even as an act of vengeance.

American laws are generally much more favorable toward self-defense and the defense of one’s home. California Penal Code section 198.5, a “castle doctrine” statute, gives homeowners a legal presumption of reasonable fear once an intruder has forcibly entered, shifting the burden onto prosecutors to disprove that fear.

Italian law, even after 2019, still requires the defender to establish that danger was actual and the response proportionate, case by case. Separately, 38 U.S. states have “stand your ground” laws removing any duty to retreat anywhere a person is lawfully present. Italy has no equivalent.

The clearest recent example is Cinzia Dal Pino, a 65-year-old businesswoman from Viareggio who, on September 8, 2024, struck and killed Noureddine Mezgui, a Moroccan bag-thief, with her SUV. Prosecutors sought a life sentence. In June 2026, the Assize Court of Lucca convicted her of murder and sentenced her to 18 years.

Mario Roggero, a jeweler in Grinzane Cavour, shot and killed two robbers after a 2021 armed raid on his shop. Because the men were fleeing when he fired, courts rejected his self-defense claim. Italy’s Supreme Court finalized his 14-year, 9-month sentence in July 2026.

The pattern predates both cases by decades. In 2006, Antonio Monella killed 19-year-old Albanian Ervis Hoxha, who was stealing his Mercedes. Monella was convicted of voluntary homicide but was later pardoned.

That same year, gas station attendant Graziano Stacchio was investigated after killing a robber, although the case was ultimately dismissed.

In 2011, Piacenza entrepreneur Angelo Peveri shot and wounded a Romanian thief. He was convicted and sentenced to four and a half years in prison.

In another 2006 case, Ermes Mattielli wounded two Roma men who were stealing copper from his property. He was convicted and ordered to pay damages.

Part of why many of these cases involve improvised weapons rather than a handgun carried for the purpose is that Italy treats gun ownership as a conditional privilege. The core law is the Consolidated Public Security Law (TULPS) plus Law no. 110/1975. Licensing requires a clean background check and psychological evaluation, with the Questura completing review in 30–45 days.

The United States imposes no federal licensing requirement to own a firearm. The Second Amendment makes firearm ownership a constitutional right, not a state-granted privilege. About one-quarter of states require some form of permit, and in most of those, the requirement applies only to handguns. For example, New York requires a license to purchase a handgun but not a rifle or shotgun. Only a handful of states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, extend permit requirements to long guns. No state imposes anything resembling Italy’s mandatory psychological evaluation or its requirement to demonstrate a specific threat before being allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense.

To put the difference in gun ownership into perspective, Italy has an estimated 8.6 million civilian firearms in circulation, owned by only about 1.2 million licensed gun owners. By comparison, estimates place the number of civilian-owned firearms in the United States at nearly 500 million as of 2026.

Police face related but legally distinct restrictions on the use of force, even in cases of self-defense. In Italy, force is governed by Article 53 of the penal code, not civilian self-defense law. On the fleeing-suspect limit, Italian and American law converge: the 1985 ruling in Tennessee v. Garner bars deadly force against an unarmed suspect who’s merely running.

The systems diverge after an investigation begins. American officers can raise qualified immunity. Italian officers had no equivalent, until this year. In February 2026, Italy issued a security decree creating “Modello 45-bis,” a preliminary log that keeps a person out of the formal suspect registry when a justification appears evident from the outset, applicable to officer or citizen alike.

One of the new law’s first uses became a flashpoint. On July 19, 2026, Abderrahim Fakir, a 42-year-old man born in Morocco, died in Bologna’s Pilastro district after being restrained on the ground by police on via Svevo. He held no Italian citizenship, but he was a legal resident, in the country awaiting a routine renewal of his residence permit.

Residents had reported him to police as agitated, and he reportedly had some kind of confrontation with the driver of a car entering a nearby garage. Italian media did not specify the nature of the confrontation. When officers called emergency medical services, they told dispatchers they believed they were dealing with a man experiencing a psychiatric crisis.

Video obtained by the family’s lawyer shows Fakir restrained face-down, with his wrists and ankles bound by zip ties. His face was marked by what the lawyer described as pepper-spray residue from very close range. Red Cross responders performed chest compressions and used a defibrillator on him before he died.

Bologna prosecutors opened a manslaughter inquiry but placed the two officers and four paramedics involved in the Modello 45-bis register rather than the standard suspect registry pending review. The decision was not a finding of innocence and did not close the case, but it triggered large protests in Bologna. Demonstrators demanded the measure’s repeal, and police responded with tear gas and water cannons. International coverage drew comparisons to the 2020 death of George Floyd in the United States.

The Interior Ministry has separately circulated new internal guidelines instructing officers to de-escalate, call for backup, and use force only as a last resort when handling agitated or noncompliant individuals. The written, centrally mandated sequence has no direct equivalent in American policing, where use-of-force standards are set by individual states and police departments.

The post Italy Once Conquered the World, Today Citizens Aren’t Allowed to Defend Themselves appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Antonio Graceffo

PATHETIC NON-APOLOGY: Unhinged USA Today Columnist Issues Weak “Apology” After Claiming Caitlin Clark Endangers “Black and Queer” Women by Inspiring “White Nationalists” to “Lynch” Blacks

PATHETIC NON-APOLOGY: Unhinged USA Today Columnist Issues Weak “Apology” After Claiming Caitlin Clark Endangers “Black and Queer” Women by Inspiring “White Nationalists” to “Lynch” Blacks

PATHETIC NON-APOLOGY: Unhinged USA Today Columnist Issues Weak “Apology” After Claiming Caitlin Clark Endangers “Black and Queer” Women by Inspiring “White Nationalists” to “Lynch” Blacks
July 24, 2026

Basketball players compete for possession of the ball during a tense moment in a WNBA game, showcasing intense physicality and teamwork.

USA Today sports columnist Nancy Armour issued a pathetic non-apology Thursday after facing fierce backlash for invoking the lynching of Emmett Till in a deranged column attacking WNBA superstar Caitlin Clark.

Armour’s column, published Wednesday under the headline “Caitlin Clark’s flopping isn’t just annoying — it’s becoming dangerous,” accused Clark of exaggerating contact, berating referees, and creating a dangerous environment for the league’s predominantly black and female players.

But Armour did not stop at criticizing Clark’s behavior on the basketball court.

She dragged race, sexuality, “white nationalism,” and one of the most horrific murders in American history into a debate over foul calls in a women’s basketball game.

Armour claimed there is a “white nationalist faction” among Clark’s enormous fan base that views the Indiana Fever star as a white woman who must be defended against black opponents.

She then argued that Clark’s complaints to referees could provoke racist abuse against black and queer WNBA players—even invoking Emmett Till, the 14-year-old black boy who was brutally murdered in Mississippi in 1955.

According to Armour, Clark should recognize the supposed “wider consequences” of protesting missed calls because America has a history of black people being attacked in the name of defending white women.

This was published by a major national newspaper.

Following widespread outrage, Armour released a statement Thursday admitting that she had made an “inartful comparison” involving Till’s murder.

But Armour did not retract her central accusation against Clark.

Instead, she immediately doubled down, declaring that “this point stands” and continuing to argue that perceived threats against white women can be weaponized against black Americans.

Armour said she regretted that what she described as a lack of context had overshadowed what she considered an important conversation.

In other words, she wasn’t apologizing for making the grotesque comparison. She was apologizing because readers supposedly failed to understand what she meant.

That’s not an apology. That’s a lecture disguised as one.

One thing is clear: Armour doesn’t appear to regret what she wrote. She regrets the backlash it caused.

Read her statement below:

In my recent column, made an inartful comparison with the murder of Emmett Till.

I intended to connect the issues the WNBA is currently facing with its All-Star Game being hosted in Till’s hometown of Chicago.

I obviously did not provide enough context for that.

However, this point stands: There is a history in this country of perceived threats to white women being weaponized against African-Americans, and the danger that poses to Black players in the league.

Players have been abused online and have reported receiving death threats. That has to be taken more seriously.

I sincerely regret that my lack of appropriate context is overshadowing that important conversation and the action that needs to be taken by the WNBA to address it directly – for the benefit of ALL players.

USA Today also refused to disavow Armour’s column. Lark-Marie Anton, chief communications and brand officer for USA Today Co., told Front Office Sports that Armour is an opinion columnist and that the article had been “updated for clarity.” The outlet declined further comment.

The post PATHETIC NON-APOLOGY: Unhinged USA Today Columnist Issues Weak “Apology” After Claiming Caitlin Clark Endangers “Black and Queer” Women by Inspiring “White Nationalists” to “Lynch” Blacks appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Jim Hᴏft

ABLECHILD: Is Lindsay Clancy A Victim of Psychiatric Drugging?

ABLECHILD: Is Lindsay Clancy A Victim of Psychiatric Drugging?

ABLECHILD: Is Lindsay Clancy A Victim of Psychiatric Drugging?
July 24, 2026

Is Lindsay Clancy A Victim of Psychiatric Drugging?

Republished with permission from AbleChild.

Should Massachusetts mother, Lindsay Clancy, have been charged?  Many would suggest that it’s a judicial travesty that Clancy was literally drugged out of her mind and those who prescribed the drugs have escaped responsibility and continue to work in the field.

It’s like a bad movie that keeps getting replayed. Mothers are drugged out of their minds, kill their children, and prosecutors never address an obvious possible cause of the tragedies and who really is responsible. The Clancy case is a rerun. We’ve seen it before and, with the ever-increasing number of women in the United States who are drugged at record numbers, it’s time to call out what is occurring when psychiatric drug prescriptions are written without the serious consideration about possible deadly adverse events.

It’s AbleChild’s guess that the doctors prescribing Clancy’s drug cocktail, either never understood all the possible adverse events or simply ignored them. It wouldn’t be the first time. Recall that Texas mother, Andrea Yates, killed her five children in 2001 after having been prescribed a cocktail of antidepressants, sedatives and antipsychotics.

One of the drugs Yates received, Effexor (Venlafaxine), is a powerful antidepressant that carries Homicidal Ideation as a side effect. In fact, in the month leading up to Yates killing her children, her psychiatrist, Mohammad Saeed, had increased her daily dose of Effexor to twice the recommended maximum limit (450mg). TWICE THE MAXIMUM LIMIT. Haldol, Wellbutrin, Remeron and Trazodone made up the rest of Yates’s mind-altering drug cocktail.

Despite clear evidence that Yates had been heavily drugged, a jury found Yates guilty of the murders and now lives in a psychiatric hospital. Yates psychiatrist, Dr. Mohammed Saeed, still is active in the Houston area.  The problem with not holding psychiatrists responsible for the mind-altered behavior of these women is that the cocktail drugging may continue with future patients.

Saeed is still practicing and never received any professional fines, disciplinary actions or criminal charges for his “treatment” of Andrea Yates. Yates spends life behind bars for the murders of her five children that by all accounts were loved and well-cared for. Fast forward to Lindsay Clancy.

By all accounts, Clancy was a loving mother and a dedicated labor and delivery nurse. In fact, her colleagues wrote letters of support describing Clancy as highly compassionate, serene and a dedicated professional in maternal health. Clancy was all those things until seeking help for anxiety about returning to work after the birth of her last child.  Clancy was diagnosed with postpartum anxiety, depression, insomnia, depression-related sleep disturbances, bipolar disorder and mood regulation. It is important to stress that none of these alleged mental disorders are actual abnormalities in the brain. It also is necessary to point out that the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the drugs nor the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that approves the drugs, has any specific information about how the drugs work for any alleged mental disorder.

For example, Clancy was on five different antidepressants including Zoloft, Prozac, Amitriptyline, Remeron and Trazadone. The FDA reports on all the above drugs that how the drugs work is either “presumed to be linked to…” or “is not known.” Simply put, the drug approval agency for the United States hasn’t got a clue how these drugs “work” in the brain as “treatment” for any alleged mental disorders.

Clancy also was prescribed Benzodiazepines and Sedatives including Valium, Klonopin, Ativan and Ambien of which the FDA admits in its “Mechanism of action” section of approval that it has no clue how any of these drugs “work” in the brain as “treatment. “Thought to…,” “unknown…,” “presumed to be…”, and “hypothesized…” is how the FDA explains how these drugs “work.” So far, we’re batting 100 percent on clueless.

Now let’s look at the Antipsychotics and Mood Stabilizers that include Seroquel and Lamictal and what the FDA has to say about how these mind-altering drugs “work” as “treatment.” Not surprising, the FDA is clueless about how either drug “works” and reports the mechanism of action for both is “unknown.”

Moving along to the adverse events associated with the nearly 13-drug cocktail that Clancy was prescribed over a two-month period, it is clear that the mother’s behavior could easily be ascribed to the adverse events associated with each class of mind-altering drugs.

For example, adverse events associated with antidepressants include restlessness, anxiety (which Clancy was being “treated” for), confusion, mood and behavior changes, abnormal dreams, depression, memory impairment, delusions, insomnia, agitation, emotional lability, hostility, mania, abnormal thinking, depersonalization, manic reaction, paranoid reaction, psychosis, aggression, suicidal thoughts and behavior and suicide attempt to name a few.

Benzodiazepines and Sedatives can cause agitation, change in consciousness, mood and mental changes, nightmares, irritability, behavior problems, aggressive behavior and reaction, anger, anxiety, depersonalization, hallucinations, hostility, delusions, psychosis, psychotic disorders, and suicide ideation.

Finally, Antipsychotics and Mood stabilizers have, as possible, adverse effects, agitation, abnormal dreams, anxiety, depression, irritability, suicidal ideation, suicide related events (like homicide), delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, delirium, paranoid reaction, psychosis and emotional lability.

What the FDA, pharmaceutical companies, and especially the prescribing doctors, don’t tell patients is that none of these drugs are ever tested in clinical trials as cocktails. In other words, the makers of Zoloft and the makers of Klonopin, for example, don’t get together and conduct clinical trials to see how the drugs “work” together. And there certainly are no known clinical trials available for review of these 13 drugs prescribed to Clancy that have tested together.

Based on what the FDA does not know, Clancy’s psychiatrist and nurse practitioner, writing psychiatric mind-altering drug prescriptions, also have no idea how the drugs “work” nor how all the drugs will react in anyone’s system…especially Lindsay Clancy’s system. The fact is, not one of the mental health practitioners could guarantee that Clancy would NOT have serious adverse effects from a single drug and most certainly not from a cocktail of mind-altering drugs.

The fact that the possible side effects are made available by the FDA should make it mandatory for prosecutors to consider the drugs possible involvement in any criminal case. Further, the fact psychiatrists and other mental health care practitioners are prescribing mind-altering drugs with no certainty about how the drugs “work” as “treatment” or know how the drugs “work” together, it is time to consider the prescribers role in criminal proceedings.

One must wonder when Clancy’s mental health care team finally understood that the drug cocktails they had prescribed weren’t “working?” If there was ever a case of deadly drug cocktail prescribing, this would be it.

AbleChild would argue that the tragedy is, once again, the mental health and pharmaceutical industry has escaped any responsibility for the death of three innocent children, and the ruin of a loving mother. It’s happened before, and until these issues are addressed, it will happen again.

AbleChild is a 501(3) C nonprofit organization that has recently co-written landmark legislation in Tennessee, setting a national precedent for transparency and accountability in the intersection of mental health, pharmaceutical practices, and public safety.

What you can do.  Sign the Petition calling for federal hearings!

Donate! Every dollar you give is a powerful statement, a resounding declaration that the struggles of these families will no longer be ignored. Your generosity today will echo through generations, ensuring that the rights and well-being of children are fiercely guarded. Don’t let another family navigate this journey alone. Donate now and join us in creating a world where every child’s mind is nurtured, respected, and given the opportunity to thrive.  As a 501(c)3 organization, your donation to AbleChild is not only an investment in the well-being of vulnerable children but also a tax-deductible contribution to a cause that transcends individual lives.

The post ABLECHILD: Is Lindsay Clancy A Victim of Psychiatric Drugging? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Joe Hoft

LAUGHABLE: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Says Democrats Will ‘Hold the Crooks Accountable’ (VIDEO)

LAUGHABLE: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Says Democrats Will ‘Hold the Crooks Accountable’ (VIDEO)

LAUGHABLE: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Says Democrats Will ‘Hold the Crooks Accountable’ (VIDEO)
July 24, 2026

Hakeem Jeffries spikes the football at a news conference following the Virginia redistricting referendum. Credit: Fox news screenshot

While speaking in front of the press recently, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that the Democrat Party’s promise to the American people is that they will ‘hold the crooks accountable.’

What are they going to do, jail themselves?

When it comes to fraud, the Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail to defend the offenders. In California, they went so far as introducing legislation to stop people like Nick Shirley from exposing fraud and abuse.

And yet, Jeffries stands there with a straight face and says this:

Just a month ago, the House passed Resolution 1335, which focused on fraud.

It passed but 177 House Democrats voted against it.

From the Legis Website:

House Passes Anti-Fraud Resolution Demanding Eligibility Checks

The House passed H.Res. 1335 on June 11, condemning actors who seek to defraud the federal government and expressing the sense of the chamber that eligibility should be verified before federal payments go out the door. The H.Res. 1335 floor vote was 235–177, with every Republican who voted casting a “yes” and 177 Democrats voting against it.

The resolution is non-binding, but it lands at a moment when Republicans have built an extensive legislative scaffolding around the same core idea: the federal government has been writing checks before confirming who deserves them. The House Rules Committee heard the measure on June 8, alongside three other bills targeting improper payments, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee framed it as part of a package of 11 anti-fraud bills moving together. The GAO has estimated that improper payments across the federal government totaled roughly $3 trillion since 2003, with $186 billion in fiscal year 2025 alone. The resolution calls for government-wide fraud detection tools, a pre-payment eligibility verification mandate, and a permanent fraud watchdog structure.

The Democrats are the party of fraud.

No one believes Hakeem Jeffries or any other Democrat is coming after the crooks. They are the crooks.

The post LAUGHABLE: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Says Democrats Will ‘Hold the Crooks Accountable’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Mike LaChance

The University of Minnesota is Paying ‘Diversity’ Staffers Almost $1.5 Million Annually

The University of Minnesota is Paying ‘Diversity’ Staffers Almost $1.5 Million Annually

The University of Minnesota is Paying ‘Diversity’ Staffers Almost $1.5 Million Annually
July 24, 2026

University of Minnesota/Image: Screenshot

The University of Minnesota is paying ‘diversity staffers’ almost a million and a half dollars every year. And people still wonder how college has gotten so expensive.

What exactly do diversity staffers even do? Does anyone know?

Parents and students must understand that when they take out massive government loans to pay for college, this is part of what they are paying for. The exorbitant salaries of these pointless employees.

Campus Reform reports:

University of Minnesota pays DEI staff nearly $1.5 million annually

The University of Minnesota pays its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) staff members more than $1.4 million annually, according to publicly available state payroll records.

Despite federal executive orders restricting DEI offices and activities, the University of Minnesota maintains an Office for Equity and Diversity, which consists “of over 15 offices and major initiatives.”

“Equity and diversity is fundamental to everything we do at the University of Minnesota,” the office’s website says.

The central office employs four leadership staff and five administrative staff. Five of those staff members are receiving six-figure salaries, according to OpenPayrolls.

Record from 2025 list Vice President for Equity and Diversity Mercedes Ramírez Fernández ($391,759), Associate Vice President for Equity and Diversity and Faculty Development Keisha Varma ($238,540), Associate Vice Presidents Tina Marisam ($230,444) and Malinda Lindquist ($196,267), and Chief of Staff Elizabeth Martinez-Podolsky ($164,800).

The payroll data also lists Kate Klosterman ($74,298), John Michael Bradshaw ($50,086.40), Jenna Olien ($47,237), and Tia Phan ($99,194).

Combined, the nine employees earn $1,492,625.40 annually, according to the publicly available payroll records.

The University of Minnesota has continued promoting DEI initiatives even after President Donald Trump signed a January 2025 executive order directing federally funded colleges and universities to end unlawful DEI programs.

In a February 2025 message to the university community, President Rebecca Cunningham said the institution would not make changes in response to the executive order.

Higher education in the United States is on a collision course with reality.

None of this is sustainable and eventually, the entire house of cards is going to come crashing down.

The post The University of Minnesota is Paying ‘Diversity’ Staffers Almost $1.5 Million Annually appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Mike LaChance