• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

When Authorities become Murderers in America

SWAT  and  the Second Amendment..

by Mike McDaniel    at Pajamas Media:

“On May 5, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. in Tucson, a multi-agency SWAT team served a search warrant at the home of Jose Guerena (a Guerena case archive may be found here). Guerena, a former Marine combat veteran, was sound asleep, having returned home from the midnight shift at a local copper mine only a short time earlier.

Guerena’s wife Vanessa saw armed men in the front yard and woke Jose, who had time only to hide her and their son in a closet as far from the front door as possible and to take up a rifle to meet the unknown threat. Jose would not take his rifle off safe or fire a shot. Smashing in the door, five members of the SWAT team fired 71 rounds into the home, shredding it from floor to ceiling and wall to wall. They hit Jose 22 times and denied him medical care for more than 74 minutes, ensuring his death. They even managed to shoot the front door, doorframe, and the walls around the door multiple times. Miraculously, Vanessa and her son were not harmed.

The search warrant affidavit upon which the police relied contained no probable cause to search Jose’s home, but a judge — believed to be Charles V. Harrington — authorized it anyway, and shortly after the botched raid, Judge Harrington ordered it sealed. No evidence of the drugs — or anything else illegal — the police supposedly sought was found. The officers did try, weakly and briefly, to identify themselves before smashing in the door. They did not have a no-knock warrant. Several officers initially claimed Jose fired at them or pointed his rifle at them, but it quickly became clear they had no idea what Jose did, nor could they explain which officer fired the first shot or why.

On July 15, 2012, at 1:30 a.m. in Leesburg, Florida, Lake County deputies knocked on the door of 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott’s apartment, thinking attempted murder suspect Jonathan Brown was inside.  They did not identify themselves in any way. Brown had been seen earlier in the apartment complex, and his motorcycle was parked near Scott’s apartment. This was the only “evidence” of his presence. When Scott opened his door with a gun in his hand, a deputy opened fire, killing Scott. Brown was later found in a nearby apartment and arrested.

Police have not released many details, but the deputy fired multiple rounds, including some through the door of the apartment. Initial police statements suggested that Scott pointed the gun at deputies, but they seem to have backpedaled to the position that Scott was merely holding the gun. Scott apparently had prior arrests for drugs, and a small amount of marijuana and related paraphernalia was found in Scott’s apartment. News accounts made no mention of a warrant.

Said Sheriff’s Spokesman Lt. John Herrell: “It’s just a bizarre set of circumstances. The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police officer, you’re going to get shot.”

How are these cases related? In each case, an innocent man was unnecessarily killed by police officers.  And in each case, the police justified the shooting by the fact that the victim, reasonably defending his home, was armed when confronted by the police. In the Guerena case, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said: ”I don’t think anything was mishandled. Unfortunately, this individual points an assault rifle at cops. You do that, you are going to get killed. And the community has no reason to be concerned about it.”

Unlike Sheriff Dupnik, the community — every community — has more than sufficient reason to be concerned about the idea that anyone holding, perhaps merely carrying, a firearm within his own home is fair game for absorbing an unlimited number of police bullets should the police suddenly arrive and demand entry, with or without identifying themselves or their intentions.

To understand this issue and the danger this kind of police thinking presents, it’s important to understand the general legal requirements for the use of deadly force. These requirements may vary a bit from state to state due to differences in statutory language, but they apply to police officers and citizens alike. In many respects, police are expected and required to be far more capable and accurate in the application of deadly force than citizens, and rightfully so.

Deadly force is justified only to stop the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to oneself or another. A possible threat at sometime in the future is insufficient. A threat that might reasonably result in a painful bruise is not sufficient. A reasonable person — or reasonable police officer — must believe that if they do not immediately use deadly force, they or another will be very seriously injured or killed, and they must be able to clearly articulate their convincing reasons for that belief.

If deadly force is justified, one may fire as many rounds as necessary from as large and powerful a weapon as required to stop the threat. This principle, however, does have some practical limitations.  Police officers are always required to use the minimum force necessary to accomplish any legitimate objective. If two rounds are enough to stop a deadly threat, they are not justified in firing more. Police officers are always — always — personally responsible for each and every bullet they fire. They are always responsible for ensuring a safe backdrop before firing. If they miss or their bullets over-penetrate, they must be certain their bullets will not strike innocents.

It might seem unnecessary to state that the police — and citizens alike — may not create the conditions necessary to claim justification for using deadly force. That is essentially premeditated murder.  However, considering that police shootings of innocent citizens in their homes are something less than uncommon, it may be necessary indeed.

The Guerena case is noteworthy in part because Jose Guerena did not fire a single round or even take his rifle off safe, yet five police officers fired 71 rounds in a blind panic, stopping only when they emptied their magazines or their weapons malfunctioned. Their bullets not only struck nearby homes, many flew through the Guerena home and ended up in places unknown. It is a miracle they did not shoot each other. In the Scott case, a single deputy fired an unknown number of rounds, but he apparently did not empty his magazine despite also perforating the door of the apartment. It is not known how many rounds struck Scott or where the other rounds fired came to rest, though apparently no one else was hurt.

Police officers have, in the eyes of the law, a greater burden due to their supposedly superior training and experience. They are expected to be calm, observant, and capable of the use of superior tactics that will minimize danger to themselves and others to the greatest degree possible. In dangerous situations, they are expected to be capable of taking the extra fractions of a second necessary to be absolutely certain they need to shoot. When they shoot, they are expected to fire the minimum number of rounds necessary to stop a deadly threat, and to be absolutely accurate.  Unfortunately, reality can be very different indeed.

The simple truth is many police officers are not good shots. A great many citizens surpass the average police officer, not only in terms of combat experience, but in shooting skill. Firearm training is very time consuming and expensive for law enforcement agencies. For a 100-man police force, a 50-round yearly qualification can cost $1500.00 in ammunition alone. Taking officers off the street for qualification and training is many times more expensive. SWAT officers are supposedly given enhanced training, which is much more expensive than common street officer training. Many officers never truly become comfortable and proficient with their duty weapons, and I’m speaking only of attaining minimum yearly — or less frequent — qualification scores. Many never fire their weapons other than required qualification shooting, and many never clean their weapons.

As bad as this situation is, the only training in the use of deadly force some officers will ever have is in their basic training academy. This it also true for training in shoot/don’t shoot scenarios. This training is vital, for it consists of taped, interactive scenarios that help officers to properly, quickly, and accurately evaluate when they should and should not shoot. Unfortunately, this sort of training is even more expensive than common qualification shooting, and after basic training, many police officers never again have the opportunity to refresh and upgrade their knowledge and skill.

As bad as both situations are, they are compounded by several factors that virtually guarantee the unnecessary and unjustified deaths of innocents:

(1) Millions of citizens lawfully carry concealed weapons. Police can encounter them, male and female, young and old, at any time and any place. Competent officers know this and behave properly and professionally around everyone.

(2) Millions more have firearms in their homes. Competent police officers know they may encounter legally armed people whenever they go to any citizen’s home. They know they may face particular danger if they do not clearly identify themselves or their purpose, particularly when they arrive at times and under circumstances people would not expect visitors — or the police.

(3) Contemporary police training often focuses on the idea that police officers must go home, unharmed, at the end of every shift. This is, of course, to be preferred by any person of good will, but when this idea is not balanced by proper training and the application of proper tactics, it can easily lead to a “shoot first and let God sort them out” mentality.

(4) There is reason to believe many contemporary police officers are hardwired to shoot first and often.  Those entering police academies over the last decade are the first generation born into a computerized, predominantly visual world. For many, their introduction to a computerized world and the world of tactics is shoot-’em-up video games. A venerable police axiom is “train the way you want to fight, because you’ll fight as you’ve trained.” In other words, when situations go to Hell in an instant, police officers fall back on their training, on what they’ve been hardwired through practice and repetition to do.  In the case of the younger generation of police officers, it’s possible they’ve hardwired themselves to shoot, shoot, and shoot again, without regard for reality or consequences. They have, in essence, trained themselves to be aggressive and amoral.

The first key to preventing unwarranted shootings is continual and correct training. This is expensive, but in the long run far less expensive than dead innocents and the millions cities will end up paying to grieving survivors.

The second key is careful selection, hiring, and supervision to ensure that amoral people never carry a badge and gun. Every police agency has officers that should not be police officers, people psychologically and emotionally unsuitable for the job. Every officer knows who they are, yet they continue to be employed, and they inevitably cause great harm.

The final key is the use of proper tactics. In many cases, such tactics are nothing more than the skillful application of common sense rather than advanced, high-tech skills and procedures. In many cases, SWAT teams should simply not be used. As I have previously noted, such teams should always be properly trained and employed in carefully controlled circumstances. They should not be used for the service of common warrants and for apprehending criminals commonly handled by a patrol force.

In the Guerena case, the police knew Guerena’s habits and working hours. All they needed to do was take their time, to exercise a bit of patience, and to approach Guerena with one or two officers at a time of their choosing when Guerena had limited or no access to weapons and was at a tactical disadvantage.  They could have approached him at work, at the 7-11 where he routinely stopped for coffee, or even at his mailbox. Had they taken this rational approach, they could easily have arranged to serve the search warrant and no one would have been harmed.

In the Scott case, the officers were likely caught up in the excitement of the moment and felt a pressing need to catch an attempted murder suspect as quickly as possible. Rather than taking the time to be certain who actually lived in Scott’s apartment, they pressed blindly ahead. They could easily have watched the apartment from concealment and caught Brown — if he was actually there — as he left.  They could have simply called the occupants on the phone and safely talked them out. More importantly, they could have clearly identified themselves and used proper tactics and equipment to protect themselves to avoid having to shoot.

In both cases, the officers did not control events; events controlled them. This is a fundamental tactical mistake taught in all competent police training.

In a free society, a society with a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, police officers believing they may shoot a citizen in his own home simply because he is carrying a firearm cannot be tolerated.  Officers must absolutely avoid putting citizens in situations where they might be armed, or even pointing firearms in the direction of police officers banging on or breaking down their front doors. If such misconduct is tolerated, as in the cases of Jose Guerena and Andrew Scott, the next knock on any citizen’s door may be the last they ever answer.”



Mike McDaniel is a former police officer, detective, and SWAT operator, and is now a high school English teacher. He blogs here.

Obama’s Difficulty with Honesty Hits ABCs Brian Ross

ABC News’

Tea Party Apology Isn’t Good Enough

Editorial from Investor’s Business Daily:

 Media Bias: ABC News quickly apologized after one of its reporters tried to tie the Colorado massacre to the Tea Party. When will the network apologize for the blatant media bias that led to this monumental screw-up?

Less than eight hours after the movie theater shooting spree left 13 dead, “Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos turned to reporter Brian Ross who, he said, had “found something that might be significant.”

Ross’ finding? There’s a guy named Jim Holmes who joined the Colorado Tea Party last year.

Stop the presses!

Never mind that a simple online search of the Denver area turns up more than a dozen Jim Holmeses, any one of whom was just as likely to be the shooter as the guy Ross found on the Tea Party site. And never mind that Ross had zip, zero, nada information on the Jim Holmes whose name he did find.

Why bother taking such elemental journalistic steps when you can possibly be the first to tag a right-wing group with a mass shooting?

There’s also the question of why Ross’ first instinct was to go trolling around Tea Party sites. That, as much as Stephanopoulos and Ross’ decision to go on the air with the bogus information, reveals the enormity of the media bias at work here.

This is the same bias that was on glaring display after the Gabby Giffords shooting, when reporters tried — falsely and based on no evidence whatsoever — to pin the shooting on heated Tea Party rhetoric.

It’s the same bias that pushed the mainstream press to trumpet unfounded claims that Tea Partyers hurled a racial epithet at a black congressman. And that propelled these same reporters to cover up actual crimes — rapes, murders, destruction of property — perpetrated by their “Occupy Wall Street” friends.

Shortly after Ross’ report, ABC News apologized “for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.”

Sorry, but that’s not good enough. If ABC News was genuinely sorry, it would take a hard look at how such a fantastically biased report could have made it on the air in the first place.

Obama Democrats, ABCs Ross and Stephanopoulos, Corrupting the News

With Extreme Prejudice

How ABC News “investigates” a horrific crime.

By JAMES TARANTO      at the Wall Street Journal:

(Best of the tube tonight: Catch us tonight on “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” 7 and 10 p.m. ET on Fox Business.)

“An off-duty Los Angeles police officer and three bodybuilder friends have been arrested for allegedly punching and kicking a New York man in an alley near a cafe on West Hollywood’s Restaurant Row,” the Los Angeles Times reported July 30, 1991.

The foursome, including 25-year-old Officer Scott Defoe, “were leaving Pennyfeathers Cafe on La Cienega Boulevard at 3 a.m. Sunday when one of the four kicked a chair occupied by 33-year-old Jianvy Morales, a visitor from the Bronx.” An exchange of “angry words” ensued, whereupon the suspects allegedly chased Morales out of the restaurant.

“When they caught up with him, they ripped off his leather coat, knocked him down and began hitting and kicking him while he was on the ground,” a sheriff’s spokesman told the Times. By the time deputies arrived, the suspects had fled the scene, “skipping out on a $50 tab,” according to the restaurant’s owner.

We’re glad this was only a local story. Had it been a national one, investigative reporter Brian Ross might have blamed us on national television.

“Those arrested along with Defoe were Edward Spencer, 29, Ken Spencer, 27, and James Taranto, 27, all of Staten Island, N.Y.,” the Times report added.

That James Taranto, you will be relieved to learn, was not the one who became your humble columnist. We were, however, also in our mid-20s; we lived not far from Staten Island, in New Jersey; and it would not have been unusual for us to visit the Los Angeles area, where our parents lived. On the other hand, we were not a bodybuilder; it would be many years before we set foot in a gym.

James Taranto is not a common name, but unlike, say, Barack Obama, neither is it unique. Father James Taranto is a pastor at St. Mark’s Catholic Church in Independence, Mo. Jimmy Taranto used to play soccer for the University of Virginia; according to his bio at the UVA website, his father is called Jim. Another Jim Taranto “is a certified ‘short sale expert’ with certification from the prestigious ‘Distressed Property Institute’ of South Florida,” according to the ActiveRain Real Estate Network. According to HowManyOfMe.com, there are 36 James Tarantos in the U.S.

Men named James Holmes are much more numerous: HMOM.com puts the count at 2,909. Last night, police say, one of them opened fire in a crowded Aurora, Colo., movie theater, killing at least 12 people and injuring dozens more. Courtesy of Breitbart.com, here is how Brian Ross, ABC News’s chief investigative correspondent, reported the story this morning on “Good Morning America” with George Stephanopoulos:

Stephanopoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colo., page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colo.

Stephanopoulos: OK, we’ll keep looking at that. Brian Ross, thanks very much.

This would be more understandable–although still outrageous–if the shooter had an uncommon name like James Taranto. With a common name, however, the likelihood is quite high that a match like this one is false.

Breitbart later interviewed the Tea Party Jim Holmes and confirmed that he is not the shooting-suspect James Holmes. The former “is a 52-year-old Hispanic conservative who joined the Tea Party after becoming disillusioned with the Republican party. . . . He disconnected his telephone and says that he is worried about members of his family who might be contacted by the media.”

The shooting suspect, ABC later reported, is a 24-year-old Ph.D. candidate. Other reports say he is white, and he does not appear to be Hispanic. Politico notes that the network has corrected and apologized for the error:

“An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect,” ABC News said in a statement. “ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.”

This strikes us as insufficient. Simply as a matter of journalistic craft, the report was appallingly shoddy. Ross pointed the finger at an innocent man based on nothing but the coincidence of a common name and the man’s residence in the same city of 325,000 where the crime took place.

Let us amend that. There was one other factor, and this is what makes the ABC error not just amateurish but sinister: the innocent Jim Holmes’s involvement with the Tea Party. For more than three years liberal journalists have falsely portrayed the Tea Party as racist and potentially violent. After the January 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., speculation immediately began that the suspect was a Tea Partier. Even after it was proved that he was not, the New York Times published a despicable editorial blaming conservatives anyway.

Ross and ABC were out on this limb alone. Either other journalists learned their lesson from Tucson, or it didn’t occur to them to look for a political motive this time (it was a more plausible hypothesis in a shooting that targeted a politician).

It is reasonable to interpret Ross’s hasty unsubstantiated report as an expression of hostility–bigotry–toward the Tea Party and those who share its values, which are traditional American ones. ABC’s carelessness here is in sharp contrast with the way the mainstream media treat criminal suspects who are black or Muslim. In those cases they take great pains not to perpetuate stereotypes, sometimes at the cost of withholding or obscuring relevant facts such as the physical description of a suspect who is still at large or the ideological motive for a crime.

Oikophobia is no less invidious than other forms of bigotry. ABC and Ross have apologized for their irresponsible reporting, but they have something more to answer for here. Their careless and inadvertent falsehood was in the service of a big lie.

‘Press the Mute Button’
A tweet from CBS News’s Mark Knoller called our attention to this passage from a campaign speech President Obama gave last night in West Palm Beach, Fla.:

And so, over the next four months, the other side is going to spend more money than we’ve ever seen. (Laughter.) And they’ll have a bunch of ads with scary voices. (Laughter.) And most of what you hear, you can pretty much just go mute–(laughter)–just press the mute button. That’s the good thing about the remote. Or you can use the DVR and fast forward. (Laughter.)

It’s funny because it’s true. The advice Obama is half-jokingly giving his supporters–close your mind to opposing arguments–is, we noted last Wednesday, essentially the advice George Lakoff offers to Democrats in his new book. It’s advice more suited to a cult leader, whose goal is to maintain his hold on his followers, than to a leader in a democracy, who needs to broaden his appeal.

A confident leader in a democracy would want his supporters to pay attention to the opposition’s ads. It would fire them up and prepare them to make the case for their guy. If Obama is afraid people who attend his fund-raisers will abandon him if they see Romney ads, imagine the effect on independent voters.

The Obama campaign truly seems to be out of touch with reality. Yesterday it issued an ad that can only be describe as bizarre. Titled “Mitt Romney: Saying Anything to Get Elected,” it begins with words on the screen: “Mitt Romney is launching a false attack.” Then it shows a clip of Romney quoting Obama: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

“The only problem?” reads the onscreen caption “That’s not what he said.” The ad then shows a lengthy clip of Obama in which he says exactly the words Romney attributed to him! Making the point more dramatically, someone with the YouTube account NotBarackObama.com did a shortened version of the Obama ad, cutting out a bunch of other Obama quotes. In the context of this ad, “That’s not what he said” is either a brazen lie or an act of dissociation, a psychological term meaning a severe detachment from reality.

Perhaps the Taranto Principle is finally catching up to Obama. Liberal journalists have twisted themselves into pretzels justifying the “You didn’t build that” comment. At The New Yorker, for instance, Alex Koppelman says Obama was right because Steve Jobs went to a government school, and Adam Gopnik claims Obama was really just expounding the views of Adam Smith, the 18th-century philosopher of capitalism.

Brian Ross’s colleagues at ABC News “reported” yesterday that “Mitt Romney went to a Massachusetts truck repair shop today to refute President Obama’s point that businesses are built only with the help of roads and other government services,” making Romney out, quite preposterously, as an enemy of roads.

As Charles Murray notes in a blog post:

There’s a standard way for Americans to celebrate accomplishment. First, we call an individual onto the stage and say what great things that person has done. Then that person gives a thank-you speech that begins “I couldn’t have done this without…” and a list of people who helped along the way. That’s the way we’ve always done it. Everyone knows we all get help in life (and sometimes just get lucky). But we have always started with the individual and then worked out. It is not part of the American mindset to begin with the collective and admonish individuals for thinking too highly of their contribution.

In his September 2008 post-mortem on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Joshua Green of The Atlantic quoted from a memo from Clinton adviser Mark Penn:

All of these articles about [Obama’s] boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light.

Save it for 2050.

It also exposes a very strong weakness for him–his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values. He told the people of NH yesterday he has a Kansas accent because his mother was from there. His mother lived in many states as far as we can tell–but this is an example of the nonsense he uses to cover this up.

How we could give some life to this contrast without turning negative:

Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child and that drive you today. Values of fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back.

Let’s explicitly own “American” in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy Fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds.

Green wrote that Mrs. Clinton “wisely chose not to go this route.” It’s not clear if he meant “wisely” in a moral or a strategic sense. One assumes that Green found the Penn advice distasteful, but it’s also possible that it would have been ineffective in a Democratic electorate. Then again, not following the advice wasn’t a winning strategy either.

Obama’s hostility to American individualism suggests, however, that Penn had pegged him correctly. His allies in the media are now egging him on as he expresses these unattractive attitudes. We have yet to see a prominent lefty so much as admit that “You didn’t build that” was a serious rhetorical blunder. Anytime one speaks this obvious truth, the Obama campaign hits the mute button. The president will probably show up to the fall debates wearing earplugs.

The Fraudulent Voting Which Keeps Minnesota Blue and Marxist


Minnesota is a vote free state.     Anyone, the living and the dead. can vote Democrat, and have.    Anyone can vote often for the same Democrat.    In recounts Minnesota Democrats never fail to win votes and their opponent ‘lose’ votes.

Minnesota is run by a Democrat Party public service which is devoted to taking cozy  care of Democrats.

Busloads of elderly, the thinking and especially  those past thinking,  are herded into polling places and the State of Minnesota paid union rep bus driver  collects the ballots and fills them out all by his lonesome election day…..or earlier…..or both.

Minnesota serves its Democrat Farm Labor Party and the National Democrat Party well.

Click below to view one chapter of the State Democrats maneuvering to win yet  another battle for the PEOPLE: