Minneapolis Disgraces Itself: State Sanctioned Violence Against Peaceful Trump Supporters

The influential Blois Olson asked me on Twitter why I wasn't at the Trump fundraiser in downtown Minneapolis last Friday. I responded with the most famous of James Joyce quotes: "Silence, exile and cunning." Lord knows how many got the reference; doubtless few in the MNGOPe. Several republican leaders had previously made a point of signalling their absence from the event.

"I'm just not going. I got better stuff to do" said the hapless republican Speaker of the House in response to why he wouldn't be attending. His language is as slovenly as his dress.

But not even I was prepared for what followed: a sustained assault on citizens attempting to leave that venue while Minneapolis police stood by, for the most part. Some performed admirably and to them much credit should be given. Yet it wasn't nearly enough.

There were first hand reports of people being spat upon, physically assaulted and some who had their property stolen. There were even reports of people themselves being spray painted. Many of those committing the assaults on white people were identified as black, but certainly not exclusively.

Minneapolis has become a lawless city, on the verge of becoming yet another Third World City, and last Friday night proved it beyond doubt. Those who have a different political view from the reigning majority were persecuted for simply exercising their constitutional right of assembly.

Twin Cities media reporting of the night's events proved a mixed bag. There is no doubt that had the political polarities been reversed the coverage would have been far more extensive, breathless and condemnatory. But because the victims were republicans, much was glossed over. Which is to say, the violence.

Minnesota media should be ashamed of itself but it doesn't really possess the capacity.

I live tweeted reports coming in from friends and acquaintances in real time. No one in local media retweeted me even with the customary "this can't be independently confirmed." Yet time and again I've seen them retweet things favoring the Left agenda with far less credibility. Curious.

The Star Tribune's Patrick Condon filed a report that did include some of the violence but the rest of his piece is an accomplished bit of apologia, including this tidbit: "The demonstration was organized by the Minnesota Immigrants Rights Action Committee."

As far as I know, he's the only local reporter who reported this and so good for him. I try to be fair. Yet Condon gives his readers no idea who this group is or how they are funded. He gives a one sentence report which is an almost nostalgic throwback to when reporters bothered with the truth.

He then quotes one Giselda Gutierrez, a "protester who lives in Minneapolis." Great but where is she from? Has she broken into America and is one of those illegals to whom Hillary has promised instant citizenship should she become president? You'll learn nothing further from Condon's reportage about that or who funds what is likely an astroturf group that promotes illegals.

If Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal in the Twin Cities it's doubtful we'd learn about it. Illegal alien crime simply isn't reported here. Once, though, we learned that blacks were beating up and robbing hispanics along Lake street in Minneapolis after they got paid in cash. With no white person to blame, that reporting died a quick death. I'm surprised any of it saw the light of media day, however briefly. This very much is the state of Minnesota media: dishonest.

Condon goes out of his way to note how donors arrived: "Guests began arriving around dinner time, some in limousines and other chauffeured vehicles." Forgive me for not noticing the same reporting about those attending fundraisers in Minnesota for Hillary Clinton.

He also makes much about Trump not appearing in public. Really? Trump doesn't and his supporters are still beaten? Remind me when the Star Tribune last complained about Lady Macbeth not appearing in public when she rolled into town to treat this servile state as her personal ATM and the manner of arrival of her corrupt donors.

Condon writes puff pieces about Lt. Governor Tina Flint Smith which are attempted to be passed off as either hard news or analysis. They're tiresome and transparent, fooling only those who pretend the articles aren't an in kind contribution to the DFL. Condon can at least write, however biasedly, something that can't be said about the author of the Star Tribune's Morning Hot Dish. Managing Editor Suki Dardarian's hires, as I've written previously, vary wildly in quality.

* * * * 

By contrast the Pioneer Press got the story more right than wrong and with appreciable less water carrying for the democrat establishment that runs the failing city of Minneapolis. As of this writing reporter Jaime DeLage alone reached out to contact someone who was there and a victim of the violence from the thug Left. Full disclosure: I put him in touch with said person but those two took it from there. I'm proud of my friend Cynthia Schanno for coming forth and speaking honestly about the terror she experienced. Kudos to DeLage for doing what reporters used to do before most of them became an arm of the Democratic Party.

Minnesota Public Radio remains the worst, most dishonest and biased news outlet in the state and by some distance. Their story had no individual byline and mention no violence at the event. None. MPR tends to push stories praising terrorist linked MN CAIR. If you want a quick glance at the sickness of white guilty liberals all in one place, you can't do worse than MPR.

* * * *

If DFL chair Ken Martin's people had been attacked in the same way as republicans were last Friday night, he'd have scheduled a press conference for a reasonable hour on Saturday (eleven o'clock or noon, say) to blast the police for failing in their essential job: to keep citizens participating in the political process safe from violent thugs.

Did republicans do anything at all in this regard? Of course not. Getting the story out to a wider audience was left, frankly, to me and other activists on social media. When we awoke Saturday the violence and willful abandonment of peaceful citizens to thugs and scum had made the Drudge Report. Videos of the violent assault on elderly people and others were posted at Gateway Pundit and other well respected alternative media sites. 

Despite Twin City media's politically motivated under reporting of the violence, word got out. 

Minneapolis disgraced itself in front of the nation, sending a clear signal that it treats its citizens differently based upon their political beliefs. Mayor Hodges and Police Chief Harteau already preside over the decline of a once great city. They now add to their roster of incompetence and shame what many are reporting as specific instructions to the police to stand down and not interfere with the protesters who committed such violence. 

* * * *

Last Friday was a shocking turning point for many. I myself lost an enormous amount of respect for many of the local liberals I follow on Twitter. Some actually excused the violence while most simply remained silent. These are people who think themselves possessed of integrity. Yet when it came time to demonstrate it, they were unable or unwilling to do so. 

Minnesota republicans failed to seize upon this outrage to shine a light upon what is taking place in this state and attempt to reverse it. We don't have leaders, we have mediocre politicians beholden to their donors, advised by people who simply aren't very good at their jobs. Not that they don't keep them. 

The targeted, sustained abuse of peaceful Trump supporters, abetted by a politicized Minneapolis police force force, and tacitly condoned by a corrupt media, marks a descent into Third World politics. 

You can pretend this is overstating the case but only if you haven't been paying attention. 

Photo credit: Renee Jones Schneider, Star Tribune

Congresswoman Terri Bonoff?

One debate does not an election make. Yet having just watched the first debate between incumbent republican Erik Paulsen and DFL state senator Terri Bonoff I have to conclude that unless something dramatic happens the voters of CD 3--including many republicans--may well make Bonoff their next member of Congress.

I was shocked at how poorly Paulsen performed: tied to notes, rote, dispassionate, reverting to tropes that had no traction and unable to articulate a single reason why voters should support him except for voting on the next Speaker of the House.

Who gave him such lousy advice? Minnesota House republicans? It was an uneven match in terms of effective communication and sheer persuasive skills.

Bonoff stressed her private sector experience of twenty years, something of which Paulsen has none, having been an elected official of some sort or another since he was twenty-five. She appeared fresh, cogent and not a machine politician. In other words, Bonoff had the better grasp of the zeitgeist and not the three term member of Congress. Go figure.

Time and again Bonoff stressed how she had voted apart from her party's positions on several issues. Paulsen's supporters on Twitter were fast and good at pointing out various discrepancies in those claims but the incumbent only occasionally contradicted her. The net result was that the democrat seemed far more well positioned as an independent political actor than her opponent.

Paulsen appeared particularly abject when dancing around whether to support Trump. He tried to cast Bonoff's endorsement of Hillary as a negative. This in the Third District?

When it comes to Trump Erik Paulsen is no Tom Emmer, by which I mean he has no idea how to message effectively and still affirmatively support the republican candidate for president. I'm no Biblical scholar but didn't Christ say something about spitting people out of His mouth who are neither hot nor cold?

People respect loyalty even if they disagree with that to which the loyalty is pledged. It's seen as a sign of character, of substance. By equivocating, at best, over supporting Trump, Erik Paulsen earns himself the worst of both worlds and possibly a pink slip.

Paulsen emphasized his efforts to eliminate the medical device tax, which is simply doing his donors' bidding. He also stressed he worked with Sen. Amy Klobuchar on sex trafficking. Neither of these issues do anything for his constituents in the district but it's all in keeping with bad consultant advice to appear as little a genuine republican as possible in the district. I'm used to democrats thinking voters are stupid but it's galling to see that approach taken by a so called republican.

Paulsen rarely went on offense, something of a sine qua non for both GOPe and MNGOPe types. Instead, they want to be liked by media and elites in an increasingly one party state. Once, and only once, did he say plainly that fellow Congressional republicans hadn't done enough to advance their own agenda. No kidding: how else does one explain the base abandoning such career politicians to embrace Trump? Good, bad or indifferent, Trump at least promises the potential to change things.

The questions asked in the debate were all generated by various Chambers of Commerce and so naturally didn't include a single one about illegal immigration. There was one question about trade and even there Paulsen couldn't rise to the occasion and steal from Trump: he's for fair trade but some of these deals have injured the American worker and should be modified.

Given the opportunity to say clearly that he supported a "repeal and replace" strategy with respect to Obamacare, Paulsen couldn't bring himself to do it. I wanted to slap him. Instead he noodled around the edges, muttering about keeping 26 year olds on their parents' insurance policies.

Bonoff's closing was a tour de force: focused, concise and designed to appeal to those who had previously voted republican. Paulsen's was boiler plate, ending with a recitation of the various groups who have endorsed him. By then it was far too late: he lost decisively in this high profile debate.

To be sure, Paulsen is the incumbent and has a good deal of money on hand. Yet I don't think that's good enough with a challenger as accomplished as Terri Bonoff.

Voters need a reason to keep someone in office and Paulsen gave them very little. By contrast, Bonoff positioned herself perfectly in the debate, saying explicitly she was someone voters could trust.

Paulsen never uttered the word.



Photo credit: MPR


UPDATE:

Shortly after this was posted The Uptake tweeted out about a minute video of Rep. Paulsen answering questions about his refusal to support Trump. It's painful to watch. Click here.


Correction: The initial version of this article had Paulsen a 14 year member of Congress. That is incorrect. He is a three term member seeking his fourth term and the piece has been revised accordingly. He has held elective office of some sort continuously since 1995.

Muslims & Minnesota Media: First in a Series

I hadn't planned on launching this series of blog posts quite yet but recent events left me no choice. Indeed, they define the very reason such a series is needed. Consequently this initial post will be shorter than those to come.

Scott Johnson of Powerline recently reported astounding news that, by rights, should be front page news in Minnesota, as well as covered extensively on television and on radio. He found evidence that makes it appear highly likely that Ilhan Omar, who recently defeated a long term Jewish DFL incumbent in the House, married her brother, thereby committing immigration fraud as well as bigamy.

His explosive reporting can be read by clicking here.

Shamefully, not a single Minnesota media outlet as of this writing has carried his story. Other social media accounts have done so and there's reason to believe some national outlets might get around to covering this.

But Minnesota media? Nothing so far and they have a very high regard for themselves as some sort of truth tellers and the like.

Johnson tweeted earlier today at Tom Hauser, who hosts the stale and banal weekend political talk show "At Issue," whether he'd be reporting the story he broke. (Hauser is not the problem with the show, its producers are.)

At any rate no response from him to Johnson's request for coverage. I asked on Twitter a variety of other reporters from various "news" outlets the same question. No response.

Hauser shouldn't be picked out from the pack, in my view. The rest of the (mostly Twin Cities based) Minnesota media likewise are ignoring the story. That they consider themselves to have any integrity or credibility is a sign of group psychosis.

I'll be launching Minnesota Media Monitor: Accountability Starts Here™ later in the year but I needed to post on this subject immediately.

I've been struck for some time how limited local media's understanding of all things Islamic and Muslim is. They approach the topic(s) as another non-white victimology story, of which they are accomplished dissemblers.

But where is their coverage of reform Muslims? Do they know of Tarek Fatah? Irshad Manjii? Maajid Nawaz? Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Probably they've heard of the last one but only to ignore what it is she is about.

White, guilty, liberal and lazy is the best summary I can give of Twin Cities media. These past few days shows them complicit in dishonesty because such advances their political ideology.

When Johnson approached the Omar campaign with his questions, he heard back not from it but a criminal defense lawyer. As he rightly said: "Yet the response was also newsworthy for what it said, or rather didn’t say. It didn’t deny any relevant fact. Rather, it falsely disparaged my motives as bigoted. I find that disgusting."

Scott Johnson deserves some kind of an award and Minnesota Media Monitor™ is precisely the organization who may give it to him. Or we may just name an ongoing award in his name. Either way, it will stand for honesty and courage in the face of media corruption.




Photo: The world's most famous Somali, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

© 2016 John Hugh Gilmore & Minnesota Media Monitor™ All rights reserved.

Masterful: Tom Emmer's Embrace Of Trump

One of the most interesting developments in Minnesota republican politics in the Age of Trump has been Congressman Tom Emmer's shrewd, deft embrace of him. Surprisingly, this has received very little analysis, especially in republican circles.

To be sure, his comments are reported on in the Twin Cities and other media. He's not making them to obscure or limited market news outlets. All the more reason to praise him.

Yes, praise Rep. Emmer for getting it at a time when most Minnesota republicans simply do not. I don't want to take away from that praise when I say that it isn't difficult to do what he has done, but at the same time his very doing of it constitutes an essential difference between him and virtually every other elected Minnesota republican.

The word leadership comes to mind.

For those outside the bubble of Minnesota republicans, which apparently are the majority of Minnesota voters, Emmer in his first term as a member of Congress has played against the type that he ran on as a candidate. Seeking to succeed Michele Bachmann, he positioned himself just slightly to the left of her. Once in office, he has resembled a traditionally conservative Minnesota republican not at all.

Some have found fault with that development and they're entitled to their opinion. To take just one issue, it's extremely unreasonable to have expected the freshman Congressman to have voted against John Boehner as Speaker. This isn't the place for an extended discussion of those issues. I simply note that Tom Emmer has surprised many since becoming a member of Congress.

* * * *

Trump came in third in the Minnesota republican caucuses, behind Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Minnesota republicans have yet to get behind Trump in the way one would normally expect.

Sen. Rubio, to his credit, has become full throated in his support of Trump for President but this appears to move his Minnesota supporters very little. They're a tiresome, dense lot. And Ted Cruz is so politically inept I've made him an honorary member of MNGOPe.

Here, then, comes Rep. Emmer not only falling into line but making an excellent, affirmative case for Trump, sharply contrasting him to the most corrupt person ever to run for the presidency of the republic. The sheer mechanics of how he does this is quite impressive.

On August 1st he gave an interview to MPR's Tom Weber in which he skillfully avoided the landmines of the media trap known as Khizr Khan. Trump's reaction to Khan's political attack on him at the DNC, using the death of  his heroic son as a shield to any criticism, was overplayed by the media as the literal end of the election: President Hillary, please clap.

That week's polling showed very bad numbers for Trump although the quality of polling outfits varied. No one is sure how to project turnout this fall given the large numbers of first time or fallen away voters Trump may generate. Interestingly, just yesterday we learned that the Trump campaign has hired the political consulting firm widely credited with the Brexit win: it specializes in identifying and turning out first time voters.

A Reuters/IPSOS poll released two days ago has the race a dead heat: Hillary ahead by less than three. This put a damper on the celebrations of the media and some Never Trump republicans. Suddenly the Khan flap seems a very long time ago.

Emmer's MPR interview is a bit less than fifteen minutes. I encourage readers to listen to it; no recapitulation by me can do it justice. Note especially the stale, tired questions formulated by Weber (men may find a drop in their testosterone levels given the sound of his voice), including bringing up Mexican rapists, something from June of last year.

But then pay special attention to how Emmer responds: astutely, concisely and with measured, projected confidence. When I heard him respond to a question previously asked "Listen, I've given you that already Tom," I knew Emmer was operating on a more sophisticated, accomplished level than any other republican in the state. He's mastered the art of a Minnesota republican unapologetically defending and prosecuting the case for Trump and made it look easy. Those skills will serve Emmer well in the future, whether Trump wins or loses.

You can hear his interview by clicking here.  

* * * *

Congressman Emmer's support for Trump is all the more remarkable given the skittish nature of other elected republican officials, both federal and state. In some ways, given the unconventional nature of Trump's candidacy, one could have expected Emmer to elide the subject as much as possible. 

Only he hasn't done so, in fact he's done the opposite. By so doing he shows by example how to advance the political argument for republicans in an increasingly one party state. Those elected officials, candidates, party officials, and activists who feign political agnosticism when it comes to Trump are made to look shallow and venal. Emmer makes a persuasive case for Never Hillary and does so without rancor or sharp edges. 

Congressman Emmer's interview with MPR is political brilliance. His pitch perfect support of Donald Trump makes him the state's leading republican and offers much needed hope that the party will not go the way of California republicans. He should be widely imitated.