Vigilante justice simmers in wake of WWII vet beating


This is from  Allen

If the Aryan Brotherhood has placed a bounty on these

sons of Obama the will die.

How long before the race baiters start  running their mouths?


From left: Glenn,Belton,Kindard

                                               From left: Glenn,Belton,Kindard

According to a story from the New York Daily News, Kenan Adams-Kindard and Demetrius Glenn, both 16, accused of murdering Delbert Belton in Spokane, WA are now in protective custody because of a bounty placed on their heads. The hunters have become the hunted.

In case you don’t recall, Mr Belton was the 88-year-old US Army World War II veteran who survived Okinawa, only to be – allegedly — beaten to death outside his car in the parking lot of a city ice rink in August.

Of course, there was no march by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, no vocal condemnation by the National Urban League or the NAACP in this case. However, we can all but bet our paychecks that the report of the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist group, placing a $10,000 bounty on the heads of accused teens Adams-Kinard and Glenn who are black will get attention.

Consider the rise of this new game called “knockout” which seems to be wholeheartedly racially motivated, as we discussed earlier this week, and you have a recipe for disaster.

We were supposed to be living in a new post-racial era because of the election of the first African-American president, but tension seems to be exacerbated.

This is the unfortunate result of the hypocrisy that has occurred over the past few years in crime cases involving blacks and whites. We cannot continue to have a double standard where there is outcry in some cases – generally politically motivated — yet silence in others.

Let’s flip the coin here and suppose Mr. Belton was a black World War II veteran who was beaten to death by two white teens. Does anyone reading this commentary not believe the media would be fully engaged in that case?

Anyone not believe there would be incessant marches and the President and Attorney General Eric Holder would levy their full weight?

I sincerely condemn the actions of the Aryan Brotherhood if indeed reports are correct, and there has been a bounty placed upon the heads of these two despicable young boys.

However, none of us can deny there is a seething sentiment in America that has been fomented because of a biased liberal progressive media and race-baiting politicians and charlatans.

The media ensured the entire nation was enthralled by the Treyvon Martin case, yet in 3 short months, an American hero, a treasure, Delbert Belton has been all but forgotten.

Yes, that angers me, as well as it should all of you, but vigilante justice is not the answer. Neither is this misguided progressive socialist version of social justice. I challenge the media: don’t forget Delbert Belton, keep his memory alive.



10 Shocking Examples of Police Killing Innocent People in the “War on Drugs”


This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

I am a firm supporter of the police.

That being said many of the improperly trained officers are trigger happy.


Many innocent victims have become collateral
damage in our pointless, destructive drug war.



By Alex Henderson, August 21st, 2013
Article Source


In a democratic republic, the “innocent until proven guilty” concept is supposed to be sacrosanct. Jurors, police officers, judges and prosecuting attorneys—at least in theory—are required to err on the side of caution, and if a guilty person occasionally goes free, so be it. But with the war on drugs, the concept of innocent until proven guilty has fallen by the wayside on countless occasions. The war on drugs is not only fought aggressively, it is fought carelessly and haphazardly, and a long list of innocent victims have been killed or maimed in the process.

Attorney General Eric Holder recently addressed the war on drugs during a speech for the American Bar Association‘s annual meeting, calling for the United States to seriously reevaluate its harsh policy of mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent, low-level drug offenses. Holder acknowledged that “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no truly good law enforcement reason,” and he pointed out that according to one report, black males convicted in drug cases typically receive sentences that are 20% longer than the sentences imposed on white males for similar offenses. It was refreshing to hear an attorney general make those statements; also encouraging is a recent Rasmussen poll finding that 82% of Americans see the war on drugs as a failure.

Many people from across the political spectrum—from the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the National Urban League and the Rev. Jesse Jackson to right-wing libertarians like Ron Paul, Walter Williams and 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson—have pointed out that the war on drugs has become much deadlier than the drugs themselves. Innocent civilians have more to fear from botched drug raids and careless police work than they do from drug dealers.

Below are 10 innocent victims who became collateral damage and lost their lives in the war on drugs (there are many, many more).

1. Kathryn Johnston; Atlanta, Georgia, 2006.

Narcotics officers who kill innocent people in the war on drugs often don’t even face suspensions, let alone criminal charges. But the conduct of three Atlanta police officers in the killing of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston was so unscrupulous that all three faced criminal charges.

On November 21, 2006, plainclothes officers Jason R. Smith, Gregg Junnier and Arthur Tesler carried out a no-knock drug raid on Johnston’s Atlanta home based on bad information from an informant/marijuana dealer named Alex White. When they broke in, Johnston (who lived alone in a high-crime area of the city and kept a gun in her house for protection) assumed she was being the victim of a home invasion and fired a shot. But a lot more shooting was done by the officers: a total of 39 shots were fired, several of which hit her. And while Johnston was lying on the floor dying, Smith handcuffed her.

An investigation revealed that after Johnston’s death, a major coverup was attempted, including planting bags of marijuana in her house and trying to bully White into lying and saying that Johnston was selling crack cocaine. Smith, Junnier and Tesler faced a variety of charges from both the federal government and the state of Georgia. Smith and Junnier both pled guilty to charges of voluntary manslaughter; Smith also pled guilty to perjury and admitted he planted the marijuana in Johnston’s house. And all three of them pled guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to violate her civil rights. In a civil suit, Johnston’s family was awarded a $490,000 settlement.

2. Tarika Wilson; Lima, Ohio, 2008.

On January 4, 2008, narcotics officer Joseph Chavalia shot and killed 26-year-old Tarika Wilson in Lima, Ohio. Wilson, a single mother, had been romantically involved with a suspected drug dealer named Anthony Terry (who later pled guilty to selling drugs). When Chavalia and other narcotics officers raided the house where Wilson was living, Terry was nowhere to be found. Wilson, however, was in one of the bedrooms; when Chavalia fired shots into that bedroom, she was killed. Wilson’s one-year-old child was also shot but survived, although one of his fingers needed to be amputated.

Chavalia later said he thought shots were coming from that bedroom, but the fact that he killed an unarmed woman holding a baby was inexcusable, especially in light of the fact that Wilson, according to her sister Tania Wilson, was not involved in drug sales herself. In a democratic republic, civilians are not executed in paramilitary-like raids based on guilt by association. And using a SWAT team to go after a small-time drug dealer is bad police work. Although Chavalia was acquitted of criminal charges, Wilson’s family was awarded $2.5 million in 2010 in a civil lawsuit against the city of Lima.

3. The Rev. Accelyne Williams; Boston, 1994.

The Rev. Accelyne Williams was no drug dealer. In fact, the 75-year-old minister was a substance abuse counselor in Boston and had a long history of doing good work in that city’s African-American community. But no good deed goes unpunished, and on March 25, 1994, Williams’ efforts to help a substance abuser led to his death.

That substance abuser was a police informant who gave Boston narcotics officers the address of an alleged drug dealer who lived in the same building as Williams, but a SWAT team raided the wrong apartment—Williams’ apartment—and after being violently shoved onto the ground and handcuffed, the minister began to vomit. Williams suffered a heart attack and died.

4. Annie Rae Dixon; Tyler, Texas, 1992.

Annie Rae Dixon, an 84-year-old African-American woman, was killed by a narcotics officer in Tyler, Texas on January 29, 1992. Dixon, who was a paraplegic and was battling pneumonia, was in her bedroom when narcotics officers raided her home at 2am; an informant claimed he had bought drugs from Dixon’s granddaughter. Narcotics officer Frank Baggett, Jr. said that when he kicked down the door to Dixon’s bedroom, he stumbled—which caused his gun to go off and sent a bullet into Dixon’s chest. No drugs were found in her house.

At an inquest, a predominantly white jury decided that the shooting was accidental and that Baggett should not be charged with anything. Many African Americans in that part of Texas, including members of the local NAACP chapter and Smith County Commissioner Andrew Mellontree, were outraged that Baggett dodged both criminal and civil charges. Mellontree, in a 1992 interview, told the New York Times: “People can’t accept the idea that a 84-year-old grandmother gets shot in her bed, and it’s not even worth a negligence charge.”

5. The Rev. Jonathan Ayers; Toccoa, Georgia, 2009.

One of the most disturbing examples of “collateral damage” in the war on drugs was that of the Rev. Jonathan Ayers, a 28-year-old Baptist minister from northern Georgia. Ayers, who was white, had a reputation for being the type of Christian who didn’t spend all of his time on a soap box preaching about sin and salvation—he actually put his money where his mouth was, became active in his community, and did things to help people. Tragically, that cost Ayers his life when, on September 1, 2009, he gave a woman named Johanna Jones Barrett $23 to help her pay her rent.

Undercover narcotics officers who had been trailing Barrett suspected that she was selling crack cocaine, and when Ayers gave her $23, they began trailing Ayers. When Ayers left a gas station/convenience store after using an ATM and saw three plainclothes officers pointing their guns at him, he had no idea they were cops. Ayers, who obviously thought they were gang members or carjackers, tried to escape but was shot and killed. Not surprisingly, no drugs were found in either Ayers’ vehicle or on his dead body, although one of the officers claimed that before the killing, Barrett had sold him $50 worth of crack cocaine.

6. Rodolfo “Rudy” Cardenas; San Jose, California, 2004.

Had the narcotics officers who confronted Ayers been wearing uniforms that made them easily recognizable as cops, it’s possible that he would not have fled and would still be alive today. But Ayers had no way of knowing he wasn’t being attacked by carjackers or gang members; in fact, the officers who killed him went out of their way to look as thuggish and intimidating as possible. A similar tragedy occurred in San Jose, Calif. on February 17, 2004, when plainclothes officers were attempting to serve a warrant for a drug-related parole violation and 43-year-old Rodolfo Cardenas, a father of five, had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The officers saw Cardenas and assumed he was David Gonzales, the man they were looking for—and when they pointed their guns at Cardenas, he fled (first in a vehicle, then on foot) but was shot in the back and killed. Cardenas, clearly, found himself in the same position as Ayers: he was violently confronted by police officers he didn’t know were police; he ran for his life and was shot dead. Dorothy Duckett, a 78-year-old neighbor, told the San Jose Mercury News that when Cardenas was running away, he had his hands in the air and was yelling, “Don’t shoot.”

Michael Walker, the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement officer who fired the fatal shot, was charged with voluntary manslaughter but was acquitted by a San Jose jury in 2005.

7. Ismael Mena; Denver, Colorado, 1999.

SWAT teams can serve a valuable function in law enforcement. In hostage situations, for example, a SWAT team can save lives. But in the drug war, the combination of SWAT teams, no-knock raids and sloppy police work can have deadly consequences for innocent people. In Denver, one such person was 45-year-old Ismael Mena, who was shot and killed by a SWAT team during a no-knock raid on September 29, 1999. The raid was conducted based on bad information from an informant, but a thorough search of the house turned up no evidence of drug dealing—and an autopsy showed no evidence of drugs in Mena’s body. Apologists for the killing claimed that Mena (a Mexican immigrant) had a gun, and LeRoy Lemos (a community activist) responded: “If police hadn’t gotten the wrong house, Mena would be alive. No matter what the misconduct is, the police are always exonerated.”

ACLU members were critical of the way the raid was handled and asserted that a no-knock raid was totally uncalled for; Mark Silverstein, legal director for the Colorado ACLU, said, “If the government officials who authorized the warrant had followed the law, Ismael Mena would be alive today.”

8. Mario Paz; El Monte, California, 1999.

On August 9, 1999, 64-year-old Mario Paz was in his home in Southern California when up to 20 narcotics officers for the city of El Monte conducted a no-knock raid and used a grenade during the attack. Some of the officers claimed that Paz appeared to be going for a gun, and they fatally shot him twice in the back in front of his wife. Although Paz was a gun owner, he never shot at the officers—he didn’t live long enough. No drugs were found in the house, and Bill Ankeny (El Monte’s assistant police chief) later acknowledged that there was never any evidence of the Paz family being involved in drug dealing.

The decision to raid the Paz home, according to Ankeny, was made after narcotics officers found some bills and Department of Motor Vehicle records containing the family’s address among the possessions of a drug suspect named Marcos Beltrán. Back in the 1980s, Beltrán had lived next door to the Paz family—and at one point, they agreed to let Beltrán receive mail in their home. So in other words, El Monte officers conducted a commando-style raid on the Paz home based on the fact that a drug suspect (who was out on bail and hadn’t been convicted) had received some mail in their home during the previous decade.

9. Alberta Spruill; New York City, 2003.

In many cases, politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) are so afraid of being considered soft on drugs that they are reluctant to say anything critical of narcotics officers no matter how badly they screw up. But in the case of 57-year-old Harlem resident Alberta Spruill, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg admitted: “Clearly, the police made a mistake.”

Around 6:10am on May 16, 2003, officers executed a no-knock drug raid on Spruill’s apartment based on bad information they had received from an informant/alleged drug dealer. A concussion grenade was thrown into the apartment; Spruill, a city employee who was getting ready to leave for work, suffered a heart attack and died. After causing Spruill’s death, the officers realized that they had just killed an innocent person. Attorneys for the city of New York agreed to pay $1.6 million to Spruill’s family.

10. Pedro Oregon Navarro; Houston, Texas, 1998.

Drug raids are often conducted based on information from informants (many of them drug users and/or low-level drug dealers), but all too often, the information is unreliable and costs innocent victims their lives. One such victim was 22-year-old Pedro Oregon Navarro. On July 12, 1998, Houston officers raided Navarro’s home based on an alleged drug user’s claim that drugs were being sold there. A total of 30 bullets were fired, and Navarro was shot 12 times. Officers claimed Navarro had a gun and fired at them, but ballistics tests proved that all 30 shots were fired by the officers.

In 1999, Al Robison (president of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas), denounced the killing of Navarro as a “very clear illustration of the insanity of our current drug policy.” The officers who raided Navarro’s home violated department policy by failing to obtain a search warrant. No illegal drugs were found in Navarro’s home, and blood tests conducted after his death showed no traces of any illegal drugs in his system.

Posthumously, Navarro was proven innocent, and his senseless death underscored the need for the United States to seriously reform its misguided drug laws. Had war on drugs supporters learned a lesson from Navarro’s death, it is quite possible that the killings of the Rev. Jonathan Ayers, Rodolfo “Rudy” Cardenas, Alberta Spruill, Mario Paz, Kathryn Johnston and others could have been prevented.

Alex Henderson’s work has appeared in the L.A. Weekly, Billboard, Spin, Creem, the Pasadena Weekly and many other publications.


Would They Be Proud?

Leave a comment

This is by Walter E. Williams in Town Hall.

There is no doubt in my mind Dr.King and other civil right leader’s

would be disappointed in today’s blacks.

Dr.King and others fought hard for black children to get a better education.

While  many of today’s blacks want to shun a good education.

They are contented to speak the gutter ghetto language of ebonics.

Then they call blacks that get an education Uncle Tom,Oreo and 

Whitey’s Hose Ni@@er.

Today’s blacks are content living on the DemocRat Plantation.


One can’t imagine the fear in the hearts of the parents of those nine black students who walked past shouting placard-carrying mobs as they entered Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Each day, they were greeted with angry shouts of “Two, four, six, eight, we don’t want to integrate.” In some rural and urban areas, during the school desegregation era, parents escorted their 5 and 6-year-old children past crowds shouting threats and screaming racial epithets. Often there were Ku Klux Klan marches and cross burnings. Much of this protest was in the South, but Northern cities were by no means exempt from the turmoil and violence of school desegregation.

Most of the parents and civil rights leaders whose sacrifices and courage made today’s educational opportunities possible are no longer with us. My question is: If they could know what many of today’s black youngsters have done with the fruits of their sacrifice, would they be proud? Most schools identified as “persistently dangerous” are predominantly black schools. To have a modicum of safety, many schools are equipped with walk-through metal detectors, security cameras and conveyor belt X-ray machines that scan book bags and purses. Nationally, the black four-year high-school graduation rate is 52 percent. In some cities, such as Detroit and Philadelphia, it’s considerably lower — 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively. In Rochester, N.Y., it’s 9 percent.

What black politicians, parents, teachers and students have created is nothing less than a gross betrayal and squandering of the struggle paid in blood, sweat and tears by previous generations to make possible the educational opportunities that were denied to blacks for so long.

Born in 1936, I’ve lived during some of our racially discriminatory history. I recall being chased out of Fishtown and Grays Ferry, two predominantly Irish Philadelphia neighborhoods, with my cousin in the 1940s and not stopping until we reached a predominantly black North Philly or South Philly neighborhood. Today that might be different. A black person seeking safety might run from a black neighborhood to a white neighborhood.

On top of that, today whites are likely to be victims of blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey, in instances of interracial crimes of violence, 83 percent of the time, a black person was the perpetrator and a white person was the victim. Most interracial assaults are committed by blacks. What’s worse is there are blacks still alive — such as older members of the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP and National Urban League — who lived through the times of lynching, Jim Crow and open racism and who remain silent in the face of the current situation.

After the George Zimmerman trial, in cities such as Baltimore, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Chicago and New York, there have been a number of brutal revenge attacks on whites in the name of “justice for Trayvon.” Over the past few years, there have been many episodes of unprovoked attacks by black gangs against white people at beaches, in shopping malls, on public conveyances and in other public places in cities such as Denver, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Washington and Los Angeles. There’s no widespread condemnation, plus most of the time, the race of the attackers was not reported, even though media leftists and their allies are experts in reporting racial differences in everything else.

Would those black Americans who fought tooth and nail against Jim Crow, segregation, lynching and racism be proud of the findings of a recent Rasmussen poll in which 31 percent of blacks think that most blacks are racists and 24 percent of blacks think that most whites are racists? Among whites, in the same Rasmussen poll, 38 percent consider most blacks racist, and 10 percent consider most whites racist.

Black people don’t need to have a conversation with white people on matters of race. One first step would be to develop a zero tolerance for criminal and disruptive school behavior, as well as a zero tolerance for criminal behavior in neighborhoods. If city authorities cannot or will not provide protection, then law-abiding black people should find a way to provide that protection themselves


Obama To ‘Evaluate” Banning Online Ammunition Sales



This is from Freedom Outpost.

Obama will try to ban ammo by executive fiat.

Because he knows he can not get anything through Congress.

Things are going to get hard on gun owners quickly.

In the wake of the Aurora, Colorado shooting, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday that Barack Obama will “evaluate” a new bill that would ban online ammunition sales.

Why online ammunition sales? Well according to reports coming out of Aurora, James Holmes accumulated some 6,000 rounds of ammo. That really is not a large amount of ammunition, especially when you purchase in bulk to save money.

Earnest was asked at the beginning of the press briefing whether or not Obama supported the measure, which is sort of a silly question, knowing what Obama’s views on guns are. Not only would it put a halt to sales of unlimited amounts of ammunition on the internet and other mail orders, but it would also force ammunition dealers to report large sales of munitions to law enforcement.

This is the bill I was telling you about earlier that is sponsored by Democrats Sen. Frank Lauthenberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. I know you are shocked it’s Democrats supporting this.

“The president’s view that have been relayed quite frequently over the last few days, you know, is that he believes in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, in the right to bear arms but he also believes that we should take robust steps within existing law to ensure that guns don’t fall in the hands of criminals or others [who] shouldn’t have them, said Earnest, referencing Obama’s comments to the National Urban League.

Now we know that Barack Obama would love nothing more than to disarm the American people. We know he wants full control over our lives, so all of this talk about “evaluating” this bill or any like it is simply code for “Yes the president is for any and all gun control laws, including those which would ban or regulate the sale of ammunition online or otherwise.”

Sen. Lautenberg said in a statement,

“If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition, they should have to come face-to-face with the seller. It’s one thing to buy a pair of shoes online, but it should take more than a click of the mouse to amass thousands of rounds of ammunition.”

I wonder if Mr. Lautenberg has the same opinion of knives, nails, or other kitchen utensils that could be used a “deadly” weapons. Is he going to make people who purchase a cutlery set “come face to face with the seller? So what. What if I walk into the local gun shop and purchase all the ammunition I want? What difference will that make? It will mean that I, as a law abiding citizen, will have to trouble myself with getting in the car, spending money for gasoline to purchase something I could have purchased from the privacy and comfort of my own home. It stops no one from obtaining ammunition, just troubles law-abiding citizens to make liberals feel better that they wrote a law. This is another frivolous and stupid waste of paper and ink that will not stop criminals from obtaining ammunition if they want it.

Sen. Lautenberg’s partner in crime, Rep. McCarthy said

“Law-abiding gun owners and shooters should support this legislation because it hinders criminals from abusing the Second Amendment right that our nation promises and could save innocent lives in the process.”

Well you know what Mrs. McCarthy, as I said before you should be at home being a wife and mother. This is no place for you because you obviously don’t understand “law-abiding gun owners and shooters.” If I want to purchase 10 .50 claiber ammo cans full of .223 ammunition because I’m having some guys down and we’re going to shoot all day, that should be my prerogative, not yours. Again, in no way does the law actually stop criminals from obtaining ammunition anymore than it stops them from acquiring knives, bombs, or guns. It does however, inconvenience the “law- abiding gun owners and shooters” you mention though. Thanks, but no thanks.

The Hill reports at least some good news,

The legislation is unlikely to make it into law.

Gun reform has become one of the most controversial issues in Washington in recent years, as the gun lobby has evolved into one of the most influential powers on Capitol Hill. President Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, have been careful not to call for new reforms in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., tragedy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week he has no plans to bring up gun-control legislation, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the same.

Yeah well we know where Obama stands on gun control and tomorrow I’ll be putting out Mitt Romney’s record on it. It’s not that stellar either.


Does Obama Think U.S. Soldiers Use AK-47s?



This is from Breitbart.

Obama needs a lesson from Gunnery Sergeant Tom Highway.

G/Sgt. Highway: This is the AK-47, the preferred weapon of the enemy. It makes a distinct sound when fired, so remember it.

President Barack Obama, speaking to the National Urban League on Wednesday evening, sounded a call for gun control–and revealed his apparent ignorance about the U.S. military in the process. Obama told the audience that “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.” However, the U.S. military does not generally use the AK-47, a weapon originally developed in the Soviet Union that was subsequently adopted by many other communist states. The AK-47 also became the weapon of choice for guerrilla armies and terrorist groups.

Today, AK-47s are typically to be found among enemy forces that U.S. troops encounter on the battlefield. Osama bin Laden was often filmed or photographed near his AK-47 rifle–and was killed by U.S. Navy Seals when he reached for it. (Update: Yes, bin Laden preferred a newer, updated version of the weapon, the AK-74.) The former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi also released video footage of himself taking target practice with an AK-47. (Update: Other videos featured the AK-47; the target practice was with a recovered American M249 rifle.) Taliban forces in Afghanistan use the AK-47 in attacks on NATO forces. There are some allied forces that also use the AK-47, and the CIA once funneled AK-47s to “friendly” militias. Occasionally, members of specialized units may use the AK-47 in the field. Practically, however, as well as symbolically, the AK-47 is a weapon not typically associated with American soldiers.

The AK-47 is popular among private owners–as well as irregular armies in third world countries–because it is small, easily maintained, and relatively inexpensive. It is possible to obtain AK-47s on the black market in formerly war-torn countries such as Mozambique, for example, for as little as 10 U.S. dollars. Some argue that the U.S. should adopt the AK-47 (or a variant thereof) to replace the M-16 and M-4 rifles. For now, however, it is not typically supplied to, nor carried by, U.S. combat soldiers, as President Obama ought to know.

Though President Obama has cultivated an image of a strong and decisive commander-in-chief–partly through apparent White House leaks of military secrets–he has frequently demonstrated an elementary lack of familiarity with the basic facts about the forces he leads. At the National Prayer Breakfast in 2010, for example, he referred to U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsmen as “corpse-men,” mispronouncing the word.

Whether the error of an errant speechwriter, or the choice of the president himself, the use of the AK-47 metaphor in Obama’s speech reveals a lack of knowledge about the U.S. military–and a possible lingering romanticism about the guerrilla forces often lionized by the radicals among whom Obama began his political career.


%d bloggers like this: