The language of terror
ByTerrorism is speech — speech that gathers its audience by killing innocents as theatrically as possible. The 19th-century anarchist Paul Brousse called it “propaganda by deed.” Accordingly, the Boston Marathon attack, the first successful terror bombing in the United States since 9/11, was designed for maximum effect. At the finish line there would be not only news cameras but also hundreds of personal videos to amplify the message.
But what message? There was no claim of responsibility, no explanatory propaganda. Indeed, was it terrorism at all?
There was much ado about President Obama’s nonuse of the word “terrorism” in his first statement to the nation after the bombing. Indeed, the very next morning, he took to the White House briefing room for no other reason than to pronounce the event an “act of terrorism.”
He justified the update as a response to “what we now know.” But there had been no new information overnight. Nothing changed, except a certain trepidation about the original omission.
There was no need to be so sensitive, however. The president said that terrorism is any bombing aimed at civilians. Not quite. Terrorism is any attack on civilians for a political purpose. Until you know the purpose, you can’t know if it is terrorism.
Sometimes an attack can have no purpose. The Tucson shooter who nearly killed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was simply deranged, a certified paranoid schizophrenic. Or there might be some personal vendetta — a purpose, but not political. In the Boston case, conceivably a grudge against the marathon, its organizers or something associated with the race.
That, of course, is extremely improbable. (Schizophrenics are too disorganized to set off simultaneous bombs, for example.) It’s overwhelmingly likely that the Boston attack was political, and therefore terrorism.
Nonetheless, the president’s nonuse of the word was no big deal. Why then was he so sensitive that he came out the next morning to correct the omission?
Answer: Benghazi, in which the administration had been roundly and correctly criticized for refusing to call it terrorism for so long.
Benghazi, however, was totally different. There, the word mattered very much. There were two possible explanations for the killing of the four Americans: a preplanned attack (terrorism), or a spontaneous demonstration gone wild.
The administration tried to peddle the spontaneous-demonstration story in order to place the blame on a mob incited by a nutty Coptic American who had made an offensive video. This would have spared the administration any culpability.
To use the word terrorism, meaning deliberate attack, would have undermined the blame-shifting and raised exactly the questions — about warnings ignored, inadequate security, absence of contingency plans — that have dogged the administration for months.
In Boston, in contrast, there is no question about deliberateness. Nor is anyone blaming the administration for inadequate warning or protection.
Here, the linguistic challenge for the president is quite different. What if this turns out to be the work of Islamists? The history of domestic attacks since 9/11 would suggest the odds are about 50-50, although the crude technique and the unclaimed responsibility would suggest a somewhat lower probability.
But if it is nevertheless found to be Islamist, will Obama use the word? His administration obsessively adopts language that extirpates any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. It insists on calling jihadists “violent extremists” without ever telling us what they’re extreme about. It even classified the Fort Hood shooting, in which the killer screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered 13 people, as “workplace violence.”
In a speech just last month in Jerusalem, the president referred to the rising tide of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists as the rise of “non-secular parties.”
Non-secular? Isn’t that a euphemism for “religious,” i.e., Islamist?
Yet Obama couldn’t say the word. This is no linguistic triviality. He wouldn’t be tripping over himself to avoid any reference to Islam if it was insignificant.
Obama has performed admirably during the Boston crisis, speaking both reassuringly and with determination. But he continues to be linguistically uneasy. His wavering over the word terrorism is telling, though in this case unimportant. The real test will come when we learn the motive for the attack.
As of this writing, we don’t know. It could be Islamist, white supremacist, anarchist, anything. What words will Obama use? It is a measure of the emptiness of Obama’s preferred description — “violent extremists” — that, even as we know nothing, it can already be applied to the Boston bomber(s). Which means, the designation is meaningless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-language-of-terror/2013/04/18/0d6f7f26-a85b-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
Obama’s chaotic Middle East policy
Secretary of State John Kerry seems to
be terribly confused. Yesterday, in the wake of the forced resignation
of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (a direct snub to Kerry and
the president, who had urged Fayyad stay) he proclaimed at the House
Foreign Affairs Committee: “I’m committed to this because I believe the
window for a two-state solution is shutting. I think we have some period
of time: a year, a year and a half to two years — or it’s over.
This is daft on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin. Fayyad just quit. The United States has no leverage with the Palestinian Authority. There is no successor to Fayyad, who has the confidence of the EU and the West. Fatah and Hamas are still joined in a unity government. And Kerry thinks this can all get wrapped up in a year or two? Moreover, the “year or two” formula has been in vogue since the 1990s. The parties have never been all that close (contrary to Clinton officials’ insistence after Camp David collapsed); and there is no evidence anything significant can be accomplished anytime soon. Kerry is repeating the exact same error of his predecessor and so many secretaries of state in setting expectations that can’t be met.
More importantly, there is a bunch of other stuff that really needs his attention right away.
For starters, Iran, the Associated Press reports:
Yet Kerry and the president keep insisting that there is time for “negotiations to work.” Really? The sanctions have not slowed the nuclear weapons program; in fact, Iran’s weapons progress has improved faster than we imagined. And perhaps the only negotiations less productive than the “peace process” are the P5+1 with Iran. We need an effective policy. We don’t have one. The clock is ticking.
Meanwhile, Syria is becoming more nightmarish with each passing day. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reminds us: ”The main areas of concern to us are the arms that are already in Syria — these are anti-aircraft weapons, these are chemical weapons and other very, very dangerous weapons that could be game-changers. They will change the conditions, the balance of power in the Middle East. They could present a terrorist threat on a worldwide scale. It is definitely our interest to defend ourselves, but we also think it is in the interest of other countries.” Yet why isn’t the U.S. administration showing the same sense of urgency? Our policy now consists of wishful thinking that Bashar al-Assad will fall at precisely the point at which non-jihadi actors (whom we’ve refused to arm) can grab power so the jihadis (who have rushed into Syria while we were dawdling for over two years) don’t seize power and get these weapons.
Kerry actually was partially right. We have very limited time. But the time frame does not apply to the moribund “peace process.” It is applicable to the race for WMDs in the Middle East, the threat to the West and to Israel from a nuclear-armed Iran (or terrorists with access to chemical, nuclear and other WMDs), and the resulting arms race in the region if Iran actually does reach a nuclear weapons capability. That is what is urgent; not Kerry’s fantastical vision of a revitalized peace process.
He sounds immensely unserious when he spouts off like this, all the while showing no signs of coherent thinking on the things that really should be at the top of his list. And the president? Rather than pursuing fruitless anti-gun legislation, he might turn his focus to creating a robust, effective foreign policy. That might be the avenue to reviving his second term. More to the point, it might prevent a set of nuclear dominos from falling that will make North Korea the least of our worries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/18/obamas-chaotic-middle-east-policy/?print=1
“April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals,” she said. "There's the Columbine anniversary. There's Hitler's birthday. There's the Oklahoma City bombing. The assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco," she added.
Before linking conservatives to the bombing and Hitler's birthday, Temple-Raston admitted that authorities have no "smoking gun."
"Raston went on to explain that the FBI is comparing the Boston attack to the 1996 Olympic bombings in Atlanta due to similarities between the explosive devices," Revealing Politics added.
Hitler, however, was a socialist, despite NPR's attempt to link conservatives to the German dictator.
"That long-knife you just felt eased into your back came courtesy of the oh-so precious dulcet tones that emanate from NPR correspondent Dina Temple-Raston -- which makes sense. After all, don't most serial-smearers have three names?" John Nolte wrote at Breitbart.com.
A post at Weasel Zippers called it a "[t]axpayer-funded smear job." NPR is funded, in part, by taxpayer dollars.
Since Monday's bombings, liberals have attempted to link conservatives and the Tea Party to the attack despite the absence of any evidence. The video can be seen here.
http://www.examiner.com/article/npr-conservatives-tied-to-boston-marathon-bombing-because-of-hitler-s-birthday
As we have reported all week, despite zero tangible evidence indicating that the attack was carried out by an anti-tax protester or a “right-winger,” numerous personalities on the left went ahead and made the connection anyway, as a way of pushing their political agendas.
- Just hours after the bombing, Michael Moore blamed the Tea Party for the tragedy, tweeting “2+2 =” followed by “Tax Day. Patriots Day.”
- A Salon.com opinion piece published last night entitled, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,” expressed the desire that the “bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist.”
- Former Bill Clinton and Obama advisor David Axelrod also hinted on MSNBC that the attack could have been a form of tax protest.
- CNN analysts claimed that “extreme right-wing individuals” are fond of the pressure cooker device featured in al-Qaeda’s magazine that was purportedly used to bomb the Boston Marathon finish line.
- CNN’s Wolf Blitzer stated on live television within one hour after the bombings: “It is a state holiday, in addition to the Boston Marathon. It is a state holiday in Massachusetts today, called Patriots’ Day. And who knows if that had anything at all to do with these twin explosions?”
- MSNBC’s Chris Matthews also theorized that the bombing could be the result of a protest against federal income taxes. “As you point out, and I just forgot, I filed already. It’s filing day for the federal income tax, which does cause some emotions around the country – sometimes in the wrong parts of the brain anyway,” Matthews said during his show.
- BBC News coverage suggested that “chatter within the intelligence services” indicates that right wing extremists could be behind the attack, with analysts noting that the bombing occurred on Patriot’s Day, the holiday that commemorates the first battles of the American Revolutionary War.
- In comments to the media, Richard Barrett, the former United Nations co-ordinator for the al-Qaeda and Taliban monitoring team said that the timing of the attack on Patriots’ Day and the relatively small size of the devices suggested the work of a domestic extremist.
- Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce also made the connection, noting that Monday is the “official Patriots Day holiday” in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord. He also pointed out that April 19, the actual date of the battles, is connected to Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh, who apparently considered himself a “waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.”
- Former FBI agent Brad Garrett said he wouldn’t be surprised if the bombing had been carried out by a domestic extremist “patriot” group or individual in an attempt to make a statement.
- Huffington Post blogger and Al Sharpton radio producer Nida Khan also blindly speculated that “all these anti-gov groups” could be behind the attack.
- A US Forest Service PR rep also took to Twitter to blame the bombing on the Tea Party, writing, “I fear nutty logic goes like this … Patriots Day. April 15. Tax Day. Bad government. Boston. Tea Party. Let’s show ‘em.”
- Actor and comedian Jay Mohr blamed the bombings on the Second Amendment, tweeting, “What bothers me most about today is that we’re getting used 2 it. ENOUGH. 2nd amendment must go. Violence has 2 stop. Culture MUST change.”
This kind of disgusting rhetoric from so many of these public figures led statewide organizer for the Massachusetts Tea Party Carlos Hernandez to express his anger at opportunists milking the tragedy for political points scoring. Hernandez lost his 8-year-old nephew Martin Richard, who was the youngest victim of the bombing.
“I just hope the politicians don’t try to show up at the funeral,” said Hernandez. “If these guys try to use it as political crap, I might get arrested.”
It is blatantly clear that the talking heads mentioned above were willing that the atrocity be pinned on anyone associated with the political right in order that the Obama administration would be able to fully exploit the attack for its own ends.
It is also clear that elected representatives and even investigators were being led down the “domestic extremist” garden path by such rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Richard DesLauriers, the special agent in charge of the Boston FBI office, asserted very early on that “The person who did this was someone’s friend, neighbor or coworker,” ruling out the possibility that the attack was carried out by foreigners who entered the United States.
Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, went further, telling reporters, “There are a lot of things that are surrounding this that would give an indication it may have been a domestic terrorist.”
Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House intelligence, said the investigation was leaning towards the likelihood that the bombings were the work of a “lone wolf” extremist.
For a long time now, government lobby groups such as The Southern Poverty Law Center, along with an already out of control Department Of Homeland Security have relentlessly pushed the notion that “right wing extremists” are the biggest threat to the security of the nation.
Of course, their definition of a right wing extremist in their own reports is libertarian gun owners, Ron Paul supporters, Infowars readers, or anyone opposed to the policies of the Federal Reserve.
Americans who believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are worth protecting from the predatory ravages of the federal government are now routinely considered “extremist” right wingers by these organisations and agencies.
There are still holes you could drive a bus through in the emerging narrative of the Boston bombing suspects. The matter of unidentified private security agents crawling all over the scene of the crime operating some kind of drill immediately prior to the attack has also not been addressed by the FBI or the media. The possible Saudi connection has also been swept under the rug without being properly addressed.
At no point, however, has there been any indication whatsoever in any form that American “patriots”, “right wingers” or tea party types were involved in the attack. The fact that this suggestion was uniformly rolled out by talking heads and analysts serves as proof, once again, that the mainstream media is infested by individuals and groups with a distinct political agenda to demonise Americans who still value their rights.
Will there be apologies? Will there be punitive measures? Not Likely.
http://www.infowars.com/will-obama-insider-media-mouthpieces-apologise-for-fingering-tea-party-patriots-as-bombers/print/
This is daft on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin. Fayyad just quit. The United States has no leverage with the Palestinian Authority. There is no successor to Fayyad, who has the confidence of the EU and the West. Fatah and Hamas are still joined in a unity government. And Kerry thinks this can all get wrapped up in a year or two? Moreover, the “year or two” formula has been in vogue since the 1990s. The parties have never been all that close (contrary to Clinton officials’ insistence after Camp David collapsed); and there is no evidence anything significant can be accomplished anytime soon. Kerry is repeating the exact same error of his predecessor and so many secretaries of state in setting expectations that can’t be met.
More importantly, there is a bunch of other stuff that really needs his attention right away.
For starters, Iran, the Associated Press reports:
Iranian nuclear chief Fereidoun Abbasi was quoted Sunday by the semiofficial Fars news agency as saying that more than 3,000 high-tech centrifuges have already been produced and will soon phase out the more than 12,000 older-generation enriching machines at Natanz.
If accurate, those numbers show that Iran has managed to outperform expectations published just two years ago. Back then David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security cited unnamed U.S. government sources estimating that raw-material shortages would likely limit production of the advanced machines to no more than 1,000.
Albright on Wednesday said Iran’s apparent ability to mass-produce the machines reflects its success in evading sanctions.
“At this point you have to concede that Iran probably has the material to make up to 3,000 IR2-ms,” he said.Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tells me that this “reflects the fact that there has been no diplomatic progress and that Iran continues to develop the capabilities necessary for making nuclear weapons.”
Yet Kerry and the president keep insisting that there is time for “negotiations to work.” Really? The sanctions have not slowed the nuclear weapons program; in fact, Iran’s weapons progress has improved faster than we imagined. And perhaps the only negotiations less productive than the “peace process” are the P5+1 with Iran. We need an effective policy. We don’t have one. The clock is ticking.
Meanwhile, Syria is becoming more nightmarish with each passing day. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reminds us: ”The main areas of concern to us are the arms that are already in Syria — these are anti-aircraft weapons, these are chemical weapons and other very, very dangerous weapons that could be game-changers. They will change the conditions, the balance of power in the Middle East. They could present a terrorist threat on a worldwide scale. It is definitely our interest to defend ourselves, but we also think it is in the interest of other countries.” Yet why isn’t the U.S. administration showing the same sense of urgency? Our policy now consists of wishful thinking that Bashar al-Assad will fall at precisely the point at which non-jihadi actors (whom we’ve refused to arm) can grab power so the jihadis (who have rushed into Syria while we were dawdling for over two years) don’t seize power and get these weapons.
Kerry actually was partially right. We have very limited time. But the time frame does not apply to the moribund “peace process.” It is applicable to the race for WMDs in the Middle East, the threat to the West and to Israel from a nuclear-armed Iran (or terrorists with access to chemical, nuclear and other WMDs), and the resulting arms race in the region if Iran actually does reach a nuclear weapons capability. That is what is urgent; not Kerry’s fantastical vision of a revitalized peace process.
He sounds immensely unserious when he spouts off like this, all the while showing no signs of coherent thinking on the things that really should be at the top of his list. And the president? Rather than pursuing fruitless anti-gun legislation, he might turn his focus to creating a robust, effective foreign policy. That might be the avenue to reviving his second term. More to the point, it might prevent a set of nuclear dominos from falling that will make North Korea the least of our worries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/18/obamas-chaotic-middle-east-policy/?print=1
New York Times Publishes & Then Revises Article Mocked as Too Sympathetic to Boston Bomber Suspects
As certain “new media” outlets continue to try to piece together the puzzle that is the Brothers Tsarnaev, one “traditional media” outlet on Friday published a seemingly sympathetic article on the suspected Boston Bombers:
Before all the facts are in, before
either brother has been formally accused of anything (remember, they’re
still suspects), the New York Times actually published a piece titled,
“Far from war-torn homeland, trying to fit in.”
Soon after the article went live, The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher took screen shots and distributed them on social media.
The Times, roundly mocked for its
seemingly sympathetic ode to the suspected Boston Bombers, eventually
tweaked the article, according to TheDC’s Christopher Bedford.
“[T]he Times changed the layout of the
page to one more seemingly aware of the hundreds of victims and their
friends and families, the entire United States and much of the
non-terrorist planet,” Bedford writes.
The newly-revised article has done away with the phrases “war-torn” and “trying to fit in.”
“The image of a man looking at an image
of one of the suspected terrorists is still on the page and links to a
boring video about what Chechnya is,” Bedford notes.
Now it’s important to note that, and
Bedford back us up on this, article layouts are usually done by editors
and not by the actual journalist. So an editor is most likely
responsible for the first edition of the “War-Torn” article.
“When TheDC performed a Google search
for ‘far from homeland, trying to fit in,’ the original title and layout
was apparent. The two links at the top of the page link to the same
page on The New York Times’ website,” TheDC notes:
“But a Google search still shows that
someone at The New York Times is an idiot,” Bedford flatly states.
“Google is often a nuisance to public figures and institutions because
it makes it more difficult to hide stupidity.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/19/new-york-times-publishes-then-revises-article-mocked-as-too-sympathetic-to-boston-bomber-suspects/
NPR: Conservatives tied to Boston Marathon bombing because of Hitler's birthday
In a video posted Thursday at Revealing Politics, NPR Correspondent Dina Temple-Raston claimed that April is a good month for conservatives to attack fellow Americans because, among other things, Hitler's birthday falls on April 20.“April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals,” she said. "There's the Columbine anniversary. There's Hitler's birthday. There's the Oklahoma City bombing. The assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco," she added.
Before linking conservatives to the bombing and Hitler's birthday, Temple-Raston admitted that authorities have no "smoking gun."
"Raston went on to explain that the FBI is comparing the Boston attack to the 1996 Olympic bombings in Atlanta due to similarities between the explosive devices," Revealing Politics added.
Hitler, however, was a socialist, despite NPR's attempt to link conservatives to the German dictator.
"That long-knife you just felt eased into your back came courtesy of the oh-so precious dulcet tones that emanate from NPR correspondent Dina Temple-Raston -- which makes sense. After all, don't most serial-smearers have three names?" John Nolte wrote at Breitbart.com.
A post at Weasel Zippers called it a "[t]axpayer-funded smear job." NPR is funded, in part, by taxpayer dollars.
Since Monday's bombings, liberals have attempted to link conservatives and the Tea Party to the attack despite the absence of any evidence. The video can be seen here.
http://www.examiner.com/article/npr-conservatives-tied-to-boston-marathon-bombing-because-of-hitler-s-birthday
Will Obama Insider, Media Mouthpieces Apologize For Fingering Tea Party, Patriots As Bombers?
Fourth Estate is infested with politicking axe-grinders
Now a clear narrative has emerged that the main suspects in the Boston bombing were radicalized foreigners who recently converted to Islam, will the numerous analysts, advisors and media talking heads on the left issue apologies for openly suggesting that Tea party followers and patriots were likely behind the bombing?As we have reported all week, despite zero tangible evidence indicating that the attack was carried out by an anti-tax protester or a “right-winger,” numerous personalities on the left went ahead and made the connection anyway, as a way of pushing their political agendas.
- Just hours after the bombing, Michael Moore blamed the Tea Party for the tragedy, tweeting “2+2 =” followed by “Tax Day. Patriots Day.”
- A Salon.com opinion piece published last night entitled, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,” expressed the desire that the “bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist.”
- Former Bill Clinton and Obama advisor David Axelrod also hinted on MSNBC that the attack could have been a form of tax protest.
- CNN analysts claimed that “extreme right-wing individuals” are fond of the pressure cooker device featured in al-Qaeda’s magazine that was purportedly used to bomb the Boston Marathon finish line.
- CNN’s Wolf Blitzer stated on live television within one hour after the bombings: “It is a state holiday, in addition to the Boston Marathon. It is a state holiday in Massachusetts today, called Patriots’ Day. And who knows if that had anything at all to do with these twin explosions?”
- MSNBC’s Chris Matthews also theorized that the bombing could be the result of a protest against federal income taxes. “As you point out, and I just forgot, I filed already. It’s filing day for the federal income tax, which does cause some emotions around the country – sometimes in the wrong parts of the brain anyway,” Matthews said during his show.
- BBC News coverage suggested that “chatter within the intelligence services” indicates that right wing extremists could be behind the attack, with analysts noting that the bombing occurred on Patriot’s Day, the holiday that commemorates the first battles of the American Revolutionary War.
- In comments to the media, Richard Barrett, the former United Nations co-ordinator for the al-Qaeda and Taliban monitoring team said that the timing of the attack on Patriots’ Day and the relatively small size of the devices suggested the work of a domestic extremist.
- Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce also made the connection, noting that Monday is the “official Patriots Day holiday” in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord. He also pointed out that April 19, the actual date of the battles, is connected to Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh, who apparently considered himself a “waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.”
- Former FBI agent Brad Garrett said he wouldn’t be surprised if the bombing had been carried out by a domestic extremist “patriot” group or individual in an attempt to make a statement.
- Huffington Post blogger and Al Sharpton radio producer Nida Khan also blindly speculated that “all these anti-gov groups” could be behind the attack.
- A US Forest Service PR rep also took to Twitter to blame the bombing on the Tea Party, writing, “I fear nutty logic goes like this … Patriots Day. April 15. Tax Day. Bad government. Boston. Tea Party. Let’s show ‘em.”
- Actor and comedian Jay Mohr blamed the bombings on the Second Amendment, tweeting, “What bothers me most about today is that we’re getting used 2 it. ENOUGH. 2nd amendment must go. Violence has 2 stop. Culture MUST change.”
This kind of disgusting rhetoric from so many of these public figures led statewide organizer for the Massachusetts Tea Party Carlos Hernandez to express his anger at opportunists milking the tragedy for political points scoring. Hernandez lost his 8-year-old nephew Martin Richard, who was the youngest victim of the bombing.
“I just hope the politicians don’t try to show up at the funeral,” said Hernandez. “If these guys try to use it as political crap, I might get arrested.”
It is blatantly clear that the talking heads mentioned above were willing that the atrocity be pinned on anyone associated with the political right in order that the Obama administration would be able to fully exploit the attack for its own ends.
It is also clear that elected representatives and even investigators were being led down the “domestic extremist” garden path by such rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Richard DesLauriers, the special agent in charge of the Boston FBI office, asserted very early on that “The person who did this was someone’s friend, neighbor or coworker,” ruling out the possibility that the attack was carried out by foreigners who entered the United States.
Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, went further, telling reporters, “There are a lot of things that are surrounding this that would give an indication it may have been a domestic terrorist.”
Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House intelligence, said the investigation was leaning towards the likelihood that the bombings were the work of a “lone wolf” extremist.
For a long time now, government lobby groups such as The Southern Poverty Law Center, along with an already out of control Department Of Homeland Security have relentlessly pushed the notion that “right wing extremists” are the biggest threat to the security of the nation.
Of course, their definition of a right wing extremist in their own reports is libertarian gun owners, Ron Paul supporters, Infowars readers, or anyone opposed to the policies of the Federal Reserve.
Americans who believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are worth protecting from the predatory ravages of the federal government are now routinely considered “extremist” right wingers by these organisations and agencies.
There are still holes you could drive a bus through in the emerging narrative of the Boston bombing suspects. The matter of unidentified private security agents crawling all over the scene of the crime operating some kind of drill immediately prior to the attack has also not been addressed by the FBI or the media. The possible Saudi connection has also been swept under the rug without being properly addressed.
At no point, however, has there been any indication whatsoever in any form that American “patriots”, “right wingers” or tea party types were involved in the attack. The fact that this suggestion was uniformly rolled out by talking heads and analysts serves as proof, once again, that the mainstream media is infested by individuals and groups with a distinct political agenda to demonise Americans who still value their rights.
Will there be apologies? Will there be punitive measures? Not Likely.
http://www.infowars.com/will-obama-insider-media-mouthpieces-apologise-for-fingering-tea-party-patriots-as-bombers/print/
Why Is Defying Majority Support for Gun Control 'Cowardice'?
Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who stood next to President Obama yesterday, nodding as he berated the senators who voted against his gun control proposals for their "shameful" failure to agree with him, continues the tantrum in today's New York Times. As gun controllers tend to do, she opens with an emotion-laden non sequitur:
Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.This nonsensical juxtaposition has zero logical content yet achieves Giffords' goal of portraying her opponents as insincere hacks who elevate their own petty political interests above the lives of children. In case you missed the point, she drives it home:
Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents—who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them....
I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated.In Giffords' view, these senators are two-faced, because you cannot truly sympathize with her unless you vote for the bills she supports. But I am a little confused about the purported motivation for this perceived betrayal. Obama and Giffords both insist the senators who voted against new gun controls did so not out of conviction but out of fear—specifically, fear that they would be defeated the next time they run for re-election. If their constituents "overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks," however, wouldn't voting for the bill mandating those have been the politically expedient thing to do? And why is opposing the will of the majority a mark of "cowardice," as Giffords says, rather than a mark of courage?
Furthermore, why would senators be afraid of "the gun lobby" unless they think it can sway voters against them? Isn't that ultimately the source of the NRA's fearsome power? But if voters are so easily manipulated, why should we be impressed by majority support for expanded background checks or any other gun control measure? I suspect that Giffords credits the majority with wisdom only when the polls are going her way, just as she credits politicians with integrity only when they agree with her.
"Speaking is physically difficult for me," Giffords writes, alluding to the disability caused by the gunshot wound she suffered at the hands of Jared Loughner in Tucson two years ago. "But my feelings are clear: I'm furious." Obama thinks such feelings should carry special weight in the gun control debate, and evidently so does Giffords, although they might change their minds when confronted by a victim of gun violence who does not support their agenda. Assuming that parents of murdered children are not all of one mind regarding the merits of new gun controls (and they're not), how do we decide whose feelings should prevail? Take a vote of the victims?
Enough already. If you have an argument to make, make it. But do not assume that the only possible explanation for your failure to persuade people is their bad faith or lack of compassion.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/18/why-is-defying-majority-support-for-gun
Wall Street Journal Eviscerates Liberal Media Memes on Gun Control, Explains Why Obama, Reid Are to Blame For Loss in Senate
When it comes to the failure of the Democratic gun control package in the U.S. Senate earlier this week, "[t]he media [have been] amplifying... with less subtlety" President Obama's gripes about the power of the NRA and a minority in the Senate supposedly scuttling the will of the American people on background checks, the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted today. But the truth of the matter, the board explained, is that Democrats have only themselves, and more specifically President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to blame.The Journal editorial board explained how "[t]he White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the [Manchin-Toomey background check] amendment without" the benefit of 30 hours of floor debate which "would have meant inspecting the details" of the legislation and "opened up the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass." A simple majority was needed for such a debate, the Journal notes, a threshold they could have cleared as Reid had 54 votes for his cloture motion. So why did Reid not go that route? Because it would "have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes," the Journal argued, adding (emphases mine):
So Mr. Reid moved under "unanimous consent" to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold.
The White House was right to worry. An amendment from John Cornyn of Texas that would have required all states to recognize every other state's concealed-carry permits earned 57 votes, 13 Democrats among them. The nearby table has the list. On Thursday, Wyoming's John Barrasso offered an amendment to protect gun ownership privacy that passed 67-30.
The media are attributing the demise of Manchin-Toomey to the clout of rural states, as if those voters don't count;
or claiming it would have passed under a secret ballot, as if
democratic accountability is bad. Our guess is the amendment would have
received fewer votes in a secret ballot. Many red-state Democrats wanted
to avoid handing Mr. Obama a larger defeat on a bill that was about to
fail anyway, but more might have parted company once the specifics were
scrutinized.Manchin-Toomey was rushed together on a political timetable, and a thorough scrub would have revealed that its finer legal points aren't as modest as liberals claim. Tellingly, the White House blew up earlier negotiations with Tom Coburn on background checks. The Oklahoma Republican favored more and better checks across secondary firearms markets like gun shows and online, but liberals insisted that federally licensed dealers had to keep records.
In other words, keeping guns away from dangerous or unstable people was less important than defeating the NRA. The Senate GOP offered an alternative background-checks amendment that failed 52-48. Nine Democrats were in favor, but their colleagues voted en masse to block it from moving forward. How's that for incoherent?
Mr. Obama is technically right that Manchin-Toomey would not create a federal firearms registry. Then again, its most clamorous supporters are also contemptuous of the Second Amendment, and they are explicitly hoping for a fifth Justice to overturn the Supreme Court's landmark gun-rights rulings. Manchin-Toomey opponents can be forgiven for worrying that gun controllers will attempt to build a registry from whatever records they get.
***
Meanwhile, political reporters are ignoring the disintegration of Mr. Obama's overall gun agenda. Restricting large capacity magazines went down 46-54, with 10 Democrats breaking with the President. Banning certain types of semiautomatic rifles failed 40-60 with 15 Democrats opposed. Those 15 or so Democrats, along with numerous Republicans, are the true mainstream on guns in America: open to reasonable compromises as long as they safeguard individual rights.
People who cling to their guns, or merely to the Constitution, aren't part of the coalition that Mr. Obama believes re-elected him, and his mistake was thinking they would simply dissolve into history's rearview mirror in his new progressive era. Mr. Obama was routed this week because he tried to govern from the left and thus played into the hands of the NRA. If the Newtown families want someone to blame, they can start with the President.
PK'S NOTE: The fact is that he doesn't have this power; this is unconstitutional. Only the legislative branch can create law in the US.
Obama taking executive action on guns after Senate vote
Federal law bans certain mentally ill people from purchasing firearms, but not all states are providing data to stop the prohibited sales to the FBI's background check system. A federal review last year found 17 states contributed fewer than 10 mental health records to the database, meaning many deemed by a judge to be a danger still could have access to guns.
The Obama administration was starting a process Friday aimed at removing barriers in health privacy laws that prevent some states from reporting information to the background check system. The action comes two days after the Senate rejected a measure that would have required buyers of firearms online and at gun shows to pass a background check. That's already required for shoppers at licensed gun dealers.
Stung by the defeat, Obama vowed to keep up the fight for the background check expansion but also to do what he could through executive action.
"Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities," Obama said from the Rose Garden shortly after the Senate voted. "We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system."
Obama also mentioned giving law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns and establishing emergency plans for schools. Those measures were among the 23 executive actions the president signed in January when he announced his broader push for tighter gun laws in response to a mass shooting of first-graders and staff at Newtown, Conn.'s Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The Health and Human Services Department on Friday was beginning to ask for public comment on how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and known as HIPAA, is preventing some states from reporting to the background check system and how to address the problem. Under HIPAA, health care providers such as hospitals may release limited information to police, but only in certain circumstances such as when a court is involved.
Since 1968, federal law has banned the sale of guns to those who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others, involuntarily committed or judged not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial. The background check system -- which is also used to prevent convicted felons from buying guns -- was established under the 1993 Brady Bill.
A few state agencies shared mental health records voluntarily for years, but the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 spurred passage of legislation that required states to submit the records or eventually risk losing up to 5 percent of the federal funding they receive to fight crime.
Last year's review by the Government Accountability Office found that although the number of mental health records available to the background check system increased 800 percent since 2004, some states said they were not sharing mental health information because of concerns about restrictions under HIPAA privacy law. Obama is interested in a change that would specifically allow disclosure of mental health records for the system, and he wants to increase financial incentives for states to contribute the information.
In the Virginia Tech rampage, student Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people to death and committed suicide. He was able to buy two guns even though he had been ruled a danger to himself during a court hearing in 2005 and was ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment.
Authorities have not described a possible motive or released details of any mental health condition that might explain why Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults before killing himself. The rifle he used was purchased by his mother, whom he also killed at home before heading to the school.
The background check system does not give retailers access to mental health records but simply tells them whether a buyer is approved, denied or needs additional investigation before a firearm may be purchased. The system doesn't tell the seller why a potential buyer was denied.
Justification for Benghazi Cover-Up Continues
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying before the before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in January 2013, about the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, angrily said:With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
Clinton's anger was her way of trying to avoid the issue, to justify the cover-up begun on September 12, 2012. At issue, avoided by Clinton, was whether or not the Obama administration had lied to us. Clinton tried to justify her testimony by portraying herself as a victim and tried to gain sympathy by making the attack a personal issue.
The statement by Clinton was bad enough. Yes, it is your job to "figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." Even Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said so. Obama said, in October 2012, to "make sure that it doesn't happen again[.]" Perhaps Clinton and Obama should have compared notes before she opened her mouth. Or perhaps Clinton and Obama just didn't care.
As if Clinton's statement wasn't enough to express Obama's true feelings about Americans in harm's way, current Secretary of State John Kerry has doubled down on Clinton's statement. Yesterday (April 17, 2013) Kerry said (emphasis mine):
Let's figure out what it is that's missing, if it's legitimate or if it isn't. I don't think anybody lied to anybody. And let's find out exactly, together, what happened, because we need -- we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.
Kerry said that while testifying before the House Foreign Affairs committee. "We got a lot more important things to move on to and get done." Yeah, right. I can only assume, from Kerry's statement, that Obama, Kerry, Clinton, et al. keeping the entire U.S. population "in the dark" regarding what happened in Benghazi is much more important than telling the complete story and letting us decide whether Obama acted correctly (if at all) or not.
Kerry also said, "I don't think anybody lied to anybody." That statement may be true. But (and there's always a "but" when Obama is involved) whether or not a lie was told is not the issue here -- cover-up is. It sounds as if Kerry was quibbling, trying to change the subject, to justify his call to move on.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, doing her part to justify the cover-up, said (emphasis mine):
The bigger tragedy, Jon [Stewart], is we've spent all of these months trying to figure out the origin of some talking points[.]
And we even had Obama himself participating in the justification for the cover-up. In October 2012, Obama twice refused to answer question about the four Americans killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. His justification for not answering questions, his "excuse," was that he was "waiting for the results of investigations before making any conclusions about what went wrong."
So the cover-up continues. But what is more important is that the justification for the cover-up continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment