Thoughts on the Boston Marathon Bombing?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So no.. it's not my responsibility to demonstrate that Beck misses the mark. When you positively claim that he has something solid, it's on you to back that up.

Kacy,

I never held you responsible for anything.

And I don't really care if you take this story seriously (that is, until you do).

Besides, Glenn Beck is a fool, right?

Are we still playing bury the substance with "Glenn Beck sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," (and so on)?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some more substance.

it looks like Michelle Obama is pals with the Saudi dude who was on the terrorist list:

ARE THESE PICTURES OF MICHELLE OBAMA VISITING THE SAUDI STUDENT PUT ON A WATCHLIST LAST WEEK?

You can read about it at the link, where there are some more photos. Glenn gives a breakdown of all the reasons he thinks this is legitimate.

He also put several image experts to analyze it and it appears not to have been Photoshopped, but he doesn't give it a 100%. Also, this picture appeared in a montage with the business card of Robert Schmuck, Special Assistant to the President and Traveling Aide.

A good question is, if this is authentic, why is the First Lady talking directly with a person on a terrorist watch list? What kind of security is that?

Michael

[KacyRay]

So no.. it's not my responsibility to demonstrate that Beck misses the mark. When you positively claim that he has something solid, it's on you to back that up.

Kacy,

I never held you responsible for anything.

And I don't really care if you take this story seriously (that is, until you do).

Besides, Glenn Beck is a fool, right?

Are we still playing bury the substance with "Glenn Beck sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," (and so on)?

Michael

"I never held you responsible for anything." - Oh, I know... but when you say "Go on. Show us Glenn Beck is a fool", it's only courteous for me, if I decline to do so, to explain why I've declined. And the answer is... because "iss not my yob" (but also because it would be technically difficult for me to do so from here).

But to be clear... I don't think Beck is stupid, or a fool... I think he's an alarmist who sells fear and makes a good living off doing so.

"Are we still playing bury the substance with "Glenn Beck sucks," "No he doesn't," "Yes he does," "No he doesn't," (and so on)?"

That was never my intent... but I did want to make clear that I feel that, when someone cries wolf enough times, it becomes irrational to believe them anymore (whether or not they are telling the truth).

In other words, if this grand, unnamed conspiracy that everyone has been alluding to (yet no one has described) is actually taking place - it won't make Beck any less of an alarmist. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Let's just do this... let's see how it plays out and all I'll ask you to tell me is this: How long will *nothing* have to happen before you will admit "Hey, you're right... nothing happened"? Can you at least give me that much? A month? Six months? A year? The end of the Obama Administration?

Otherwise, we are in the exact situation I've described, where something is perpetually about to happen. That's entirely arbitrary and irrational, and it's exactly the state that the fear-pedlars want you to be in.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

I don't know how long.

Napolitano has already been caught in a lie and backtracked... Michelle ma belle has said what the hell... Some other lawmakers seem to be getting on board...

Anyway, I have bigger things on my mind right now.

That damn rapture is imminent, ya' know...

It's revving up to rapture all over us.

(But don't worry about me being in any real danger. This is just a mental weakness people like me have.)

Michael

[KacyRay]

Heh... ok.

We can leave it at "Something real big is gonna happen.. not sure what or when... but it's gonna happen, by god!"

I was reading on some other site that there's clip floating around of Beck saying that if the administration didn't come clean on this by Monday (which was a few days ago) that he was going to reveal the truth. Of course, the video was complete with the dramatic pauses of silence that Beck has worked into his radio persona. The implication being, of course, that Glenn Beck had some incriminating evidence on how the administration has handled this case (or was involved in it) and rather than revealing this information vital to our national security, he was just going to hold onto it - presumable because it makes good radio entertainment.

Perhaps dennis remembers Beck saying that last week. I don't know.

Believe me, I miss being able to watch streaming video. Back home I spend more time watching streaming video than I do watching TV.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

I'll give you this.

Glenn really, really hammed this one up. It was too much even for me.

(Yeah, I admit it.)

But I've been following him for some time and I know he doesn't normally do it like that. In fact, I've never seen him do it like that. So I'm thinking if he's opening his marketing chops that wide, he has a real big bite he's getting ready to take out of the administration.

At the very least, I expect him to score one or more major defections in the media.

(Trivia--Did you know the president of TheBlaze, Betsy Morgan, is the same person who built The Huffington Post? She sure did. Progressives often choke on that when it comes up. )

I'm not looking at the surface bluster. I'm looking a little deeper. Momentum on this thing has started for real. Added to the poorly resolved Benghazi debacle, the drone mess, and some other similar stuff that keeps piling and piling, I expect the snowball effect to kick in at some point. Obama's credibility is tanking.

The right wing media is already talking Jihad and "radical Islam" terrorism up a storm. That wasn't like that before the Boston bombing. Not even right after. Now a Congressman has just stood up in Congress and said under Obama, 5 jihadist terrorists have reached their targets. Under Bush, after 9/11, zero did.

This thing is all jelling in the same direction.

Glenn is also hollering to the four winds that there are 15,000 people from unfriendly Islamic countries who have student visas and have not shown up to their destination. Nobody in the government knows where they are. He always says this at the same time he says it only took 19 to topple the World Trade Center. Now we have 15,000 unaccounted for.

Scare tactic or not, that point is pretty scary.

I think this thing is not as visible as it could be yet because he pissed off the media as a whole, calling them all dishonest. Even Fox. But I think it will reach a point, like with the ACORN affair, where the media simply won't be able to ignore it anymore.

btw - Never trust Glenn's predictions for elections. They suck. Even he says so.

Michael

[KacyRay]

We shall see. Media defectors... at least that's one prediction that can be tested.

My prediction is that ... these are two guys who were influenced by some jihadist. The older of the two was heavily influenced by the Muslim extremist, the younger brother was influenced primarily by his older brother. They were amateurs pulling an amateur operations. That's why they got caught so fast. That's why they behaved the way they did after the bombing. That's why no one is claiming connection.

When an event like this takes place - one in which, in order to get to the facts, all stones must be turned over - there is a complete likelihood that some of the stones that were turned over are going to have the spotlight shined on them.

"Ah, why were they questioning THAT Saudi individual?" Well, because they didn't know what to look for, so they were looking at *everything*.

It's also almost inevitable that, while questioning anyone and everyone about this bombing, they were going to turn up an individual or two that maybe had some other dirt under their rug. This seems all but inevitable.

Occams razor. There's nothing about this that requires the unnecessary multiplication of entities.

[dennislmay]

About Media Matters, it doesn't matter. The talking points are the same across a variety of media organizations and they filter into the mainstream readership either directly or through special feeds. This is proven, too. I can't remember the name of the things, but I know where to look to get the details if I ever need to write about them.

The Progressives have communications that go out every day telling the Progressive media what to discuss and how to discuss it. That's why everyone is talking about the same thing and having the same opinion in the mainstream media all the time. One day it's Treyvon Martin. The next it's some politician or other. The next it's gun control. And so on. And the opinions and distortions are identical everywhere you look.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/incest-desk-daily-callers-tucker-carlson-uncovers-media-matters-in-bed-with-white-house-msnbc-and-certain-scribes_b64879

If KacyRay has not been watching Beck on video since the beginning of his Fox News days then he really cannot have any concept of what Beck is about or what he has done.

Like another poster here and 2-3 I know of on Atlantis_II shutting yourself off from information does not impress. It indicates living in an echo chamber with the silo problem of information travel [siloing information between agencies being the trick the administration recreated for political purposes and blame game tactics].

Dennis

[dennislmay]

It's also almost inevitable that, while questioning anyone and everyone about this bombing, they were going to turn up an individual or two that maybe had some other dirt under their rug. This seems all but inevitable.

Yes and that dirt under the rug is that the administration gave special permission for a known terrorist to enter the country and turned him loose without being watched - then tried to cover up that fact when it came to light.

Dennis

[KacyRay]

Dennis, I don't consider it "cutting myself off from information" when I decline to listen to Beck. I consider it cutting myself off from fearmongering.

What you're suggesting is that one should not apply a rational filter to one's mind.

[KacyRay]

Yes and that dirt under the rug is that the administration gave special permission for a known terrorist to enter the country and turned him loose without being watched - then tried to cover up that fact when it came to light.

Dennis

Okay. I guess we shall see, right?

If it turns out to be true... roger that. Score one for Beck. But if it doesn't, what will you say? Will you selectively disregard it as a mere "near miss" and go on to believe the next package of fear he tries to sell you? Or will you insist that it was, in fact, a hit... but one that was covered up by the government? What rationale will you employ?

[KacyRay]

shutting yourself off from information does not impress.

This right here is you asserting that one should never apply a rational filter to one's mind. I'd be willing to bet you don't actually live by this policy.

[dennislmay]

Dennis, I don't consider it "cutting myself off from information" when I decline to listen to Beck. I consider it cutting myself off from fearmongering.

What you're suggesting is that one should not apply a rational filter to one's mind.

You have a very broadband filter which removes information content when attempting to filter fearmongering. You might want to think about that a little. If I only listened to physicists who supported hard determinism my broadband filter would find no news other than what I post.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Yes and that dirt under the rug is that the administration gave special permission for a known terrorist to enter the country and turned him loose without being watched - then tried to cover up that fact when it came to light.

Dennis

Okay. I guess we shall see, right?

If it turns out to be true... roger that. Score one for Beck. But if it doesn't, what will you say? Will you selectively disregard it as a mere "near miss" and go on to believe the next package of fear he tries to sell you? Or will you insist that it was, in fact, a hit... but one that was covered up by the government? What rationale will you employ?

Beck has already scored on this one - the only remaining questions are details of the cover-up and if the Saudi terrorist student was directly, indirectly, or not at all involved in the Boston bombing as well. The rest of the media has failed in their most basic task. The drip, drip, drip will tell the rest of the story on how big the story is. It is already big enough that Janet Napolitano should be removed from office immediately for perjury.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Yes and that dirt under the rug is that the administration gave special permission for a known terrorist to enter the country and turned him loose without being watched - then tried to cover up that fact when it came to light.

Dennis

Okay. I guess we shall see, right?

If it turns out to be true... roger that. Score one for Beck. But if it doesn't, what will you say? Will you selectively disregard it as a mere "near miss" and go on to believe the next package of fear he tries to sell you? Or will you insist that it was, in fact, a hit... but one that was covered up by the government? What rationale will you employ?

Beck has already scored on this one - the only remaining questions are details of the cover-up and if the Saudi terrorist student was directly, indirectly, or not at all involved in the Boston bombing as well. The rest of the media has failed in their most basic task. The drip, drip, drip will tell the rest of the story on how big the story is. It is already big enough that Janet Napolitano should be removed from office immediately for perjury.

Dennis

The initial assessment was that the Saudi student was involved in the Boston bombing as well. The FBI was thrown under the bus by Napolitano on that one. We know other information about the student was covered up and attempts were made to destroy the paper trail - either the FBI is incompetent or the Saudi [known terrorist] student was involved in the bombing and that is one more aspect of the cover up and destruction of paper trail and evidence.

What is more interesting to me is what was discussed on The Wilkow Majority radio program. An analyst was talking about how Obama has systematically destroyed many tens of thousands of intelligence reports on various Muslims - wiping essential trails of evidence for future investigations. Also interesting the policies of PC editing of intelligence reports as they move from place to place up the chain and across agencies - rendering many useless.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes and that dirt under the rug is that the administration gave special permission for a known terrorist to enter the country and turned him loose without being watched - then tried to cover up that fact when it came to light.

Dennis

Okay. I guess we shall see, right?

If it turns out to be true... roger that. Score one for Beck. But if it doesn't, what will you say? Will you selectively disregard it as a mere "near miss" and go on to believe the next package of fear he tries to sell you? Or will you insist that it was, in fact, a hit... but one that was covered up by the government? What rationale will you employ?

Beck has already scored on this one - the only remaining questions are details of the cover-up and if the Saudi terrorist student was directly, indirectly, or not at all involved in the Boston bombing as well. The rest of the media has failed in their most basic task. The drip, drip, drip will tell the rest of the story on how big the story is. It is already big enough that Janet Napolitano should be removed from office immediately for perjury.

Dennis

The initial assessment was that the Saudi student was involved in the Boston bombing as well. The FBI was thrown under the bus by Napolitano on that one. We know other information about the student was covered up and attempts were made to destroy the paper trail - either the FBI is incompetent or the Saudi [known terrorist] student was involved in the bombing and that is one more aspect of the cover up and destruction of paper trail and evidence.

What is more interesting to me is what was discussed on The Wilkow Majority radio program. An analyst was talking about how Obama has systematically destroyed many tens of thousands of intelligence reports on various Muslims - wiping essential trails of evidence for future investigations. Also interesting the policies of PC editing of intelligence reports as they move from place to place up the chain and across agencies - rendering many useless.

Dennis

Who did the assessing. And where is the evidence that he was right? All I hear from you is rumor and hearsay. Where can the evidence be seen so it can be evaluated by ordinary folks?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who did the assessing. And where is the evidence that he was right? All I hear from you is rumor and hearsay. Where can the evidence be seen so it can be evaluated by ordinary folks?

Bob,

On the links we keep posting that you don't go to.

Michael

[dennislmay]

Who did the assessing. And where is the evidence that he was right? All I hear from you is rumor and hearsay. Where can the evidence be seen so it can be evaluated by ordinary folks?

Bob,

On the links we keep posting that you don't go to.

Michael

Refusing the information means you can't be part of the conversation.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a good sign the teeth are sinking into the flesh.

Look at the headline of a very recent Christian Science Monitor article:

Glenn Beck conspiracy theory: What's his evidence?

If you look at the article, too, you will see a more serious tone than normal about Glenn on a Progressive vehicle. There's a snark or two for show, but there is some serious damage control seriousness in the attitude.

The Christian Science Monitor is a Soros funded propaganda outfit like Media Matters, which runs the same messages and opinions. Here is a headline from April 18 on Media Matters that is more in line with their style of yukking it up: Glenn Beck Is Undeterred By Reality On Saudi Nationals And The Boston Bombings.

See the difference?

The tone is now getting serious because Glenn's reporting is starting to hit home and it's starting to hurt.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's a good sign the teeth are sinking into the flesh.

Look at the headline of a very recent Christian Science Monitor article:

Glenn Beck conspiracy theory: What's his evidence?

If you look at the article, too, you will see a more serious tone than normal about Glenn on a Progressive vehicle. There's a snark or two for show, but there is some serious damage control seriousness in the attitude.

The Christian Science Monitor is a Soros funded propaganda outfit like Media Matters, which runs the same messages and opinions. Here is a headline from April 18 on Media Matters that is more in line with their style of yukking it up: Glenn Beck Is Undeterred By Reality On Saudi Nationals And The Boston Bombings.

See the difference?

The tone is now getting serious because Glenn's reporting is starting to hit home and it's starting to hurt.

Michael

Proving what? What evidence of what is clear and will stand up in court. All we have are suspicions and questions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Stop being silly.

In that post, I was talking about the PR shift. You don't prove this kind of thing in courts. It's a press war. A persuasion thing. Demonization.

Propaganda stuff.

You, of all people, should understand what happens when you let propaganda run without neutralizing it. Do you honestly think evidence in court alone would have stopped the effectiveness of the Goebbels machine?

Dayaamm!

Michael

[dennislmay]

Here's a good sign the teeth are sinking into the flesh.

Look at the headline of a very recent Christian Science Monitor article:

Glenn Beck conspiracy theory: What's his evidence?

If you look at the article, too, you will see a more serious tone than normal about Glenn on a Progressive vehicle. There's a snark or two for show, but there is some serious damage control seriousness in the attitude.

The Christian Science Monitor is a Soros funded propaganda outfit like Media Matters, which runs the same messages and opinions. Here is a headline from April 18 on Media Matters that is more in line with their style of yukking it up: Glenn Beck Is Undeterred By Reality On Saudi Nationals And The Boston Bombings.

See the difference?

The tone is now getting serious because Glenn's reporting is starting to hit home and it's starting to hurt.

Michael

Christian Science Monitor article:

"But officials told him [bret Baier] it was simply an automatic piece of customs paperwork triggered when police went to question the Saudi in the hours after the bombing."

That is the lie that will hang the administration. As Beck documented numerous ways the form is created by unanimous decision of a panel of judges appointed by the various intelligence agencies involved. It cannot be produced willy-nilly or by accident. It is the highest bar in being named a known terrorist.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a video of the Congressman I mentioned earlier. His name is Tom Cotton (Republican Representative from Arkansas).

This thing is starting to go viral. And it's not even a minute long.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's a video of the Congressman I mentioned earlier. His name is Tom Cotton (Republican Representative from Arkansas).

This thing is starting to go viral. And it's not even a minute long.

Michael

He raises a good question

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

There's another aspect to the classification in addition to the requirement for a panel to issue it and/or cancel it.

As Special Agent Bob Trent told Glenn (on the link in a post above), and emphasized several times during the interview, a 212, 3B classification is not assigned while a person is inside the USA. It is only assigned to foreigners who are outside the USA and is used for prohibiting the tagged person from entering the country.

If I remember correctly, he even said he thought it was it impossible to get on 212, 3B under the conditions Napolitans & Co. fed Congress and the public.

A totally different classification is used for a foreigner within the USA who is tagged as a suspected terrorist.

Michael