Thoughts on the Boston Marathon Bombing?

[dennislmay]

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

The best answers I've heard to the question have come from Andrew Wilkow's guests and information from Glenn Beck and his guests and research.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

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

That is why the timeline showing when administration statements were made and documents altered, then classified will become very interesting. The lies have snowballed with a half dozen whoppers told in rapid succession. I will be sad if Bret Baier becomes the new Dan Rather - never to be trusted again. Benghazi and now Boston - cover-up after cover-up with more and more people dying.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Glenn just got interviewed about his campaign on O'Reilly.

There will be some interesting press reaction tomorrow.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've been thinking after letting the O'Reilly interview settle and there is something bothering me about Glenn's crusade.

I think he's making a misfire and it's not substantive.

It's marketing.

I might be wrong, but consider this.

When the Watergate thing exploded way back when, there were some presuppositions in the air. One of them was the Tricky Dick thing that Nixon had fought hard to reverse. He actively promoted an image of honesty and integrity for himself as a way to push back.

Also, breaking and entering, and wiretapping are things within the imagination of everyone. Nobody wants their own house or office broken into. Nobody wants their privacy invaded. It's easy for the public to get a personal internal image of this.

Now, with Glenn's campaign, the smoking gun is that the government is doing monkey-business with bureaucratic forms and its arcane classifications.

I hate to say this, but that's a big-ass yawner for most folks.

And how about Obama's honesty and that of his staff? Hell, they lob a Big One out in the most cynical manner and just stonewall it. Time and time again. It's nonstop. They give the impression that they know you know they are lying and they just don't give a crap.

They'll get the entire Congress to pass a thousand page bill without reading it and call themselves the most transparent administration in USA history. They'll send a high-level official out on a talk-show tour to say a USA Ambassador was killed over a YouTube video. And they know nobody is swallowing it. They're just relying on public apathy and, like I said, they calculate how far they can get away with it. If there's an image I can detect that is widespread in the public mind about Obama and his people here, it's slick sleaze spoken smoothly to hide what goes on in the backrooms.

Now hold that image in mind as a presupposition. Within that context, Glenn has proved, without any doubt, that Napolitano lied to Congress. That the Obama people are manipulating things back stage.

What does the average guy think? Ho hum. That's what he thinks. Here's another one. Wonder what else is new...

There's no image of honesty--or even attempted image of honesty--to bounce the lies off of to generate some outrage.

To be crude, the marketing impact is like pointing out a fart in a shit factory.

So there you have it. A problem nobody cares about added to a problem nobody cares about. And this is attached to the Boston terrorist bombing.

If Glenn doesn't find a way to metaphorically take the meat of his crusade into the personal lives of the public and make people care as if it they themselves could become the victim, they probably will not react very quickly, if at all.

Granted, it's growing. Now there are six members of Congress on board.

But the marketing? The implicit images? Hell, it's one thing to see a burglar breaking in somewhere at night and think, that's disgusting. It's another to see a civil servant using the wrong form and lying about it. Who even thinks about that?

Come on, Glenn. Thundering dramatic delivery about bureaucratic protocol is not enough here. Not even for a just cause. We need some righteous storytelling in universal terms or this thing is going to piffle out.

Michael

[dennislmay]

I've been thinking after letting the O'Reilly interview settle and there is something bothering me about Glenn's crusade.

I think he's making a misfire and it's not substantive.

It's marketing.

I might be wrong, but consider this.

When the Watergate thing exploded way back when, there were some presuppositions in the air. One of them was the Tricky Dick thing that Nixon had fought hard to reverse. He actively promoted an image of honesty and integrity for himself as a way to push back.

Also, breaking and entering, and wiretapping are things within the imagination of everyone. Nobody wants their own house or office broken into. Nobody wants their privacy invaded. It's easy for the public to get a personal internal image of this.

Now, with Glenn's campaign, the smoking gun is that the government is doing monkey-business with bureaucratic forms and its arcane classifications.

I hate to say this, but that's a big-ass yawner for most folks.

And how about Obama's honesty and that of his staff? Hell, they lob a Big One out in the most cynical manner and just stonewall it. Time and time again. It's nonstop. They give the impression that they know you know they are lying and they just don't give a crap.

They'll get the entire Congress to pass a thousand page bill without reading it and call themselves the most transparent administration in USA history. They'll send a high-level official out on a talk-show tour to say a USA Ambassador was killed over a YouTube video. And they know nobody is swallowing it. They're just relying on public apathy and, like I said, they calculate how far they can get away with it. If there's an image I can detect that is widespread in the public mind about Obama and his people here, it's slick sleaze spoken smoothly to hide what goes on in the backrooms.

Now hold that image in mind as a presupposition. Within that context, Glenn has proved, without any doubt, that Napolitano lied to Congress. That the Obama people are manipulating things back stage.

What does the average guy think? Ho hum. That's what he thinks. Here's another one. Wonder what else is new...

There's no image of honesty--or even attempted image of honesty--to bounce the lies off of to generate some outrage.

To be crude, the marketing impact is like pointing out a fart in a shit factory.

So there you have it. A problem nobody cares about added to a problem nobody cares about. And this is attached to the Boston terrorist bombing.

If Glenn doesn't find a way to metaphorically take the meat of his crusade into the personal lives of the public and make people care as if it they themselves could become the victim, they probably will not react very quickly, if at all.

Granted, it's growing. Now there are six members of Congress on board.

But the marketing? The implicit images? Hell, it's one thing to see a burglar breaking in somewhere at night and think, that's disgusting. It's another to see a civil servant using the wrong form and lying about it. Who even thinks about that?

Come on, Glenn. Thundering dramatic delivery about bureaucratic protocol is not enough here. Not even for a just cause. We need some righteous storytelling in universal terms or this thing is going to piffle out.

Michael

For the last several days Beck has mentioned a few times he just doesn't know what to do anymore. I think you may have hit it on the head - the critical mass of corruption has been reached where there is nothing the administration can do that will shock or interest anyone. How do you fight that? Beck more or less said only death in the streets might wake people up now. Not every story of corruption has a good narrative.

When Clinton was president I used to tell friends - "Nothing will stop Clinton until they have a video of him in front of an audience of 10,000 people cutting black babies in half with a chainsaw".

I saw the same kind of apathy set in when we used to have a dirty local cop supported by a dirty county sheriff and a drunken dirty county judge. Each of the 3 had dirt on each other - one was a thief and molester, one involved with drug dealing and counterfeiting, the judge a series of DUI's/public nudity/sexual affairs where the cops just drove her home each time.

The apathy lasted for around 25 years with every new attempt to do something about it ignored by the state. Only when the local cop stole $54,000 from a federal fund did it hit the fan.

Beck can't do it alone because the rest of the media can overwhelm him. This morning on Fox News they had a segment where someone went to California and showed most people were willing to sign a petition to do away with the 6th and 7th amendments if they were told up front it would help Obama. No surprise there. Not sure Obama could even run a chainsaw.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Compartmentalization has Struck Again:

Beck cannot understand whey O'Reilly doesn't get it after having done the right thing on ACORN.

As O'Reilly often says - he is a simple man. I believe there is more truth in that than he wants to

believe.

For O'Reilly to go down the Saudi student path with Saudi government and Obama collusion he

would have to do the kind of homework Beck does. I don't believe he is up to that task. In fact

I'm not sure Fox News has the depth of bench to do it since as Beck noted they have many

Soro's Progressives among their ranks [who will do whatever they can internally to sabotage

such reporting]. O'Reilly is the type that has to see a short term end-game to a report. I see

him as compartmentalized - unable to do open ended thinking. He is unable or unwilling to learn

new information as witnessed by his grade school understanding of economics - always repeating

the same incorrect views time after time. The Saudi story is too large for a compartmentalized

person to digest.

Fox News did the "fair and balanced" thing from the beginning which seemed to be approximately

90% middle of the road people in the morning, 55%-60% Progressives during the mid-day through

afternoon, hard reporting 40% Progressive, 40% RINO, 20% conservative/libertarian. Commentary

30% middle of the road, 30% RINO, 30% Conservative, 10% libertarian.

I have no research for those numbers - just my impression.

The bad news is the hard reporting now seems to have shifted to be more like the mid-day through

afternoon reporting. Murdoch now supports Progressive education - is it too late for Fox News?

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Fox News did the "fair and balanced" thing from the beginning which seemed to be approximately

90% middle of the road people in the morning, 55%-60% Progressives during the mid-day through

afternoon, hard reporting 40% Progressive, 40% RINO, 20% conservative/libertarian. Commentary

30% middle of the road, 30% RINO, 30% Conservative, 10% libertarian.

I have no research for those numbers - just my impression.

I should modify that - the commentary portion referred to the shows 7PM-10PM Central Time,

commentary during Special Report and Fox News Sunday is 30% Progressive, 50% RINO,

and maybe 20% Conservative/Libertarian - varying from show to show.

Dennis

[Selene]

When Clinton was president I used to tell friends - "Nothing will stop Clinton until they have a video of him in front of an audience of 10,000 people cutting black babies in half with a chainsaw".

Dennis:

The protective media would have said that he was practicing being "Solomonic!"

A...

[dennislmay]

When Clinton was president I used to tell friends - "Nothing will stop Clinton until they have a video of him in front of an audience of 10,000 people cutting black babies in half with a chainsaw".

Dennis:

The protective media would have said that he was practicing being "Solomonic!"

A...

Good point. There is always an excuse.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Compartmentalization has Struck Again:

Beck cannot understand whey O'Reilly doesn't get it after having done the right thing on ACORN.

As O'Reilly often says - he is a simple man. I believe there is more truth in that than he wants to

believe.

For O'Reilly to go down the Saudi student path with Saudi government and Obama collusion he

would have to do the kind of homework Beck does. I don't believe he is up to that task. In fact

I'm not sure Fox News has the depth of bench to do it since as Beck noted they have many

Soro's Progressives among their ranks [who will do whatever they can internally to sabotage

such reporting]. O'Reilly is the type that has to see a short term end-game to a report. I see

him as compartmentalized - unable to do open ended thinking. He is unable or unwilling to learn

new information as witnessed by his grade school understanding of economics - always repeating

the same incorrect views time after time. The Saudi story is too large for a compartmentalized

person to digest.

Fox News did the "fair and balanced" thing from the beginning which seemed to be approximately

90% middle of the road people in the morning, 55%-60% Progressives during the mid-day through

afternoon, hard reporting 40% Progressive, 40% RINO, 20% conservative/libertarian. Commentary

30% middle of the road, 30% RINO, 30% Conservative, 10% libertarian.

I have no research for those numbers - just my impression.

The bad news is the hard reporting now seems to have shifted to be more like the mid-day through

afternoon reporting. Murdoch now supports Progressive education - is it too late for Fox News?

Dennis

Beck wishes us to be kind to O'Reilly and Anderson Cooper because they have been good guys behind the scenes and fair over the years. To me that sounds like relativism at work - more like they look good compared to the rest of the media which is so bad it is sickening.

Dennis

[Mark]

Cato, Norquist, Rubio Use Boston Terror Attacks to Push Immigration Reform

The Cato Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) are using the Boston Bombing to – believe it or not – promote the latest immigration amnesty.

See also

The Boston Bombers & "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

reprinted from Vdare.

[dennislmay]

Cato, Norquist, Rubio Use Boston Terror Attacks to Push Immigration Reform

The Cato Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) are using the Boston Bombing to – believe it or not – promote the latest immigration amnesty.

See also

The Boston Bombers & "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

reprinted from Vdare.com

Rubio did the fastest switch from Tea Party to RINO Progressive seen yet - a new record.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some segments of the Glenn Beck show from yesterday that came up on YouTube. I don't know how long these links will remain valid.

He discusses Besian, Chechnya, and the kind of mindset of the people the older of the two Boston bombers went to study with.

It's quite good--and finally some decent storytelling.

I think he needs to do more along these lines. I'm speaking of the marketing framing, not the actual content.

I am always in favor of identify correctly so you can judge correctly.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Glenn is still pumping his reporting on the Saudi National:

4 MAJOR QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN ABOUT THE SAUDI NATIONAL TAGGED AS 212(A)(3)(B), ‘TERRORIST ACTIVITIES’
by Madeleine Morgenstern
Apr. 26, 2013
TheBlaze

From the article:

In the last week, TheBlaze has learned (among other things) that [Abdul Rahman Ali] Alharbi’s event file was altered last Wednesday, two days after the bombings, and the 212(a)(3)(B) designation was removed; that Alharbi was, in fact, placed on a watch list after the attack; that he was at one time listed as “armed and dangerous”; and that he was not properly vetted before he was allowed into the country under a “special advisory option.”

Despite those revelations, here are four major questions remaining about Alharbi:

1. What was the evidence that triggered the 212(a)(3)(B) filing?

There is nothing automatic about a 212(a)(3)(b) filing. Every piece of information must be manually entered, line by line, and the decision cannot made by any single person or even a “rogue agent.” Simply being on a no-fly list is not enough to trigger a 212(a)(3)(b). One source told TheBlaze that even in one case where the filing was ultimately incorrect, it still took six months to remove.

. . .

2. Why was Alharbi not fully vetted upon entering the United States?

. . .

3. Why the continuing secrecy?

. . .

4. ​Where is Alharbi now?

These questions are not just interesting readers.

Support is growing for answers inside Congress.

This doesn't need popular support right now (although it would be great if it did have it). All it needs is for some of the machine's wheels to turn and official inquiries opened. That's why Congress is so important. Even if Congress doesn't do it, the presence of Congressional members could trigger someone else doing it. Then the rest starts kicking in.

One letter has already been sent to Napolitano signed by four Representatives. That's not enough, but it did get some attention and get the ball rolling.

I keep reading in news headlines that New Hampshire lawmaker Stella Tremblay has signed on.

I don't know who she is, so I Googled her name. The left-wing Soros machine has gone apedoody over her. Dozens and dozens of sites and blogs all with practically the same text. In about half, at least for the search blurb, it is word for word. They're calling her a kook.

I don't know if she is, but when the response is that big and that orchestrated for a state politician's opinion, something's cooking.

Michael

[Mark]

The official story is that the Saudi had nothing to do with the Boston bombing, that the bombing just brought him to the attention of the police and media. It seems to be true. But apparently more is true: (a) he shouldn't have been allowed to enter the country, (b) the government is altering records and lying about it.

This is reminiscent of what occurred before and after 9-11 regarding some of the hijackers. Which is more important, the Saudi or 9-11?

9-11, duh!

Why isn't Mr. Beck publicizing this recent event in the context of 9-11? Why isn't he pushing the Shea Memorandum?

Glenn Beck couldn’t be more insincere. He pretends to be a government watchdog, goes through a good act, but his performance only helps the government do a "limited hangout." Oh, well, yes, we messed up with the Saudi, but nothing bad came of it, we won't do it again, now everything's OK.

Beck is not on our side. Consider his trashing of Ron Paul during the last two presidential campaigns. In 2007 he said Ron Paul supporters were a domestic physical threat (his very words) because of what they whimsically styled a "money bomb," which raised four million dollars in one day, the day they chose being Guy Fawkes day (celebrating the English King's escape from a bomb plot in 1605). Then he trots out David Horowitz to trash Ron Paul further.

(administrator: please leave this as a text link)

[dennislmay]

Beck is not on our side. Consider his trashing of Ron Paul during the last two presidential campaigns.

If you listened to why Beck trashed Ron Paul I completely agree with the reasoning. You really need to listen to Mark R. Levin to hear even better reasons.

Beck's primary reason: Ron Paul embraces cutting the military and ignoring threats - the US will be unprepared, leading to war - just like threats ignored leading to WWII.

Ron Paul has to distort historical and military reality to fit his narrative that somehow his fantasy world work in the real world.

Levin's main reason: Ron Paul's organization is riddled with Progressives and socialists working against US interests from the inside. A serious problem anyone who

has spent any time on various libertarian discussion sites can easily recognize. Libertarians need to clean house of Progressives and socialists before they can be

taken seriously in national politics - until then they are unreliable partners in shrinking the size of government. They always want to shrink the military first, shrink

the rest later but they spend very little time attacking the goals of Progressives and socialists generally and never spend much time talking about what to shrink later.

The saboteurs inside libertarian organizations know there will be no shrinking anything later - after the military is impotent. The personal liberty stuff if largely a ruse,

once the Progressives and socialists inside have power all the personal liberty stuff goes out the window.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

A weak military in the 1930s did not cause US entry into WWII. Not even Great Britain. France did more to cause WWII than any other country going all the way back to WWI. WWI itself had more to do with the conduct of the allied powers than Germany and its allies. The US intervention into that conflict only made the consequences much worse. WWI is the great disaster of the last century still screwing up the world.

France had the military power to crush Hitler and his Naziism in the mid 1930s or bitch-slap him so much he would have withered and died on his totalitarian vine. Even when Germany invaded Poland the western border was so exposed France could have invaded. Of course, Hitler knew that France wouldn't do that through military and other intelligence and evaluation. (After Hitler invaded Poland he got really stupid. Invading Russia guaranteed Germany would lose the war.)

--Brant

I'm sure competent historians--who are they?--would take a lot of issue with my remarks

[dennislmay]

A weak military in the 1930s did not cause US entry into WWII. Not even Great Britain. France did more to cause WWII than any other country going all the way back to WWI. WWI itself had more to do with the conduct of the allied powers than Germany and its allies. The US intervention into that conflict only made the consequences much worse. WWI is the great disaster of the last century still screwing up the world.

France had the military power to crush Hitler and his Naziism in the mid 1930s or bitch-slap him so much he would have withered and died on his totalitarian vine. Even when Germany invaded Poland the western border was so exposed France could have invaded. Of course, Hitler knew that France wouldn't do that through military and other intelligence and evaluation. (After Hitler invaded Poland he got really stupid. Invading Russia guaranteed Germany would lose the war.)

--Brant

I'm sure competent historians--who are they?--would take a lot of issue with my remarks

There are literally 3-4 dozen turning points - fog of war, technological investment decisions, weapons deployment decisions, intelligence assessments, failures in spy-craft, bad political calculations, misinformation campaigns, timing decisions, and weather on critical days/campaigns that could have turned WWII in very different directions.

Throughout history technological investment in the materials of war plus the politics and tactics to support them have made a huge difference in outcomes.

The bad political calculus following WWI did indeed lead to many problems. There was however an open window of time between WWI and WWII before appeasement was rubber stamped every time that Germany could have been turned and WWII prevented. Weakness in the French and British militaries and political structure left appeasement the only real alternative at the time. The US was living under Progressive FDR and had little more than a WWI military until military leaders forced FDR to start preparations for war [history you didn't hear unless you were in the right place at the right time].

The US entering WWI ended the conflict but what would have been the outcome had the US stayed home? Now you have thousands of turning points to consider. Would the US gone entirely Progressive in the WWI time frame with dictatorship to this day? Too many turning points to consider.

Dennis

[Mark]

Per Dennis, Mark Levin (the radio talk-show host) said:
"Ron Paul's organization is riddled with Progressives and socialists ..."

If Levin said this he lied. He points out that Ron Paul is no fan of Buckley, Reagan, Lincoln and Burke, which is true, then calls this "contempt for conservatives" and support of Romney.

Levin is right about some things, such as immigration, but I'd rather hear it from someone else.

To change the subject a bit, I can't stand his voice. Whatever he says, the sound drives me up the wall.

[dennislmay]

Per Dennis, Mark Levin (the radio talk-show host) said:

"Ron Paul's organization is riddled with Progressives and socialists ..."

If Levin said this he lied.

Then I am a liar as well. I had come to the identical conclusions before I ever heard Levin talk about it. I came to

those conclusions by discussions in various libertarian on-line groups. Levin named the names and their

various former and present affiliations - even more damning than what I had already concluded. The history

and beginnings of the Libertarian party suggest it has always had this problem. There needs to be a clean break

with its history and start over fresh with a new party - well defined and excluding Progressives and socialists.

Dennis

[Mark]

I listened to as much as I could stand and didn't hear the names. Don't be coy, out with it!

And get the direction right. That a socialist supports Ron Paul is neither here nor there -- no one has control over who praises them. The question is, does Ron Paul support the socialist?

[dennislmay]

I listened to as much as I could stand and didn't hear the names. Don't be coy, out with it!

And get the direction right. That a socialist supports Ron Paul is neither here nor there -- no one has control over who praises them. The question is, does Ron Paul support the socialist?

I guess you have homework to do if you support Ron Paul but don't know anything his organization.

Dennis

[Mark]

I gather Mark Levin claims that Ron Paul has hired socialists to spread socialism throughout America. Who are they?

The board of the Ron Paul Institute

Most I've never heard of, some are pretty good:

DENNIS KUCINICH

ANDREW NAPOLITANO

LLEWELLYN ROCKWELL

MICHAEL SCHEUER

LAWRENCE WILKERSON

Eric Margolis, though his foreign policy views are OK, has some leftist views. The focus of the RPI is on foreign policy, so I'm not too concerned about erroneous views on other issues, such as immigration.

[caroljane]

I gather Mark Levin claims that Ron Paul has hired socialists to spread socialism throughout America. Who are they?

The board of the Ron Paul Institute

Most of I've never heard of, some are pretty good:

DENNIS KUCINICH

ANDREW NAPOLITANO

LLEWELLYN ROCKWELL

MICHAEL SCHEUER

LAWRENCE WILKERSON

Eric Margolis, though his foreign policy views are OK, has some leftist views. The focus of the RPI is on foreign policy, so I'm not too concerned about erroneous views on other issues, such as immigration.

Eric Margolis is a Canadian guy with a family fortune from some kind of vitamins or diet pills (I would have to look it up) He seems to have had some former CIA connection and used to publish commentary in the local rightwing tabloid, the Toronto Sun. Sole content provider of SUNTV (Fox North) which is currently begging the government for free cable access. Of which I might provide more info, it is an entertaining media story.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It seems like there was a third person involved in the Boston Marathon bombing. That's what the FBI thinks, at least. (However, the source is off the record.)
 

 
It looks like the detonator was rigged from a toy car remote control and this is not taught in Inspire, the Al Qaeda propaganda magazine.
 
Here is an article from TheBlaze about it (where the video came from).
 
TOP-RANKING GOP REP. SAYS THERE ARE ‘CLEARLY MORE PERSONS OF INTEREST’ IN BOSTON BOMBING
by Madeleine Morgenstern
April 27, 2013
TheBlaze
 
From the article:

 

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said there are “clearly more persons of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing, despite some officials saying the Tsarnaev brothers acted alone.
 
“I hear a lot of definitive statements out there that it was just these two men and it’s over, but I will tell you I hear these briefings every day, and I don’t think this is over,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) told The Boston Herald Thursday. “There are clearly more persons of interest, and they’re not 100 percent sure if there aren’t other explosives.”
 
Rogers’ comments came ahead of a Wall Street Journal report Friday that the FBI has concluded the bomb makers “likely had additional training or expertise.”

 
Michael