Skip to content

Obama hat trick of abuses vindicate the Tea Party.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Contrast these two statements:

You’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted. — Barack Obama, May 2013.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison, 1788.

It wasn’t a great week for President Obama, or for the media, or for constitutional democracy. But in a strange way, as these things do tend to go, an almost unprecedented string of government abuses against basic liberties — at least in recent memory — underscore why conservatives, libertarians, and their associated organizations promote classic republicanism and the protection of individual liberty. To wit: the bigger government becomes the more it abuses its authority, just like Madison promised more than 200 years ago.

Why? Because we’re not angels, and because angels are not in government. It’s not a matter that is determined by the ruling party’s partisanship, or ideology, or view on taxation, or intervention, or tendency for social altruism. Rather, it is human nature to abuse authority, regardless of these things. Humans are by their very nature susceptible to corruption, particularly when it is for “the purpose of aggrandizing themselves,” as the anti-Federalist and pseudonym Brutus wrote.

Brutus continued: “They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.” (“In a very large republic.” Consider the size of our republic in the late 1700s or even of Great Britain — from where their paradigm of a “large republic” would have been based — to that of today. Yet despite this exponential growth in government the one thing that has never changed is human nature.)

Because there is no true check on government authority the danger lies in the growth and unchecked empowerment of government itself. It is true that rights are insecure without government, what the founders called, “The State of Nature” — wicked, dissolute men unrestrained by government commit violations on the lives, liberty and property of others, to summarize John Locke.

So to secure our most basic rights governments are instituted amongst men. That’s the core rationale for government. But when government becomes the violator of rights, instead of protector of them, we can rely only on the masses — Jeffersonian “vigilance” — and particular institutions, such as the press, to provide through transparency a check on power. But what to do when the press self-abrogates such responsibility?

First, there was a week of Benghazi reports that, despite WH Press Sec. Jay Carney’s willing suspension of disbelief, prove to anyone with an education level of, say, fifth grade, or with exception of your classic Obama Kool-Aide drinker, that the federal government at its highest levels not only left its embassy personnel dangerously unprepared on the anniversary of 9/11, but brazenly lied and engaged in a cover up after the fact.

Then came the reports that the IRS abused its power by purposely targeting for audit any groups associated with the Tea Party, limited government, lower taxes, and even some pro-Israeli Jewish groups. We’re told that this is an act of a few low-level individuals in one office. Afraid not:

IRS admits current Commissioner knew of targeting
IRS IG Report: Targeting Conservatives Began In 2010
IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups
IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups
‘NBC: IRS may have lied to Congress in six responses in 2010′

It kind of now, looking back, puts into perspective that the Koch brothers were asking the White House, “How Did You Get Our Tax Information?” Indeed! And maybe this explains why key donors to Mitt Romney — like Frank VanderSloot — were being targeted by the IRS. We now know, by ProPublica’s admission above, that the IRS was leaking this information.

That’s bad. Really bad. It’s Nixonian — indeed, IRS abuses were the second article of Nixon’s impeachment. Not that this will likely go that extreme. The mainstream media is far too protective of President Obama to allow impeachment, or anything close to it. It would take an unparalleled abuse of power for the media to turn on Obama. It would take something like…

The HAT TRICK! “US Justice Department acknowledges wide-ranging surveillance of Associated Press.”

Incredible (or rather to Locke, Madison, and Brutus — quite credible, quite expected). A targeted effort to spy on journalists. Not even Dick Cheney would be so bold.

Meanwhile, Obama fiddles while Rome burns… ‘Obama to Attend 3 Democratic Fundraisers’ (in one week). And burns… ‘Obama parties with Harvey Weinstein, Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel at $20,000 per plate dinner.’ And between the lines of these stories is John Locke, Madison and Brutus: their genius affirmed once more.

Filed in Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Benghazi questions remain, yet information was learned.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

When it comes to Benghazi the Democrats and — far more shamefully — the mainstream media stick to two main retorts, writes Guy Benson from TownHall. “That no major questions remain regarding the 9/11 terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya  — and second, that no new information emerged from the whistle-blowers’ hours-long testimony.  The former claim is outright insulting.  The latter betrays either aggressive ignorance or wishful thinking.”

I’m going to put what in my opinion is Benson’s most damning first — that something could have been done to save lives, despite former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s claim months ago championing that chicken-crap line of defense, having uttered her now infamous inquiry, “What difference does it make?”

(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack.  Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were “furious” over this obstruction.  The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the “stand down” orders, or why.  If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he?  Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi.  He was told it was “not the right time” to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.

That’s amazing — not once but twice the military asked to rescue our fellow Americans and twice they were denied.

Let me take a moment to remind the reader that President Barack Obama has killed so many terrorists with unmanned drone strikes it would make Dick Cheney blush. Are we to really believe that despite Libya being internationally recognized as very dangerous — Britain had already evacuated their foreign embassy — we had no land- or ship-based missile drones available to help defend our embassy? If they did but didn’t use them then that’s yet another thing they lied about, and if they didn’t then the Obama Administration is even more incompetent than feared.

The second-most damning testimony — further below — was that the Administration’s stubborn and fictional view that the YouTube video was the direct cause of the attack (a protest turned violent, they claimed) wasn’t only a cover-up attempt, but directly impeded the FBI investigation and caused the Libyan government to not cooperate with U.S. officials.

Meanwhile, this pathetic episode has lowered my opinion of our alphabet soup media even more — an opinion already so low I wouldn’t have believed it could drop further. Boy was I wrong — they really are nothing more than a communications arm of the Democratic National Committee.

Need some more proof — CBS bosses are bothered that one of their reporters, Sharyl Attkisson, is covering this story with a little too much attention (read: just the right amount of attention were the president a Republican). They are presently refusing to air some of her reports.

Somewhere in the afterlife Edward R. Morrow and Walter Cronkite are crying.

(1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens’ second in command, Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.  Hicks said he’d “never” faced a similar demand at any point during his distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act as a “minder,” who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks’ discussions with members of Congress (higher quality video is available here):

(2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the administration’s inaccurate talking points with State Department higher-ups, the administrationturned hostile.  After being lavishly praised by the president and the Secretary of State for his performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones instantly reversed course and launched into a “blistering critique” of Hicks’ leadership.  He was subsequently “effectively demoted.”  Hicks called Rice’s talking points “stunning” and “embarrassing.”

(3) Secretaries Clinton and Rice (the president’s hand-selected messenger on Benghazi to the American people) repeatedly stated that the attack arose from “spontaneous protests” over an obscure YouTube video.  This was never true.  Hicks called the YouTube a “non-event” in Libya.  He and others on the ground — including Amb. Stevens — recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very beginning.  Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff.  [UPDATE - Rep. Trey Gowdy also revealed an email sent on 9/12 in which Assistant Sec. Jones confirmed to a Libyan official that the attack had been carried out by terrorist organization Ansar al-Sharia].  Days later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the flag-draped coffins of the fallen.  Hicks said there he never mentioned any “spontaneous demonstrations” related to a video in his phone call with Clinton:

Questions: How, why, and by whom did the administration’s talking points getscrubbed and re-written?  Why did the president refuse to identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently false information on his behalf?

(5) The US’ security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Sec. Clinton “absolutely” would have been briefed on his (and Stevens’) repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya.  This claim undercut committee Democrats’ nitpicking over whether Clinton’s signature appeared on the memo denying those requests:

Furthermore, the Benghazi compound was operating below the bare minimumglobal security standard for US diplomatic missions — despite being in an exceedingly dangerous place, and having been subjected to previous attempted attacks.  Only the Secretary of State has the authority to grant exemptions for minimum security requirements.

(6) Amb. Stevens was stationed at the vulnerable Benghazi compound on a dangerous symbolic date at the behest of Sec. Clinton, who wished to make that diplomatic mission a permanent outpost.  This detail should only intensify questions as to why the consulate was so poorly protected (see item #7).

(7) Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia group tasked with protecting the consulate were “certainly” complicit in the attacks.  No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during the attack.  Eight months later, zero arrestshave been made.

(8) A mortally wounded Amb. Stevens was taken to a hospital controlled by the Islamist extremist group (Ansar Al-Sharia) primarily responsible for the assault.  Administration officials initially pointed to locals rushing Stevens to a local hospital as evidence of local goodwill from protesters who didn’t approve of the mob spinning out of control.  Hicks said the American contingent did not go to retrieve Stevens from said hospital during the fight because they were fearful thatit was a trap.

(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone.  The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request.  The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi.  This renders the “would they have made it on time?” argument largely irrelevant — the facts in item #4 notwithstanding.  Another important point about the “they wouldn’t have made it” defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds.  How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last?  How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn’t have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours?  Help was not on the way.  It was never sent.

(10) Despite committee Democrats’ repeated claims and leading questions, reduced funding or “austerity” had absolutely nothing to do with the inadequate security presence on the ground.  The State Department itself made this factcrystal clear at previous hearings, as did the administration’s internal “ARB” review.  Why did multiple Democrats flog an obsolete, thoroughly-debunked explanation, if not to muddy the waters?

(11) Oversight Democrats tried to cast doubt on Mark Thompson’s credibility, suggesting that he’d declined to participate in the administration’s ARB probe.  Thompson corrected the record, noting that he “offered his services” to those investigators, who in turn did not invite him to testify.  Democrats also claimed that the House hearings were slanted because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not invited to participate.  In fact, Chairman Issa explicitly did invite them,as confirmed by letters obtained by ABC News.  They chose not to participate.  Democrats were dead wrong on both counts.

(12) During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton memorably asked, “what difference does it make?” in regards to the provenance of the administration’s incorrect talking points.  Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrom both attempted to answer that question.  Hicks did so in granular detail (the false explanation opened a nasty rift between the US and Libyan governments, impeding the FBI’s investigation for weeks).  An emotional Nordstrom was more general (we lost friends; the truth matters):

Filed in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

On Gitmo, Obama has two faces.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

“The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are. It is contrary to our interests and it needs to stop,” responded President Obama earlier this week to questions regarding terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

To whom exactly is our president lecturing? He’s the one who opposes it, and he’s the one who has the power to close Guantanamo. So, why isn’t Guantanamo closed yet? Might it be that it’s a lot easier to talk about closing Guantanamo — for the cynical purpose of appeasing his base — then it is to actually close it? One should not hold their breath despite the recent posturing and promises to “re-visit” the issue. Re-visit away, Mr. President. Come the next election the odds that Guantanamo is still open are highly likely.

In fact, here’s a dirty secret on which our lapdog press seldom challenges the president: Obama to date has continued or expanded every Bush-era anti-terrorism policy that he denounced as a candidate.

Military tribunals are still on the table; ditto warrant-less wiretaps and other Patriot Act tools; In fact, just last January we learned that the Obama administration was still practicing the highly controversial policy of rendition – hey, maybe Reese Witherspoon could get herself out of bad press by offering to do a sequel to the 2007 flop! — and of course President Obama is conducting drone missile assassinations at a rate that would make Dick Cheney blush. We now know that Osama bin Laden was shot dead unarmed — not that I think that was the wrong choice, mind you, but it’s a strange moral calculus where our liberal friends get more upset over detentions and harsh interrogations then they do targeted assassinations.

That our most dovish president since Jimmy Carter takes this approach only affirms that it’s a lot more difficult to actually be president then it is to be a candidate for president. It’s one thing to promise the Marquess of Queensberry rules of counter-terrorism, and another thing to actually protect the American people.

Here’s another highly interesting secret recently revealed by the WSJ — President Obama is using naval ships in international waters as a loophole to detain and interrogate terrorist suspects for long periods of time — without charges, etc. and so on, all the crap the liberal handwringers long denounced Bush for doing.

Except the legal and conceptual justification for his covert global targeted killing campaign—including the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden—is the same one that underlies Guantanamo: The U.S. is engaged in a Congressionally authorized armed conflict against al Qaeda and its franchises. The drones flying over Pakistan and the Horn of Africa certainly aren’t doing routine law enforcement.

…

Recall the case of the Somali Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, the single terrorist whom U.S. forces have captured under Mr. Obama outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House refused to send him to Gitmo but it did hold him aboard a Navy ship in international waters for a two-month interrogation. Senator Obama might have called that a “secret prison.”

In other words, Mr. Obama as Commander in Chief wants to use the means that the Bush era gave him to fight terrorism, but he also wants to pretend for political reasons that he’s somehow different.

Filed in Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Obama’s “Green Line” for Syria (and other autocrats).

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.” — Barack Obama, August 2012.

My how things change in 9 months. Since then there have been multiple government intelligence agencies determine that Syria is using chemical weapons on its rebelling population — most recently through finding the nerve agent sarin in blood samples of its victims.

Here’s the president now:

“And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them. We don’t have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts. That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in a position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do.”

[LA Times] “By ‘game changer,’ I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us,” he said. If the White House obtains conclusive proof of poison gas use, “that means that there’s some options that we might not otherwise exercise that we would … strongly consider.”

In other words, CSI Syria. If they use chemical weapons one more time, just one more time, then I as president will be forced to strongly consider options… and if they use chemical weapons after that, well, then I’d be forced to even more strongly consider even more strongly considered options!  Wow. Is this really the party of Kennedy, Truman, FDR, and Andrew Jackson? The Obama administration has issued far harsher statements toward the NRA and the Catholic church!

The WSJ calls this backtrack what it is — not a line at all.

This [Obama's shift in position] is a chain of required proof intended to make sure there’s never enough evidence to justify intervention. News reports say the British and French evidence of chemicals is based on blood samples from victims. But it will be all but impossible to prove “what exactly happened” in a war zone. As for the “international community,” this euphemism for the United Nations will be a barrier to factual discovery and honest conclusions just as it has been an obstacle to deposing Assad. Presidents who want tyrants to believe them shouldn’t write red lines in the sand.

This isn’t to say we should begin massing troops on their border, but one should at least posture in a more condemning and assertive manner — especially when it was the president himself who boxed the country into this anemic position last August.

I like the way John Bolton worded it:

What do “game changer” and “enormous consequences” mean to Mr. Obama? On Syria, he wants a comprehensive U.N. investigation, relying on the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the World Health Organization—which have as much chance of conducting a thorough inspection inside Syria as the Israeli national symphony. No doubt we will soon hear calls for International Criminal Court indictments of Assad and his henchmen for crimes against humanity. That, in State Department parlance, would be a “strong signal,” probably followed by a “stiff note” to Assad’s friends in the Kremlin. How they will tremble in Damascus.

…

Mr. Obama would have been better advised to draw a different “red line,” committing the U.S. to preventing any chemical weapons or components from falling into terrorists’ hands or being transported outside Syria. This would have required careful scrutiny of Assad’s chemical-weapons stockpiles, as well as military action to destroy the stockpiles if they were about to fall into radical opposition hands, or started moving toward Syria’s borders.

In short, says Bolton, the president has loudly announced “that he is not a force to be reckoned with.”

Another consideration: With such a lackluster response, do you think it makes it more or less likely that Israel takes unilateral action against Iran’s nuclear program, or even against Syria’s chemical weapons program, when they see their supposedly strongest ally’s president water down his self-imposed “red line”?

Filed in Politics | Tagged , , | Comments Off

WSJ: Flight Delays as Political Strategy.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

This week White House Press Secretary Jay Carney blamed Republicans and the sequester — even though it was Obama’s sequester — for FAA air-traffic controller furloughs and the associated flight delays.

“We made it clear that there would be these kinds of negative effects if Congress failed to take reasonable action to avert the sequester,” press secretary Jay Carney said. “The fact is Congress had an opportunity, but Republicans made a choice, and this is a result of a choice they made to embrace sequester, as — and I’m quoting Republicans — a victory for the Tea Party and a home run.”

The White House spin is predictable and, more importantly, the flight delays were a choice they made.

[WSJ] Capitol Hill Republicans say the White House is free to make other cuts instead. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster suggests the FAA first take a whack at the $500 million it’s spending on consultants, or perhaps the $325 million it blows on supplies and travel.

In case there’s any doubt about the President’s ability to prioritize, at least two GOP Senators, Jerry Moran and Roy Blunt, have written bills to clarify Mr. Obama’s authority to make sensible spending decisions. He’s not interested, and Senate Democrats have blocked such reforms. Making smart choices about federal sending would spoil the fun of creating flight delays and then blaming Republicans.

Again, predictable. Remember when once media darling Bob Woodward — THE Bob Woodward — was chastised by his fellow professionals for pointing out that the Obama Administration were the creators of the sequester, and that their insistence that the sequester would affect first responders like firemen, police or, say, air-traffic controllers, was ridiculous given that the federal government spends hundreds of millions of dollars (and some would argue billions) on non-critical functions, such as $27 million it spent last year on Moroccan pottery classes — that’s a crap-load of pottery, and no doubt could have saved some working days for air-traffic controllers.

Filed in Politics | Tagged , | Comments Off

This just in: Terrorists break laws.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Seriously, folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

Report: Suspects had no gun licenses
By Mike Lillis – 04/21/13 09:27 PM ET

The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were not licensed to have the firearms they used in several shootouts with police on Friday, Reuters reported Sunday night.

The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.

Wait, wait, you mean the terrorists who bombed and killed people ALSO didn’t abide by our gun laws?!? But doesn’t Boston already have some of the most restrictive gun laws — and what did that buy them?

While we’re at it, I believe that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty of several moving violations when he ran over his brother, tried to run over the cops and then drove away at a high rate of speed. Will this news that the suspects broke multiple traffic laws likely add fuel to calls for tougher traffic laws?

Filed in Politics | Tagged , | Comments Off

Did Tamerlan kill his “only friend”?

Monday, April 22, 2013

Boy, the UK Mail Online has had some interesting scoop reporting this week. Here’s another:

Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have murdered his ‘only American friend’ in an unsolved triple killing two years ago, it emerged today.

Brendan Mess had his ‘throat slit’ alongside two other men in a Massachusetts apartment in 2011 in what police described as a ‘very graphic crime scene’.

Former associates of the Chechan immigrant didn’t initially suspect him of carrying out the gruesome attack, but thought it was strange he didn’t attend his friend’s funeral.

Now one man who knew Tamerlan through the gym where they trained said some of their social circle ‘without even speaking about it beforehand have all been thinking’ he could be involved.

…

‘Tam wasn’t there at the memorial service, he wasn’t at the funeral, he wasn’t around at all,’ Ray said.

‘And he was really close with Brendan. That’s why it’s so weird.’

…

Their bodies were found covered in marijuana in an apartment in Waltham, Massachusetts, and had their throats slit with a knife or ice pick and around $5,000 was left at the scene.

Mess’s girlfriend discovered the bodies, she ran from the house screaming.

Initially police said two other people had been there on the day and they were looking to question them, although no one has ever been charged.

Ray said there had been no forced entry, so police believe the killer was known the victim and was let into the apartment.

Investigators at the time said the murders were ‘targeted and not a random act of violence.’

Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone issued a statement soon after the murders saying, ‘based on the present state of the investigation, it is believed that the victims knew the assailant or assailants, and the attacks were not random.’

When asked if Tamerlan’s implication in the Boston marathon bombings would make them reopen the case, a spokesman for the District Attorney’s office was guarded.

‘The 2011 triple homicide is an extremely important case for us and remains an active and open investigation.’

‘Any information that comes forward as a result of the investigation into Tamerlan Tsnaraev and the Boston bombings will be immediately reviewed and pursued.’

Statistically, out of 1,000 drug dealers, how many do you think would purposely leave a bunch of dope and $5,000 cash at the scene of a kill? Zero? Negative one? And wouldn’t a religious extremist be just the kind of offended soul to toss a bunch of dope on the dead bodies of those who had offended him? I don’t think we’re going to need Keith Morrison from Dateline NBC to solve this one, even though I do love some Keith Morrison true crime television. I’m addicted really.

Filed in Politics | Tagged | Comments Off

Imagine if Bush had done this.

Monday, April 22, 2013

[The Blaze] The Saudi national who was initially detained and then ruled out as a suspect in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack had been flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted, sources have told me.

A source close to the investigation revealed that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi had been deemed inadmissible under the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which declares ineligible for a visa – any alien who is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry – in terrorist activity.

Curious: How many consecutive days on the front page of the NY Times would this story be repeated had it been the Bush Administration, and not the Obama Administration, that had cut the Saudis some slack and deported a terror watch suspect instead of arresting him? How many Michael Moore movies would have been made from this story? Answer: many, many more.

Fraking hypocrite media.

Filed in Politics | Tagged , , | Comments Off

The FBI has a bridge to sell you.

Monday, April 22, 2013

[Washington Times] The FBI did not know that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older Boston Marathon bombing suspect who was killed following a firefight last week, took a six-month trip to Russia because his name was misspelled, Sen. Lindsey Graham said.

Sen. Graham and the FBI must think us all really, really stupid. It’s as though the FBI doesn’t do this all the time. They don’t investigate. They don’t cross check. They don’t account for aliases or multiple spellings of names, especially those of foreign nationals, especially after 9-11, especially after they’ve done this kind of thing before. Nope, never. It’s like they’ve never dealt with strange names like Lashkar-e-Taiba or Mohammed Atta. Is that Osama bin Laden or Usama bin Laden? Gosh, our expensive software and our highly trained and technical people don’t account for such oddities!

Wow… If this is what our tax dollars get us then it’s time for a new government.

Could it be that instead of dealing with the legitimate embarrassment of having another country warn us about a killer in our midst the FBI concocted this lame excuse?

Filed in Politics | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Never underestimate the stupidity of the college professor.

Monday, April 22, 2013

“This said, the mortuary pictures of the older brother of the two are extremely disturbing, raising questions as to whether the Boston Police Department captured him [Tamerlan Tsarnaev] with too much force.” — City University of New York Professor Ruth O’Brien.

This statement proves that one can have higher education and be stupid at the same time.

Is it possible to use “too much force” against someone who has used bombs to murder a child and two adults, injure scores more, including dismembering dozens, then murdered a police officer, then carjacked a bystander, and then is in the act of using semiautomatic weapons and more bombs to kill more police?

The “question raised” is why do the liberal intelligentsia so often reflexively rush to the aide and apologies of the terrorist? The brothers had a clear death pact — they could have fled Boston at any time, but instead choose to grab a few more bombs and approach and shoot an unsuspecting police officer in his car. They continued to assault, they continued to kill, they were clearly looking to end their own lives in a blaze of misguided Islamic Jihad glory.

Filed in Politics | Tagged , , , | Comments Off