If the second bomber is caught, he has a job waiting for him at Columbia University...my Tweet today
- This has been an interesting week for America. In this one week, we've seen the convergence of three debates: The debate surrounding the Second Amendment. The debate surrounding immigration. And now, in the aftermath of the Boston bombings, the debate over the war on terror.
- With regard to the debate over the Second Amendment, how many people in the Boston area and Watertown do you believe are very happy there are now armed personnel protecting them from an armed terror suspect? I'm confident many are.
- With regard to the debate over illegal immigration, it's clear now we need to ensure we enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders.
- With regard to the war on terror, as Michael Widlanski (Advisor to Israel's Ministry of Public Security) pointed out clearly earlier this week: terror never left America's shores.
"Let's Hope The Boston Marathon Bomber Is A White Person"...Not From The Onion
- As my regular readers know, I normally have some kind of quote from the Onion or use some Late Nite joke to start my postings. Although one might believe the quote above is from the Onion, it's not. It's an actual serious headline from the liberal, on-line magazine Salon. Yesterday, I pointed out the absurd speculations that were emanating from largely the progressive press regarding who might be responsible for the Boston bombings. As I wrote, it was apparent many on the Left side of the political isle were hoping and wishing the bomber or bombers were Right Wing fanatics. David Sirota of Salon, the author of his piece of garbage posting, substantiates my claims. And today, yet again, MSNBC had a guest on---a Harvard prof---who said the "far right" might be responsible for the bombings. In addition, several congressional scumbuckets came out yesterday and actually blamed the sequester cuts for the bombings. They did this even though it was the Obama administration who slashed the budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45% from 20 million under Bush to 11 million now. (Daily Mail). In fact, CNN found former congressman Barney Frank somewhere and interviewed him about the bombings. Barney actually politicized the bombings by essentially saying the government needs more taxes.
- Let's get this straight. The focus should be on terrorism not politics. There will be plenty of time for that later. As the Boston bombings show conclusively: terrorists will continue to send us reminder this war on terror is not over. The Israelis know this. The Brits know this. Most rational people know this. And it's much more than an al-Qaeda problem. As Michael Widlanski, a strategic advisor in Israeli's Ministry of Public Security, said recently: "The first step in fighting terror is to realize that there is a terror problem." In other words, it's not important whether these terrorists are domestic or foreign. What's important is that we continue to hunt them down and either apprehend them or kill them.
- And to those people who tend to believe this was done by Islamist terrorists, don't feel guilty by that theorizing. The facts are these. Since 9/11/01, there are have almost 21,000 Jihad attacks world wide. Just this week alone, there were 49 resulting in 195 dead and 468 critically injured. For example, the last week in Nigeria, Islamists murdered several students by slitting their throats. This was after a recent killing spree that left six teachers dead including the principal. Nigerian Tribune. And these killings were on top of the hundreds of Christians murdered monthly world-wide by Islamist terrorists. Religion Of Peace.com. In fact, one has to read the foreign press to find this information. Our press rarely reports it.
- Last week, it was reported that Dems refused to pass a resolution honoring Margaret Thatcher (It was held up by that creep, Sen. Menendez of NJ). Thankfully, they relented several days later because of pressure. This week, as the world bids a good-bye to Lady Thatcher, our government did not send any high-ranking officials to her funeral. Remember this is the same administration who removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office within the first days of the administration taking office. The press in Britain have expressed their surprise and disappointment at the Obama administration. They shouldn't be. We have to live with this administration 24/7. We know the nonsense they are capable of doing.
Al Qaeda Populating U.S. With Peaceful Decoy Muslims...The Onion
- This is the kind of garbage that's been reported by the presstitute media in the last 24 hours: Boston Globe: Explosion Looked Like Work of Domestic Terrorists. The nation's knucklehead, Chris Mathews of MSNBC, speculated the bombings may have something to do with tax day. He also said domestic terrorists tend to be on the far-right. CNN's Wolf Blitzer also parroted Mathews regarding the tax day connection. The same sort of erroneous speculation came from commentators and bloggers from the NY Times, Huffington Post and Washington Post.
- Allow me to remind you the same type of conjecture came from our "illustrious" media after the Times Square incident in 2010 when an alert vendor noticed smoke escaping from an SUV (later found to be done by Faisal Shahad). This incident was one of several (the shoe bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, etc.).
- The urge and obsession of our media to blame the right-wing for these incidents knows no bounds. Their bias is so conspicuous; it's now expected they will jump to erroneous conclusions.
- Memo to Presstitutes: Wait for the damn facts to come in. Regardless of whether it was the work of a domestic terrorist or a foreign terrorist, it was still an act of terrorism.
- Another example of the media jumping to conclusions was apparent several weeks ago after Texas District Attorney and his wife were murdered. The immediate speculation was that it was the work of some white supremacist group. According to reports today, a former justice of the peace is a suspect now in those killings. He was convicted of theft by the two prosecutors who were later shot to death. USA TODAY
Report: Still Hasn't Been Enough Time To Open Restaurant Called Ben Laden's...The Onion
- Last week, the presstitutes in the main stream media were riddled with criticism for not covering the Gosnell abortion murder case. And rightly so. Social media, especially those on Twitter, were taking the presstitutes to task as well as at least one brave reporter, Kirsten Powers, a USA TODAY contributor (the media's hypocrisy rose its ugly head yet again considering they covered the shootings of the children at Newtown non-stop--as they should have---yet when alleged infanticide took place for years, nothing but crickets).
- It's my pleasure to point out today that even USA TODAY broke the seal of silence in their piece entitled, "Media Late To Coverage Of Abortion Doctor's Trial." My response was simply, "No sh!t, Sherlocks." (Credit where credit is due. USA TODAY did publish a piece by Powers last week entitled, "Abortion Clinic Horror Isn't Getting Attention It Needs." In addition, there were few stories posted by AP and The News Journal. In fact, Megan McArdle of the Daily Beast almost apologized when she they should have covered the story but they "didn't want to think about" the crimes that Gosnell was charged with. We heard familiar excuses from many people in WWII when Jews were being butchered). But most of these stories were not picked up by the major networks.
- It's now being reported that the Washington Post will do stories on the Gosnell trial. This means other publications should follow.
- I've mentioned often that I'm an immigrant myself. I have empathy for all immigrants. I've also said we already have a pathway to citizenship. It's called legal immigration. So where do I stand on the latest version of the plan proposed by the "Gang of Eight." I like some of the provisions, and I would support them. Illegal immigrants will still be required to meet specific criteria.
- But my support ends there. And have Republicans folded again? It now appears enforcement has been placed on the back burner. In other words, the bill would allow illegal immigrants who arrived here on or before December 31, 2011, to almost immediately apply for temporary legal status. This would allow them to live and work in the United States. Then, according to the proposal, it would shift to enforcement. I view that as being ass-backwards. In other words, illegal immigrants would be granted legal status---albeit temporarily---but the borders would not have to be secured initially. I have a problem with that.
- With the way Russia and Putin have been behaving lately, it appears the Cold War is on once again. It's been clear now that under Putin Russia is supporting N. Korea, Iran, and several of the socialist regimes in Latin America including Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia just to name a few (By the way, don't be surprised if Venezuela elects another Commie puppet like Hugo).
When Do Democrats Like The Idea Of A Flat Tax? After It Reaches 95%.
How many times have we heard Pres. Obama and most Democrats declare the wealthy should pay their "fair share?" The answer, of course, is countless times. And how many times have they defined what they mean by "fair share?" The answer, of course, is never. They purposely keep the phrase ambiguous.
As I pondered both questions, I kept being drawn to just one conclusion. It's really all about envy. The state of the nation be damned (how else can one explain no movement by Democrats regarding unemployment and recovery for almost two years while they obsessed on passing ObamaCare? During this period, unemployment reached double digits. This was also a period when they had control of the entire government including the House and Senate).
It's become increasingly clear many Democrats and most Progressives are resentful of those who are successful. Yet, at the same time, most of those same individuals are successful themselves. We've witnessed Warren Buffett, many Hollywood celebrities, wealthy politicians, progressive wealthy business men and women, etc. asserting the need for higher taxes especially among the wealthy (they too assert "fair share" without defining it. Being vague enables them to continue the charade).
The "Politics of Envy" makes very strange bedfellows. One has to wonder how they reconcile the dilemma of being successful and wealthy themselves but proclaiming the need for the wealthy to pay their "fair share" whatever that is.
And that's precisely my point. They don't define "fair share" because if they did; their position disintegrates (after all, most of them are wealthy themselves). The use of such an ambiguous phrase as "fair share" is aimed directly at their base. Those are the people who remain resentful at the good fortune of others. Those are the people who remain bitter at those who are successful and wealthy (bear in mind, they perceive all business men and women as wealthy).
As Pres. Obama presents a budget that targets more taxes upon the wealthy (so they can pay their "fair share"), it's easy for him to declare his approach is balanced as he adds over $2.5 trillion more in taxes. The reality is much of the middle class will be hit with these taxes too(ObamaCare and more). But when he panders to his base by claiming the rich will be paying their "fair share," he hopes his diversion and charade will work. After all, he was reelected.
