Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Still in Benghazi

One must admit, the administration is acting a little strange about these prospective Benghazi hearings, which could include people who were actually there.   Today Ed Henry of Fox asked the Prez about whether the lawyers or witnesses were being intimidated..(forward to 6:47 and past the complete gobbelty-goop answer on Syria).

.. O said he'd have to check and get back to him on that.

But before leaving he whipped around and answered a shouted question about the gay NBA player, displaying immediate recall and even admitting that he had personally spoken with him to congratulate him and to say that 'we have your back'.

Well, at least the president has some people's backs.


You know it's OK to question the timing of the FBI's sudden release of perp photos of the Benghazi bombers when even Erin Burnett notices.

And you know it's out of control when Jay Carney says Benghazi was a "long time ago" yet there is no sense of irony in the White House press room when another reporter points out the FBI has released BOLO photos of three people wanted for 'information', who actually appear to be characters out of Star Wars..

Anyone want to bet they were pushed into this release from above?  Maybe some people questioned why there was a perp picture with Boston but they forgot Benghazi?   Well, it was so long ago, after all.  Don't even bother asking about the perp shots of the extremists who killed three Americans in Algeria.   Where?  

The funnier thing is the idea these suspects will be turned in to the FBI.  By whom, Abu on Maple St in Benghazi?   "Yes, hello, FBI?  I'd like to repor.. BOOM".  Hello?  

Boston, Benghazi, Sequester, Obamacare, just imagine the fun our current media would be having if this clown show had an R behind it's name.


Fox reporter James Rosen showed up at the State Department daily press briefing loaded for bear--Benghazi bear.   The heightened tension in the press room was likely related to Ventrell calling both Fox News and Toensing, one of the lawyers representing the whistleblowers, "liars" in his previous press briefing on Thursday.

The funny part was the pseudo squabble with fellow reporter Matt Lee of AP, an excellent hard-nosed guy but one who apparently believes all this Benghazi stuff is just GOP politics at play.  One might think that after Ventrell's non-answer to Rosen about why Hillary wasn't included in the ARB investigation and especially the Rice talking points--the reddest meat on the plate--he might have perked up and sensed a story. Maybe he's just playing it cool, waiting to see what the hearings bring.  Or maybe that's more hope than logic because he's such a good reporter otherwise.  It's sad to think they are all in the tank. 

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Boston Fog

Jake Tapper interviewed a Boston cabbie who says he picked up the Tsarnaev brothers at the Malden, MA train station on Sunday morning before the attack along with their backpacks..

Assuming the men the cabbie saw were indeed the brothers does it say anything about where they were coming from on Sunday morning before the bombing with the pressure cookers in their backpacks?  The Malden station is north of Boston on an MBTA line that terminates in Haverhill, near the New Hampshire border.  Evidently they were heading back to the Cambridge apartment on Norfolk Street by cab since as the map shows they would have had to go into the downtown area to catch a train back northwest. 

The cabbie says he dropped them off at Kendall Square, near MIT.  Were they practicing good spycraft by being last seen there instead of dropped off near their apartment about 3/5ths of a mile northwest?  That would have forced them to hoof it the rest of the way home with the heavy bomb backpacks unless they were heading somewhere else or had a car stashed.  If they had a car stashed in Kendall it may suggest they didn't want to have it seen in the Malden train station parking lot, unless they were low on gas. But if they were low on gas they certainly seemed to have train and cab fare.           

Would any of those movements suggest they had some out-of-the-way bomb making factory for final testing or perhaps had just received the bombs from a dead drop or an actual person somewhere to the north?   Surely the authorities are way ahead on this question, such as viewing security tape in the stations on the Haverhill line to see where they got on and off.  Since they had no transportation it would seem strange they would have the backpacks filled with pressure cookers with them, again suggesting they were meeting someone. 

Ironically, sources are now telling Fox News that the bombs were not models that could be made from instructions in Inspire magazine, suggesting they had help and that more people might be involved.  

Meanwhile the carjackee is telling his story and we now know his nationality--Chinese.  "Danny" recounts the moment Black Hat approached and what was said:
“Don’t be stupid,” he told Danny. He asked if he had followed the news about Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings. Danny had, down to the release of the grainy suspect photos less than six hours earlier. “I did that,” said the man, who would later be identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev. “And I just killed a policeman in Cambridge.”
But White Hat wasn't there at the time.  No evidence against him on that one. 

Later the carjackee explains how he got away, which is a gripping tale.  He mentioned praying several times, suggesting he might be a Chinese Christian.  And it's interesting--the comment attributed to them earlier about not killing him because he wasn't American doesn't appear anywhere in Danny's story.  Clearly he felt he would be killed and that's why he escaped (as opposed to early reports saying he was released).  There's also nothing in the story about Black Hat dropping the magazine and showing him a bullet in his gun, although it does indicate the "I am serious" comment.  It would seem strange for a gunman to do such a thing anyway, but where did that come from if not the victim, unless some of the story has been compressed.  

Other things still don't make sense.  For instance, Hot Air points to this interview between Wolf Blitzer and the Watertown Police Chief, who states that White Hat was firing at officers from the boat, which triggered their blitz of apparent return fire captured on home video.  Yet earlier reports said they had only one weapon, while the New York Times said they had an M4 automatic weapon.  If White Hat had no weapon that means the officers were all firing at him in the boat without first being fired upon. But with three officers recently shot and the fog of the incident that wouldn't be surprising, especially considering they might have suspected he was wearing a suicide vest.

Exactly where the SUV was ditched before White Hat went to ground is also still unclear along with whether or not police gave chase immediately.  This blogger has a nice summary. Speaking of suicide vests, initially we were told Black Hat was wearing one and had engaged it, but if that's so why did the police 'tackle him' after he ran out of ammo as he was coming at them with guns ablaze through the bomb smoke like some kind of Rambo figure?  Logic says they would have just taken him out.

All of which puts emphasis on eyewitness video in these kinds of situations to keep stories straight.

Eyewitness video wasn't always available, though.  The biggest domestic terrorist attack aside from 9/11 previous to this was the Oklahoma City bombing, which featured a manhunt for the mysterious "John Doe Number Two", a person whom eyewitnesses described as of Middle Eastern or American Indian origin.  As reports unfolded over the following days local news media claimed that according to officials who had seen the various surveillance video tapes near the front of the Murrah Building a second person was seen in the Ryder truck.  And yes Alex Jones is featured briefly in the above video and it was apparently compiled by a 9-11 truther, but the footage from local TV is real and has seemingly been withheld from the public as Jones alludes. 

John Doe Number Two disappeared from the official narrative several months after the attack, taking with him any possibility of a foreign connection in the minds of the public (leaving ambiguous speculation from the likes of McVeigh's lawyer, certain journalists and a terrorism expert named Richard Clarke).  It is now cemented into the narrative as a right wing domestic terror act with no outside influence.

A year and a half after later another disastrous event occurred off the coast of Long Island.  This event also included some home video, taken on a camcorder or some such archaic device during the event, but it too was stashed away shortly thereafter and has never been seen again.  Such is the breeding ground of conspiracies.

Now, whether there's any outside connections with Boston or whether the date of the takedown--coming on the anniversary of the Murrah bombing--is just a grisly coincidence, is something time may one day tell.  Or not.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Red Lines and Empty Gestures

So now our own government has finally admitted that chemical weapons were used in Syria. But...
The current assessment is “not sufficient” to take action, Miguel E. Rodriguez, Obama’s legislative liaison to Congress, wrote in a letter to Congress today.
Even the mainstream lapdoggers can't help but wonder if this crosses the president's 'red line':
“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,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”
Which seems to qualify based on the old red line by today's news.  Obama later issued an updated red line last year, saying that..
President Obama said Wednesday that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a "game-changer" that would demand action from the international community, though he stressed that the U.S. and other nations are still trying to determine whether those weapons were used.
Well, that still seems to still qualify. If the Syrian Army didn't use them then the Rebels did, and where did the rebels get Sarin gas?

But the administration has replied the way it does on every sensitive political bombshell event-- "we are waiting for the investigation". And so far it has worked like a charm. We are still waiting for the investigation about the national security leaks from possible administration sources regards the Yemen double agent and the leaking of the story about the Iranian computer worm. And the full truth on Benghazi. And Algeria. And now the Boston bombing.

Clearly this will be seen as another stall tactic to avoid action or a conclusion--they know the UN won't be allowed in to do a full investigation, reminiscent of the inspectors in Iraq, so they'll never be forced to back up the words.

And changing that 'calculus' will only come if Assad wipes out an entire city or the media attains solidarity in a collective outrage, something yet to be seen with this administration. But leaving this dangling is dangerous. America isn't a country that makes hollow gestures. Our presidents aren't empty suits. We don't want to get involved in a ground war (or even an air war) in Syria but we don't want our president cowboy-talking about stepping over red lines if he can't back it up. That's partially what got us attacked on 9/11. Our reputation in the world is still important. 

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Still Confusing

Andrew Kitzenberg
If you haven't seen this alleged eyewitness account of the moment the Watertown police engaged with the Brothers Tsarnaev after midnight on the 19th it's a must-see..
The shooters were also driving the green sedan on the left. They had the back passenger door open and were going back into the car where they had additional supplies (assumingly, more ammunition and explosives). They also had backpacks at their feet where they also had additional supplies.
New?  Didn't know the suspects took separate vehicles that night.  We were told they both carjacked a Mercedes.   But it makes more sense because otherwise how did they get all their ordnance in the carjacked car if approaching on foot?  

Actually the entire explanation of the events of April 18th leading into the 19th remains somewhat murky. According to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI the two brothers together did not carjack the car driven by the non-American, that was likely Black Hat acting alone, who had the guy drive around awhile to eventually rendezvous with White Hat at a pre-determined location, which comports with the cellphone video above showing two cars--presuming that after the hostage escaped they went back and dropped White Hat with the old car.  But the criminal complaint says nothing about killing the MIT officer. 

So why does the carjackee now say the men said they were going to New York only to "party" and why does the mainstream news somehow equate this to clubbing on Broadway as opposed to more killing?   Does the hostage have any idea what the two men said in a 'foreign language' he claimed they were speaking?  Did he understand it or did they tell him in English about New York?  What country is the hijackee from since he claimed he was spared because he wasn't an American?   

And how about the guns?  New York Times said they had two handguns and an M4 carbine, found in the boat.  NBC and other outlets say only one gun.   Did White Hat fire on the police with an automatic weapon, causing the 50-75 rounds of return fire into the boat hull?  Or was the M4 actually left in the boat by a distracted police officer and mistakenly attributed to the terrorist?  Where would they get an M4 anyway, unless that explains why the murdered the MIT officer?   Why did the media initially report that the boat owner's wife went out to the shed and found bloody clothing and saw the tarp moved, but that the boat and house had been checked by police during the lock-down?   How does something like that get created if untrue?     

All interesting and mysterious, but in the end just process.  There are some major questions as to what the FBI knew and when they knew it, similar to the lead-up to the Benghazi attack, but it's prudent to operate on the premise that any dropped balls represented human failings as opposed to the super-powerful government deliberately setting up a false flag, per Alex Jones.  That thing about hindsight applies.

No, the irrefutable truths here that cannot be overlooked despite a fog of war are these:  1) the two brothers committed these terrorist acts. This was not damn false flag or Hollywood mock up, 2) whether home grown and self-inspired or backed by an international arm, they were Islamic jihadists fighting for Allah, no different than the 9/11 hijackers or the slew of domestic perps seen in America since 2001, and 3) our president has been downplaying the terrorism-radical Islam threat since entering office and he still won't call this what it was. 

For the umpteenth time it was NOT a tragedy, it was an attack. Obama should know the difference but it appears he's either in denial or perpetrating a fraud on the public for political reasons.  If denial it might explain his often boorish treatment of George W. Bush, who seems as clear-eyed as ever these days.  Actually both may explain it.  He doesn't want to focus on it, fine, but pretending it doesn't exist and hoping it goes away isn't a strategy.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Times Strikes Again

Here's the New York Times headline about the busted Canadian train bomb plot:
Two Are Accused in Canada of Plotting Train Derailment
Uh, yeah, a train 'derailment' doesn't quite cover it. Trains derail in yards. A car falls over on its side. Some jump the tracks at speed carrying passengers but rarely does the death toll rival those of airplane or bus crashes.  But it might when a train falls off a bridge into raging rapids. 

What the Canadian Security folks busted was not simply a potential derailment but the possible destruction of one of the rail bridges spanning the Niagara River between Canada and New York State, likely the passenger route linking New York City and Toronto.  This bridge appears to carry automobiles as well.

That explains why the FBI was involved.  But somehow the Times didn't connect those dots, seeing it as a simple derailment up in the frozen north, something for the hosers to worry about.  But maybe if they had access to the Googles they could have called up a local Toronto paper.  Maybe then the FBI's involvement would have clicked.  Instead, this was the extent of their description:
Chief Superintendent Jennifer Strachan said the two men had studied train movements and rail lines in and around Toronto, and had been plotting to attack a train operated by Via Rail Canada, the government-owned rail system, within Canada.
The police declined to identify what train or train line the men had planned to target or to describe how the derailment was to have occurred. Via Rail, in conjunction with Amtrak, runs a train from Toronto to New York’s Penn Station.
Nothing to worry about, it was 'within Canada'--depending on which way the train flew off the bridge. 

The Times writer then goes on to question another nugget from the press conference:
Assistant Commissioner James Malizia said that the two suspects had received “direction and guidance” from “Al Qaeda elements living in Iran,” but that there was no evidence that the effort had been sponsored by the government of Iran.
Let's see, AQ has a long history of operatives in Iran, officially deemed under "house arrest" but nonetheless alive and kicking.  And if Iran knows about AQ operatives living there surely they are not clueless about their international terrorism actions.  So did they tip off the Canadians about these Toronto operatives?  Will the Iranian AQ cell be losing their heads soon or is it just another day in the Axis of Evil--Central?  The Times writer left the question dangling...must not get ahead of the press office!    Rush was so right.   


White Hat is telling authorities "it was just us", defending Islam without any ties to international groups.  This will be a blast headline all over the MSM of course, without much speculation that the kid could be lying or simply telling them what they want to hear (that only happens when water goes down the nose).  

But riddle us this--why would the Russian FSB alert the FBI to a potential jihadi back in 2011--before Black Hat went to Dagestan for 6 months--if there was no connection to anyone?   Apparently that was triggered by his visits to a radical terror leader.  So perhaps the media might not want to jump to conclusions. 

Saturday, April 20, 2013


The questions phase of the event has arrived.  Some will no doubt be resolved by explaining erroneous media reportage (which Infowars, et al, will never believe).  Others may be attributable to law enforcement saving face--they are human after all and make mistakes but they got these guys off the streets.  Some may never be answered, or take years to answer.  Hopefully a lot can be cleared up soon.  We would all do well to remember than hindsight is 20/20.

That said the biggest question will probably center around what the FBI knew and when they knew it.  Why, after previously investigating old brother at the behest of a foreign country, did they not immediately pull his old file after the bombing and stake out the apartment?   He was hiding in plain sight after all, while his brother continued to attend college.  And they claim they had video showing the two placing the backpacks. Were they being advised by profilers to look for right wing terrorists for several days or does something else explain things?  Why did the president thank Vladimir Putin after the event?   

Meanwhile, here's CNN talking about the older brother's actions leading up to the event:
Alyssa Lindley Kilzer said she often visited the apartment at 410 Norfolk St. in Cambridge, where the Tsarnaevs lived. Kilzer used to get facials from Zubeidat at a local spa but, after she was fired, Kilzer began going to her house.
She wrote about her experience on her Tumblr blog and said the staircase was crowded with shoes and the house was filled with the noise of arguments, cooking and other household chores. It was hardly spa-like but Kilzer thought Zubeidat gave great facials. But she became increasingly uncomfortable going to the apartment because of Zubeidat's growing religious fervor.
"She started quoting conspiracy theories, telling me that she thought 9-11 was purposefully created by the American government to make America hate Muslims," she wrote. Zubeidat told her: "It's real. My son knows all about it. You can read it on the Internet."
How ironic is that?   They are suggesting the sons were 9/11 truthers, then went out and bombed America in the name of Islam.    Did the CIA have any intel on these guys considering older brother's trip to Dagestan?   Where were the bombs created in the apartment?  Or were they created somewhere else?   

Another question is the Mercedes. CNN and others suggest older brother drove one, so why did they also carjack one Thursday night?  Why did they let the driver go free if indeed they were trying to kill and maim innocent people around Boston?    How did the older brother have the money to drive a Mercedes and purchase all the weapons and ammo?  Was there any public assistance involved?   Was younger brother's citizenship ceremony on 9/11/12 just a coincidence due to scheduling or were they trying to make a statement?   Wonder if he voted.  Continuing to develop..  

MORE  4/21/13

Where did they get their arsenal of weapons?  Where did they practice?  Ranges?   Out in the country?   Where did they get their bomb-making trainings?   Did they even make the bombs themselves or were they given the bombs?   Did White Hat gain citizenship honestly or did they do it to enhance his sleeper profile and make it chaotic in the justice system should he survive an attack?

People are also questioning the West, Texas ammonia explosion.  And why not, it was noted as 50/50 suspicious when first announced.  Then again, that was a source to the New York Post, who totally screwed up the Boston story. 

Clearly from the cell phone video a raging fire was already burning, which touched off the huge blast.  But that doesn't mean the fire was maliciously started.  Notice the winds in that video--quite similar to the day of the Waco fire back on April 19, 1993 (which consumed the public's attention and took it away from the first WTC attack two months earlier).  It would have only taken a careless cigarette butt to light up some dry grass, etc.  But until they determine the ignition source it has to be considered at least somewhat suspicious.  Saying it's not without any evidence is itself suspicious.

MORE  4/21/13

This is more or less my own clearinghouse to keep track of thoughts.   

On Thursday night, why was the MIT officer killed but not the carjack victim?   How in the blazes did the police have Black Hat on the ground cuffing him and not have White Hat detained somewhere off to the side?  How the heck did he manage to get into the car and drive off?   Did he drive over older brother on purpose or was he trying to scatter the police and messed up?   Or was he trying to activate the suicide vest on his bro?   How many cops were involved in that incident?   How did White Hat manage to get away on foot after stopping the vehicle, dripping blood after being shot?   Were they backing off in fear of more bombs and lost him?  

Did White Hat fire any shots from the boat?  From home video it appears the police fired about 50 rounds towards the boat.  How did they not hit him?   Or did the boat hull absorb their rounds?    Why did early reports say a woman in the house ventured out and saw bloody clothes in the out-building but that the boat had already been checked by police during the lockdown?  Embarrassment factor?

When did the plot get hatched?   Did the FBI still have a file on Black Hat or not?   What happened to the info passed along by the mosque?  Shall we call in Colleen Rowley?  Or would she just blame the entire thing on the military and security industrial complex? 

Friday, April 19, 2013

BOLO Boston

What an odd event.  First the bombing, occurring in an area where the bombers knew there would be a saturation of photos and video.  Then the weird FBI be-on-the-lookout to the general public, a first in my memory. Most of the time with terrorist cases they won't even comment at all, saying it's 'an ongoing investigation', such as they've done with Benghazi.  This time they openly convicted two suspects in public without much care.   That should tell us something.  But what?

Does it tell us the situation is grave and they felt they had no other choice with an imminent attack coming, or does it tell us they care more about some terrorist acts than others?   And if they were operating on the basis of an imminent attack to make that judgment, how did they know?   It suggests they had some intel.  

Hard to say because like Newtown the news is 'fluid'.  First the pair robbed a 7/11, now they didn't--just a coincidence.  The older one is quoted as saying he didn't have any friends despite social media pictures showing him with a woman boxing and smiling.  They both were students with the young one reportedly returning to class and the dorms after the Monday bombing.  That ether takes some serious cajones or rank idiocy. Or maybe the belief in a cause.  

And what about the bomb factory?  Where were they making the ordnance?  There must be a safe house somewhere and it sure ain't a dorm room. There must be a house somewhere with evidence. 

The most recent news conference featured a tired, dejected governor and a tired State Police officer basically telling the press and public they'd lost suspect number two despite him being surrounded by scores of police and agents.  But what did they not tell us?   How could he have possibly gotten away?  He's either one of the slipperiest terrorists since Ramzi Yousef or there's a network of friends around Boston that rescued him before they could surround him last night, or they are pulling a fast one and lifting the restrictions making him believe they are standing down so he'll pop up like a mole.  

All very bizarre--hard to believe this is America--but if it's terrorism it's also very effective.  Who won't think about a possible explosion or gunfire now when going out in public every time they see someone even remotely Arab-looking (even if they can't bring themselves to admit it)?   

At the same time something strange seems to be going on with the story about the Saudi national who was the first 'person of interest' in the marathon bombings.  Hannity has had Steven Emerson on his show several times this past week who said he was told by sources, including being shown written documentation, that the Saudi student is scheduled to be deported Tuesday for 'national security violations'. Which appear to be numerous.

But why would Janet Napolitano vehemently deny there was any deportation in an exchange on Capitol Hill? Could it be because Emerson, whom this Gawker goofball seems to have never heard of before, is confusing two people with the same name?  Wouldn't be the first time.  But it certainly appears somebody with that name is scheduled to be deported for national security reasons. 

Meanwhile Obama met with the Saudi foreign minister al-Faisal on Wednesday.  What did they discuss?  And why did the State Department issue an incredible explanation of why John Kerry canceled a press availability with same Saudi minister on Tuesday morning after the bombing?  Oddly enough there hasn't been a State Dept press briefing since Tuesday to allow any follow up.   Going back even further, there was a Saudi connection initially mentioned in the killing of the Colorado prisons director before the ex-con skinhead was killed then fingered for the crime.

Developing, as they say.

EPILOGUE  4/20/13

Congrats to the law enforcement folks in DC for catching the kid and keeping him from killing anymore innocent members of the public.  There are some questions though, mainly on the federal side.

Why was a public BOLO necessary?  It only led to them running and gunning and in the process, an LEO is now dead and Watertown has been traumatized and riddled with bullets and bombs.  Was there a better way?  Presuming the FBI still had their file on Tsarnaev from 2010--and considering that Obama thanked Vladimir Putin last night for his help on something related to the event--wouldn't it make sense that they would cross reference the pictures/video and come up with the suspects' names and addresses?  If they had that kind of information why not go to the apartment and do a raid?

Or maybe they were concerned that they would blow up the building if such a tactic were tried.  But isn't it possible they could have staked out the apartment and grabbed one of them when he went out for food?

As to the public safety exception on not issuing the Miranda warning, seems appropriate but one has to wonder what kind of information he provided in the moments between capture and the hospital, where he would have been drugged up.   Somebody from Eric Holder's old law firm has probably already volunteered to become his pro bono lawyer, so they probably won't get much if he's treated like a common criminal.


When did the FBI have the videos of the Tsarnaevs placing the backpacks at the bombing sites?  How soon?  Why did they initially deny that a foreign country had given them tips about the bombers in 2010?   Were they being adivsed by their profilers to look for right wing extremists immediately after the bombing?  Why did the president thank Putin?  What did he provide?   Why didn't the FBI stake out the Tsarnaev home/apartments and try to snatch him rather than shutting down the region?


The initial report about the boat said a woman called police and said there was bloody clothing in her shed and their boat's tarp was disturbed.  During this report it was said the boat had been checked by police earlier in the day, ie, it was within the perimeter.  This could have been erroneous reporting, but after the event they dropped the part about the boat being checked earlier and are repeating that the boat location was just barely outside their perimeter.  Now the boat owner is not talking.

These kinds of things, including the FBI having previously interviewed the older brother, may be more about saving face/preventing embarrassment and lawsuits than some kind evil conspiracy.  After all, we are all human and nobody likes to be nailed by hindsight.     

Hopefully some of these questions will be answered.  It will be interesting to see if the usual suspects begin politicizing the event next week in an effort to bolster certain goals.   

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Props and other Things..

Rand Paul might as well be on the FBI's terrorist watch list for this outrage.   Sadly, he's correct.  Sometimes the truth is very controversial.

Some pundits are starting to blame Obama for getting too far out ahead on the gun issue or gasp, even making a mistake.  They are not paying close enough attention.   Here's the seminal quote from the president yesterday:
“To change Washington, you, the American people will have to sustain some passion about this, and when necessary, you have to send the right people to Washington, and that requires strength and persistence and that’s one thing these families should have inspired in al of us,” he said during an emotional late afternoon speech from a podium in the Rose Garden.
He's no dope. He knew the Congress couldn't pass any new gun control measures. Many Democrats still remember what happened after the 1994 weapons ban and how things changed in 1995. So this was likely expected. 

And that's why Paul is right--the Newtown families were indeed being used as props for a lost cause to inject the maximum guilt and punish the enemies to set up a meme for 2014.  The bold above is Obama basically admitting it outright, and the link shows Axelrod doing the same.  Brazen.  But right now little else matters, because if they lose the mid-terms their Utopian dream might be over forever.  The 60s radicals are a dying breed. 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013


While hysteria grips parts of the nation over the Boston Marathon bombing and the ricin letters, a legitimate terror attack--with an AQ component (that the administration tried to call something else) remains un-addressed.  As the public clamors for a suspect in the Marathon attack nobody or no group has been identified or brought to justice for Benghazi in over six months.

The only mainstream news outlet besides Fox that has bothered to follow the story is CBS, and they have an update today (that even appeared on their front page, if only briefly):
CBS News has learned that multiple new whistleblowers are privately speaking to investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya.
The nature of the communications with the whistleblowers and their identities are not being made public at this time. But in response, the Oversight Committee yesterday sent letters to the three federal agencies involved: the CIA, the Defense Department and the State Department.
Representative Wolf and scores of Special Forces people have been calling for a Select Committee in Congress to investigate the issue.  Perhaps this is a trump card to get something moving.   One thing that is known--the filmmaker is still in jail, so for the moment the future doesn't belong to those who insult Mohammed.

Meanwhile as we await any new information about Boston and from these secret Benghazi whistleblowers another story continues to be "Gosnelled" by the national press, the one where two US Attorneys were assigned to investigate possible administration leaks revealing western intelligence assets operating in Yemen in an effort to infiltrate the package bombers along with info on the computer worm designed during the Bush administration to penetrate the Iranian nuclear program.  Finally, what's the status of the investigation into the Algerian gas plant attack where three Americans were killed....by AQ?   Surely we are not to assume the administration only cares about murdered Americans killed by terrorists here in the states.    

With all this new focus on terrorism surely the media at large will be following up on these other important stories any day now.

FBI PRESSER  4/18/13

The Federal BI just held a presser about the Marathon bombings, showing two suspects they'd like the public to turn in.  One appeared to be wearing a Bridgestone golf cap.  Maybe they will go after golfers now.

This made me wonder how many FBI press conferences have been done on Benghazi and the Algerian attack, since apparently the FBI has the lead in those investigations.  I don't remember any, but I do recall State and White House officials telling inquizitive reporters they couldn't comment on those events and to ask the FBI, who won't reply because "it's an ongoing investigation".   Are we any closer in bringing them to justice?

Yeah, yeah, what difference, at this point, does it make?   Nothing to see here move along.  There's important work to be done for the American people and besides, the only terror attacks that matter anymore are domestic events possibly committed by right wingers (perhaps celebrating the birth of Hitler or something). 

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Boston Bombing

More senseless slaughter.  Mortal words fail, only Biblical words can make any partial sense of these kinds of things.

Being that we are mortal the natural tendency at this point is to speculate on the perp(s).  The FBI has taken control, meaning they believe it might be a conspiracy.  The administration has called it 'an act of terror' not a 'terrorist attack', which is a distinction with a difference.  They did likewise on Benghazi.  We are still waiting for justice or any reasonable explanation of what happened.  So this too might take some time--unless the outcome is favorable to certain power brokers.  Excuse my cynicism, but it's earned.   

A few observations.  The bombs were planted around the international flags.  Maybe it means something, maybe not.   As many have noted the attack occurred on April 15 and Patriots' Day in Mass.  Patriots' Day for its symbolism over the start of the American Revolution; was Boston chosen for it's symbolic tie to the Boston Tea Party?   But would far right groups at war with the government want to start their war by killing kids and old folks just like AQ?  Doesn't sound very productive.

As to the lone figure photographed walking on the catwalk on the roof as the bombs went off could have been a janitor. 

Last year five Ohioans were arrested and convicted of plotting to blow up the highway 82 bridge near Cleveland.  They were self-proclaimed anarchists who had been associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement.  They actually got inert IEDs from an FBI undercover agent, which were to be detonated remotely. When asked why they wanted to destroy the bridge and likely kill innocent people one of them replied, "Taking out a bridge in the business district would cost the ... corporate big wigs a lot of money" because it would cause structural damage and prevent people from going to work".  Obviously children could have been killed, but the symbolism doesn't quite fit since their attack was planned on May Day, or international commie day, as opposed to tax day.  

Unbeknownst to most of the public, AQ members at GITMO have been staging a hunger strike since February.  The mainstream media has been Gosnelling it.  When asked about it last week Jay Carney deflected to a political answer about wanting to close the prison, yada yada.  State did the same thing today. There was a letter published yesterday in the New York Times purportedly from a prisoner there whining about the bad treatment, ie, force feeding.  But why Boston?  Why tax day? Again, doesn't seem productive.

As mentioned, yesterday was some kind of celebratory day in North Korea for the founding goofball, so the Norks are mentioned.  Kerry--from the Boston area--had been in northeast Asia telling people that North Korea needs to stand down, etc.  But could they really be so stupid as to send a message to the new Secretary of State on his home turf and risk a real provocative act of war? Seems unlikely.

There were numerous bombings across Iraq yesterday.  We don't normally equate them with anything here but the deliberate act of targeting children (the bomber or bombers had to know children were in the target zones) sounds a bit like the kind of payback some of those nutters would concoct, especially in light of this guy's comments about the deaths of civilians in Iraq and bin Laden's 1998 fatwa against America, which was in part due to the effect of sanctions on Iraqi children.

Keep in mind this Jordanian guy worked with Zarqawi and was involved in the Lawrence Foley (US envoy) murder along with his praise of bin Laden.  He has in the past vowed to help overturn Bashar Assad's Syrian rule using fellow Islamic radicals.   Certainly it's not something that would turn a jihadie's stomach.   Inspire magazine has been trying to inspire just such an attack for years.  Organized or lone wolf jihadist blame--plausible.

In other words, many possibilities but it looks most like a domestic something.   As to the conspiracies about training exercises and bomb sniffing dogs going on right before the event, it wouldn't be surprising to learn they were onto something but fell short.  It's not something the authorities like to admit.  But to say the attack was a 'false flag' by those very same authorities only hours after the attack with absolutely no hard data is the heights of lunacy.  Alex Jones and company need to STFU and take a break, excuse my French. 

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Just Kabuki Theater?

Everyone seems a little perplexed by the actions of lil Kim-un.  What is he doing?  Why?   Some think it's just an exercise of his new power and show of force to the Nork population and his generals as to who's boss.  Maybe.  Here's NBC News:
Korea-watchers expect there would be a declaration of a victory unrecognized anywhere else in the world, dancing in the streets, and then quiet until the drama repeats itself at some point in the near future. "We've been there, done that," Straub said of a possible missile launch. "Unless they lobbed these things onto Japan, there's not going to be some huge sanctions from it."
OK, sure.  We have indeed 'been there, done that'.  But why does it seem all these networks continually erase one of the most important events in the history of the regime, an event that not only relates to the Norks themselves but to the current Syrian civil war (which they are also pretty much ignoring)?

Well, maybe it's because the event solidified George W. Bushitler's "Axis of Evil" speech while at the same time putting the MSM in a box as to how to report on something Israel did without criticizing Obama's lead-from-behind Syrian policy and reporting on the North Koreans...
A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea's nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today. The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel's decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6, a move that was publicly denounced by Damascus but not by Washington.
In other words, even if they never launch a missile they have already shown themselves to be a huge proliferation threat.

In Obama's visionary unicorn world free of nukes such things are a problem. Towards that end, US officials are now backing down on rhetoric and military exercises while simultaneously saying that the Norks will not be allowed to become a nuclear state (even though they already are--presumably they mean a nuclear weapons state). Since we've tried every kind of talk and ceremony to stop these clowns, from Clinton through Bush to Obama--to no end, how do they propose to stop them now short of an attack?

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Side Tracks

From one simple mind to another..

Since the title of this blog is golf-related it's only appropriate to mention the greatest golf tournament at the greatest golf course in the world--the Masters, going on right now.   The song above was once tastefully wrapped into the background of a Youtube video chronicling Jack Nicklaus and his 1986 victory in that tournament (until it was taken down on a copyright).  Nicklaus was 46 years old at the time--pretty old to be winning a major.  But he was the greatest ever.  It brought a tear to my eye watching it because for some of us golf was more than a game, it was a bond with our dads.  Makes one appreciate the time spent and lament the time that wasn't spent and now gone forever.

This year another old guy is contending--at least as of this writing.  Freddie won back in 92, he has contended many times since, but a miracle were to happen he would be the oldest major winner in history.  Of course Tiger and a bunch of young guns are likely to be there in the end while there's an even younger gun--a 14 year old Chinese kid who appears a lot older than his years who made the cut.  Should be fun.


First Freddie--we all knew it was coming.  It was a good run, but it's hard for a 53 year old to keep the edge on every hole.   His swing is still butter.  Or at least margarine.

Now Tiger.  Is it Augusta National's contention that Tiger doesn't know the hazard rules?   He's only been playing golf since he was 2.   Maybe he doesn't hit it in the water often enough to remember and had a brain lock, thinking he could go backwards for his drop as if on line with the hole.  But it's where the ball crossed the hazard line, not where the shot began.   He knew going well left across the fairway was a much more difficult shot, so he admittedly wanted to backup where he was.  But good Lord, where was his caddie?   He (Freddie's former loop) should have been advising him of what he was doing. 

But but but AC, he admitted to his drop in the interview.  Why would he do that if he was guilty?  Yes he did, after he had been told by the Augusta people that it was a good drop and signed his scorecard.  This is really the crux of the matter.  If he had not admitted this in the interview this wouldn't have been typed, but his caddie should have known the drop rules and advised him not to do it.  Part of the penalty of that rule is to drop the ball as close as possible to where your last shot was hit, which brings in the possibility of it landing in your divot on the drop.  He knew he had the option of the drop zone but didn't want to go over there either because like the hazard margin rule it would have been an order of difficulty harder.

So he got the two shot penalty, which he deserved (and admitted he did) but the question is now whether players will suddenly become rules ignoramuses when caught doing this in the future, hoping for the reprieve.  Not only that, but will the anal-lysts apply the rule fairly, not taking into consideration sponsors, advertisers, race, political correctness, yada yada.   Meanwhile, we'll see how things play it out today.  Should be a great finish.

MORE WOODS  4/14/13

Let's get this straight.  People keep saying he signed for the 'right' scorecard initially.  Reports have said that tournament officials reviewed the tapes after the viewer call-in while Woods was playing 18 and determined he had dropped in the vicinity.   I am assuming he wasn't spoken to before signing his card by those officials.  If that's the case he did indeed sign the wrong card, regardless of what any viewer said because he should have known--and his caddy should have known--they played improperly.   That's the gentlemanly aspect of the game.

In looking at the replay of the initial shot it was a low punch.  It would have had a lot of bite on it, but it hit the pin in the air then careened hard to the left side.  It's hard to know where it might have ended up had it missed the pin, but there's some possibility it would have run off the back had the bite not come hard enough.  At any rate, Woods answered the issue when he said he moved back two yards.  His next shot was another punch that landed, bit and stopped next to the pin. 

Thing is, using the margin of the hazard rule he knew he had no option over there.  Keeping the point of crossing between him and the pin would put him either in the stands or right on the bank, an impossible shot.  He had two options--drop zone or drop it as close to his initial shot as possible, which brings in the possibility of dropping into your previous divot.  Most pro golfers should know this rule.   But it's possible he and his caddy got lost in the moment.   That's seemingly what the Augusta graybeards determined.

The seminal point was probably the fact he admitted to the infraction on TV.  There's hardly a scenario imaginable where he would admit this purposely.  Let's say he and caddy knew they had broken the rules.  Let's say they knew every shot was on TV and figured things would be dissected.  Maybe when he got to the scoring table and no officials approached him he figured he had gotten away with it.  At that point he could go ahead and sign the card, thinking that if someone later came back and challenged him he could use the new rule to feign ignorance.  The fact he is Tiger Woods might also pop into his head.

But it seems like a lot of thinking after just coming off the course, his favorite course.  My final guess is he just blew it, they caught it, penalized him, and now he will probably win today and we can all have more controversial fun with it.  

Friday, April 12, 2013

Unleash the Lone Wolves

Yep, that's what they are starting to say about the Texas prosecutor murders.
Law enforcement officials have been exploring the possibility that the three killings — of Mr. McLelland, 63, and his wife, Cynthia, 65, as well as the assistant district attorney, Mark E. Hasse, 57 — were the work of a local person seeking to avenge some case or investigation and to make a dramatic statement by attacking those at the center of the Kaufman County criminal justice system.
Investigators have been cooling to the notion that the shootings were the work of a prison gang, the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, or of Mexican drug cartels, and focusing more on what officials described as “lone wolf” figures — defendants and those even closer to the victims, including current or former county employees who work or used to work within the local courts.
Since a lone wolf is always possible--especially some nut who might feel these law enforcement officers were out to get him/her, it must always be considered.  But in this case the precedent seems fairly small as to high level officers of the court being murdered in such a short period of time, especially when the Colorado case is considered.

Add to the above a mysterious package addressed to Sheriff Joe Arpaio found by an alert postal employee.  First reports said it was definitely an explosive device that could have killed whoever opened it; later reports are not only downplaying the threat (just one of many, ho hum) but questioning whether it was even an explosive.  Arpaio's office claimed it received a threat from a specific drug cartel just days ago.

If these are really a cover stories they certainly meet the kind of time frame used in the past to morph what initially seem like conspiracies into nothing to see, move alongs.  Consider the Oklahoma City bombing; for weeks after the attack the FBI was looking for John Doe Number Two, then suddenly he was disappeared. The two suspects eventually tried were unique in that both were called lone wolves, which sort of defies common sense.  In this case one has to wonder if the Mexican connection was either too scary or perhaps too politically inconvenient with a huge immigration bill looming. 

Monday, April 08, 2013

All Your Children Are Belong to Us

So says MSNBC host and college professor Melissa Harris-Perry. So if a kid fails seventh grade algebra he can blame the neighbors?

As Rush said on his show today this is a stock Marxist tenet. Hillary wrote a book about it but the difference today is the pushback--there isn't as much.

That's because we are all being slow-boiled in a pot of liberalism. Income redistribution, government-controlled health care and student loans, government-controlled automotive companies, amnesty for illegal aliens (or whatever the media is allowed to call it anymore), gun control, and a constant game of class warfare and 'fairness'.  It's almost as if Bill Ayers and buddies are winning.

Hey, ole washed up has been given another prestigious honor in Minnesota while his former terrorist pal Kathy Boudin has been given similar reverence at the president's alma mater. Just imagine a former Klansman being given a professorship at some southern university after serving 22 years for lynching a black person. Yes, it's impossible. 

So onwards we travel towards our collective Utopia as the 4th estate sits on their hands in the press room in a state of awe.

Friday, April 05, 2013

Newtown Questions

Let's see, yesterday the president was out west shilling for gun control and uttered the following:
but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

Whoa, bold added to highlight that comment, which Obama actually stopped and corrected himself to make.  Assuming he wasn't just lying for politics sake, or isn't an idiot (he said he shoots skeet all the time), does this mean he has been keeping things from the public?  For instance, CBS has this story today:
A Connecticut shop that sold a gun to Nancy Lanza, the Newtown school shooter's mother, has lost its federal firearms license. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor in December 2012. The agency didn't say why.
While there are many reasons the Feds might pull a firearms license it becomes a little weird considering it was the shop Nancy Lanza visited with the action being announced immediately before the president makes a trip to Hartford (with the ink not yet dry on Connecticut's new gun laws) just as he told a crowd that Lanza used a machine gun at Sandy Hook.  It begs some explanation.

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Investigation Update

We continue to wait for updates on what the two US Attorneys appointed by Eric Holder last May have discovered in their investigation into documents leaked to the press about the Iranian computer worm and the Yemeni agent who was working on the inside of AQAP.  There was a brief mention buried in the WaPo back in January, but nothing lately.  Maybe there will be an update tomorrow.  Then again as the WaPo admitted,
Since the probes were announced, there has been little publicity about the ongoing inquiries.
Which is partially explained by the fact the media itself is on the hot seat; Bush is no longer the president; and there were no blond spies involved in this caper.

Meanwhile, the Arkansas Attorney General is going to investigate the Exxon oil leak in Mayflower, AR, which has been used by the media as an example of why the Keystone Pipeline is evil because it was transporting Alberta heavy oil.   This is good, in case the pipeline was sabotaged by someone.  After all, who knows until they do an investigation?

MORE  4/4/13

Let's see, a train carrying shale oil derails in Minnesota on March 27; then two days later a pipeline carrying shale oil ruptures in Arkansas on the 29th; and today an explosion at a coal fired power plant in Georgia. Coincidences probably, although these accidents represent two modes of transporting shale oil and a coal plant, aka a 'death factory' probably fed by 'death trains'.   Keep in mind certain zealots in the radical environmental movement have been indicating it's time to move in a more radical direction.  State/Obama is still considering Keystone and there were protests outside Obama's fundraiser today in San Fransicko by environmentalists.  Just sayin. 

Monday, April 01, 2013

Aviation Update

Could this story, entitled "Obama Hits Wealthy On The Runway With Air Traffic Control Tower Cuts", actually be an April Fool's joke from the Huffpo? Sometimes it's hard to tell (bold added)...
The only problem with the administration's approach, said one Democratic operative who works closely with the super rich, is that the wealthier people are, the less likely they are to notice exactly what's happening. "In theory, it works," he said of the effort to inflict a little inconvenience on the tarmac. "In actuality, the thing about being that rich is you don't have to give a f***. Here's what'll happen. The plane's late and they'll yell at their assistant, 'Why did it take two hours to take off?' And the assistant won't know and will make up some dumb excuse."
He allowed, at least, that corporate travelers would know what happened. "Corporate execs will notice. The only reason they take the jet is efficiency," he said.
Do these knuckleheads not understand that if there are three evil corporate jets scheduled into one of these smaller airports in an hour's time they are not necessary going to be late due to the lack of a tower?  They will execute the same protocols that all non-towered airports use--the pattern.   

But are these Democrat operatives really admitting that they chose to close these towers just to punish the rich? Really? And this president is hoping the economy comes back, with an attitude like that?