What is the current goal of Liberalism?

As of this date, August 2013, I cannot confidently articulate the current goal of the Democrat/Liberal party. Forget the political analysis and the people on TV with their pretend crystal balls, and ask yourself, objectively, (some of us need to be reminded) what is the current goal of the Democrat/Liberal party? And if you don’t think that those two parties are the same, first ask yourself, “Why have so many Democrats supported Obama?”

If you already asked yourself the latter question, you probably came up with an answer along the lines of “I don’t know”. The important thing to note is that answering the question at all means you acknowledge they are one in the same. So, back to the original question, why do so many Democrats still  stand behind this POTUS, who is inarguably the worst president in American history? 

Let’s go back and think, “Why did Liberals despise George W. Bush so much?” He was a war criminal! Remember? He went into Iraq after oil and blamed it on Saddam Hussein to fight “his Daddy’s war”. Whoa now, not too many facts at once, please. The thing is, before we actually received permission from congress (what, you thought Bush went into Iraq on his own?) to go into Iraq, we had sent inspectors to Saddam’s military to check his arsenal of weapons for anything considered to be Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical, or simply, NBC. The UN also sent their own inspectors. But every time the US and UN inspectors were about to conduct a search, Saddam stalled and the inspectors had to come back another time without being able to look over anything with their chemical testers.

Meanwhile, our satellites caught military cargo trucks moving over the border to Syria. It was speculated that Saddam was moving WMDs to Syria. 

Eventually, on October 16th, 2002, “The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.”

Up to this day, Democrats refuse to accept any responsibility, saying that it was “Bush’s war” and a ploy for oil. I haven’t seen any damn oil, but we do have Democrats on the record:

“Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

‘I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent,’ said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.”

It honestly sounds like a good quote to stand behind, why abandon it?

Fast forward to today, and you will read that Syria is using chemical weapons on its own people. I hate to put two and two together here, but:

1. Iraq had to have chemical weapons. Even if they were from the Gulf War, does that mean they are less deadly? Of course not.
2. We have satellite images of military cargo trucks crossing the Iraq border into Syria back in 2002 and 2003.

Is there any way to find out if these chemical weapons in Syria are the ones Saddam might have been moving?

So the Left will say they are anti-war and humanitarians, fighting (legislatively) for human rights and we shouldn’t be involving ourselves in other country’s wars, and blah blah blah. But objectively analyze how this situation in Syria is any different than Bush and Iraq. Is it? Maybe you are saying that back in 2002/3 Saddam wasn’t actively using chemical weapons on his people. Maybe, maybe not.  We can only speculate, but we do have satellite images of military trucks crossing the border into Syria and we do know Bush was trying to stop him (under UN resolutions), possibly stopping the very weapons that Syria is using today. So is it not humanitarian when a president tries to stop NBC/WMD weapons from being produced and transported into unstable countries? Is it humanitarian to do everything you preached against only a few years ago?

What is the current goal of Liberalism?

Health and Human Services Denies Girl, 10, Lung Transplant

This story is about  a ten year old girl named Sarah Murnaghan. Sarah's situation is terribly unfortunate. I hope that her parents get to see her grow old, but her chances are slim due to a federal law denying her the transplant that she needs because of her age.

"...under FEDERAL rules, children younger than 12 are not prioritized for adult organs".

So regardless that it's a FEDERAL rule, not insurance, blocking this girl from getting the transplant, "Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has told Sarah’s parents she’s not authorized to intervene".

Read more: http://wgntv.com/2013/06/03/parents-of-girl-in-need-of-lung-transplant-she-has-essentially-been-left-to-die/#ixzz2VDT2Xp3h

The story can also be found here,

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kathleen-sebelius-review-children-lung-transplants-article-1.1361028

and here,

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/family-hhs-sebelius-intervene-10-year-olds-lung/story?id=19309530#.Ua1mfuCSITM

Please, for multiple reasons, spread this story.

A Conversation With a Liberal

A Conversation With a Liberal 

This is a recent conversation between myself and a friend. I will update it if there are any relevant responses. His initial response was to a link that I shared:

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%

Mike 1:Interesting. He disclaims the evidence released supporting the decreases and then uses a completely different matrix to support his wish that these rate decreases are actually increases - talk about comparing apples to oranges! Clearly this writer has never tried to purchase individual health insurance if he thinks there's any kind of "robust free market" in play.

Mike 2: I can't wait to be forced by our government to buy their service.

Mike 1: Michael, which service are you speaking? Police, fire, roads, armed forces, ? Schools, libraries, state university? Because those are government services you are forced to pay for. It's the way government works.

Mike 2: Yeah...which is precisely the problem...the government is much too large, the people no longer have the power. All those said services could be better provided under a voluntaryist society. If it ain't broke don't fix it...well it's broken....it's in fact shattered.

Mike 1: And the more we defund the government the worse it gets. There is a glowing example of what I'm advocating: the United States of America from world war II until Bush II. There is a glowing example of what you're advocating: Somalia.Our freely elected American government is our greatest ally in the defense against the greed of corporations and special interests. The more we decry government and try to equate our freely elected system with some totalitarian fiction the more we play into the hands of corporations that will pollute us, sell us insurance and deny all claims, let our society devolve into some gun toting 3rd world anarchy.

Mike 2: That may be true if you view politicians as the enlightened ones. The problem stems deeper down to what we are educating our population with. We start with the ground up. Reform schools, teach kids true history, not to repeat it and instill progressive non threatening attitudes. The problem is that we repeat history over and over. The definition of insanity if doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Why would you want to go BACK in time? Because you existed then? The economy is better than it is now? Of course. There is an optimal society, it's about education and progression.

NJ Front: Clearly, you guys have touched on a lot of talking points, but if we can go back for a minute... I've never understood how healthcare is comparable to "police, fire, roads, armed forces, schools, libraries, and state university." Just because those previously mentioned government services people are forced to pay for are common, does not necessitate my mandatory financial contribution to a national program I am going to get NOTHING back from. I do not have a problem paying taxes to support the necessary function of local services such as the those programs you mentioned, but keep in mind that I use those services to some extent. On the contrary, I do not get to use other people's health insurance, yet I am going to (mandatorily) be paying more because of the "Affordable" Care Act. But we already passed on something we glazed over. Why do state universities get extra state funding while they inflate tuition prices? Why are we at the point where state college is becoming more of a financial burden when we have more people paying taxes then ever before, we have higher tuition prices than ever before all the while state universities get state funding, federal funding and not to mention private funding. That is a perfect example of a good thing gone wrong. There is simply too much bureaucracy; too many statesmen who get another reason to tax people who are already taxed too much and too many overpaid teachers and administrators who get more just for passing time (keep in mind I am talking strictly about universities and colleges.) But you talk about the "greed of corporations and special interests", and I wonder why can't that same ideology pertain to government? Don't you think that government has special interests and greedy polictians? There have been countless news article outlining the degree of bankruptcy concerning Social Security. While I will never understand the "thoughtfulness" of taking my money to either give it back to me later or to someone else, politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have been borrowing from it for decades. Is there any answer you can offer me that can even remotely addresses the "liberty" in taking my money against my will? Is there ever a point where you can say, "OK, that's enough government"? If so, when?

Mike: I don't know if I have time to respond thoughtfully to all the great questions you brought up, but I'll try to give you some of my thoughts. I think as a people we have decided that for-profit police, fire, and education (k-12) are not desirable. It would be savage and unkind to only protect the people in our community that can afford police or fire protection. And no one is advocating that poor kids just get kicked out of school because their parents can't afford it. By protecting the poor and educating the young, we are a better society and live in a better country. It's not necessarily fair that the rich have to pay more for the same public education, but it's generally accepted that we do this for our society. Social security is hugely popular and is well funded and growing. Most Americans prefer to have the intrusion of this tax in return for some safety net in our old age and especially happy that we don't have to stumble over hundreds of elderly homeless people that are taken care of. I think, on the other hand we feel comfortable if free market principles are allowed to drive car markets. No one feels horrible if a poor person can't drive a new Mercedes or fly to distant destinations on every holiday. Health care is something I feel we should endeavor to protect from greedy corporations that take your money and then choose to drop you when you get sick or don't cover life saving procedures because the government isn't strong enough to make them. It's unseemly that a child with cancer is denied coverage based on someone's profit margin. There is a fine article about Obamacare referenced in the article you have linked to. It's an article based on real data. The article you linked above is based on the author's perusal of Esurance.com! Yes there can be a point where you can say "enough is enough" but with our infrastructure failing, our veterans benefits being reduced and more and more seniors and young children being left in harm's way, you have to explain to me why we should continue to cut taxes, increase the burden on the middle class, and encourage the growing disparity between rich and poor? This our government - it is ours to do with as we please. The notion that the absence of a government - or a weakened one would leave us more free is fantasy. Where the government cedes its power to act on the people's behalf, private companies, or warlords will fill the gaps and make taxes and control our lives without us having the benefit of representation.

NJ Front: Thanks for replying. I know that it's a lot to cover and we might not get a chance to get into everything that we'd like. Having said that, I think all of this needs to be talked about more often and amongst more people, so kudos for us... You mention something interesting right off the bat when you wrote, "we have decided that for-profit police, fire, and education (k-12) are not desirable." I am not sure where that accusation comes from. Out of all the public services you just mentioned, all of them have extremely high paying jobs for tenured employees and very good salaries for most starting positions. I think we, as a nation, are at a point where we are simply running out of money for all of the "extras" that go along with those positions. As the most successful capitalist society, we have been able to get away with paying for certain things we had, but not longer have the money for. One of those things are the pensions certain public employees get. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure why anyone, aside from combat veterans/families, gets a pension. Most retired Americans have to live off retirement money/401K (in addition to SS), but for some reason public employees get pensions. If you want to analyze a similar situation on the university level, look at all of the sports coaches who literally make millions of dollars coaching at state schools. Talk about needing to find a better way to use public funds! I am not even making an argument against wealthier people paying for poorer children to attend school, as long as it's on a local level. That will usually be the case since wealthier people always pay more in taxes. What I am saying is this is the fiscal abuse that comes from having too many bureaucratic hands in our pockets. You also wrote, "By protecting the poor and educating the young, we are a better society and live in a better country." At face value, sure, but it's never actually that simple. For years, we have been giving more to poor areas, for you and me, that would be areas such as Camden, Newark, etc. Those areas have been getting funding on the state and federal levels, yet they are still sinking. People in those areas have a higher than average percentage of welfare recipients, unemployment, and students with test scores far below the national average. But believe it or not, those are the areas with most of the federal funding, so why is there still a problem? The immediate problem is not fiscal, but internal. It is because we are neglecting the simple, universal concept of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man how to fish and feed him for life."  Plenty of the cities that have successfully enforced fiscal funding concepts from public housing to food stamps, have been destroyed from the inside out, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles. Just think of all the people who were caught using EBT cards in casinos out West. You can give people with problems all of the money in the world, but you're not necessarily stopping the root of the problem. Just because you give a homeless man a few bucks, doesn't mean he is more likely to buy food rather than alcohol. "Most Americans prefer to have the intrusion of this tax in return for some safety net in our old age..." All tax paying Americans do not have a choice about paying into SS, so I don't think you can use the word "prefer", but why can't SS be voluntary? I am recently out of college with loans to pay all the while saving up to hopefully move out and move on with my life, but then the government decides, "Oh no, sorry, we have another great mandatory tax, ah hem, service for you". I have never subscribed to the idea that government spends my money better than I do. I could explain to you why we should continue to cut taxes, but I wasn't aware we were doing such a thing. This past January, my taxes went way up and I am in a lower tax bracket, Obama said that wouldn't, but it did. That was a burden on me, less money for bills and less money to save. What I don't understand is how tax cuts across the board increase the burden on the middle class. "The notion that the absence of a government - or a weakened one would leave us more free is fantasy". I am in no way advocating for a "weaker" government, but a more efficient one where tax money is not wasted on people who get to set their own salaries, exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act and give it to people who need real help, like rehab. I'd like to see the First Lady pass up having Adele and Beyonce at her birthday party when they are blaming sequestration problems on Republicans. If people are taught personal responsibility rather than just how to file for government checks, we'd be on our way to "protecting the poor and educating the young." "Where the government cedes its power to act on the people's behalf, private companies, or warlords will fill the gaps and make taxes and control our lives without us having the benefit of representation." I'm not sure where warlords came from, maybe it's because we refuse to enforce our boarder laws, but isn't making taxes and controlling my life by forcing me to purchase services what the government already does? Call it what you want, a private company or a warlord, but if I don't have a say about part of my money that I earned, then I do not have representation. Honestly, people on this side of the government, like you and me, have more in common than we think. We have very similar ideas of a civil society, regardless if we have different ways of achieving them. The problems will always be with those with the power and the more money you give them, the more power they have. 

Mike 1: The notion that we're "running out of money" is curious because the rich are much richer than they've ever been. The disparity of wealth is at an all time high. What we've done as a society over the past 15 years is redistribute the wealth away from the middle class. The rich are not spending the money they have saved. Put that money into the middle class and it will go immediately back into the economy.

END

1984, Act II

1984, Act II

Fundamentally Changing America

“Change” apparently equals a cover up of a terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, tapping the Associated Press’ phone lines and using the IRS to target people who don't vote the way you want them to. I ALMOST wish the IRS had targeted Democrat groups under a Republican president to see how much greater the outlash would have been, but, like it or not, we will have to settle on Democrat politicians showing their true colors. And yes, the President is responsible for it. Even Chris Matthews, a usual proponent of the Obama administration, is starting to understand that.

On May 16th, the Business Insider reported Matthews as saying, 

“For anybody to run around in Washington and say, 'We don't run the IRS,' or, 'We can't control the Justice Department and I'm recusing myself,' ... the steering wheel doesn't control the car any more.”

These are Obama’s people and it's happening on his watch. If it was Bush's fault that Barney Frank and Christ Dodd wanted to "roll the dice" with Fannie and Freddie because there was apparently no threat of a housing bubble back in 2005, then there is no reason not to hold Obama accountable now (not to mention for once). But instead of owning up to any of this, the game that the president is playing is “how many people can we throw under the bus?” 

The guy whose video was originally blamed for the Benghazi attack is STILL in jail! 

And for a moment, if you can, forget the fact that Obama, Hilary, someone who should have been doing their job, didn't send reinforcements to help save the lives of fellow Americans, Obama still assisted and praised the removal of Gaddafi by sending weapons to the rebels. So, by making a bad situation worse isn't he in some way responsible for the attacks on Benghazi if the rebels he supported later attacked and killed US citizens? Prior to Gaddafi’s removal, the rebels were under control. 

(Audio from Diane Rehm’s show on NPR)

Politico readers experienced a cold day in hell when they read: 

“Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.”

If your head is spinning after reading that, you most likely read the news and deal with reality on some sort of regular basis.

Excuse me, but if this is still planet Earth, exactly when did establishment Democrats establish themselves as “never being big fans of the president”?

And the second sentence is up for interpretation. Does Politico mean that there are so many lies, so much deceit and corruption under Obama they don’t know where to start? If that’s the case they should have started back in 2006 when Obama was still just a deceitful senator and then it’d be easier to report. If, however, Politico means that they are correcting themselves on poor journalism, feel free to join Scott Pelley and issue a public apology. 

Scott Pelley recently said:

“We’re getting the big stories wrong, over and over again.”

Why are the main news sources so popular?

The Department of Justice (irony anyone?) was caught tapping the phone lines of the Associate Press. Generally speaking, and as of recently, the AP had no problem leaning far to the left and cherry picking news topics to highlight the otherwise less than spectacular POTUS, so what exactly does/did the AP know that the Obama administration was so worried about? That is a big eyebrow raiser. We’re talking about the AP, not FOX...

Compared to these two, tapping phone lines is a holiday. What other president could get away with this? Nixon was impeached over only one of these; Obama has THREE different things going for him. I wish we all really wanted the best for America. 

So now, under the most transparent and bipartisan president America has known, ::crickets::, we have people being financially targeted for the way they vote. Not only that, but according to the Washington Examiner,

“IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status to two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm…”

And just like Obamacare, they know what’s good for you so they will shove it down your throats. 

The only way that the Coalition for Life of Iowa would receive the same tax-exempt status of other non-Republican groups was if they agreed to sign a letter saying that they would not “not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood…” 

“Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”

Was the IRS issuing a legal document regarding the right of the people to assemble peacefully? I think there is something in the first 1^st Amendment addressing this. 

Amazing.

The desire for control over the lives of everyday citizens is sickening, yet unbelievably inconsistent that people are starting to know better. 

For the past couple of months, gun control steadily took over the news headlines. The idea behind the legislation and threatening of executive orders (great way to treat fellow Americans, Mr. President) was that lives can be saved!

So clearly, this is a position shared across the board right? Nope...

CBS NEWS, Baltimore reported a federal agency’s desire to reduce the legal  alcohol limit.

(At least most of the congressmen wouldn’t be able to drive to work anymore.)

“The National Transportation Safety Board says the recommendation could cut the number of DUI deaths but not everyone is on board.”

That’s strange. I thought the trending thought was that if there was anything we could do to save “just one life” we need to do it! What? We’re not taking the same stance on this issue? Oh, OK...

That’s especially peculiar since the number of alcohol related deaths is two times that of firearms. Therefore, wouldn’t more needed to be done or regulated concerning alcohol if we are to remain consistent about saving lives?

The problem we are dealing with is politicians who twist the purpose of the law. These legislative powers are left to the state! That is why some states have voted in favor of gay marriage. By the same token, state power (we all have our own state constitutions for this reason) is why Obama, regardless of his flip on the definition of marriage, has done nothing to advance gay marriage/rights. 

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

If one is to ever actually try to enforce the Constitutional Republic we are supposed to have, you’d start to understand that the 10^th Amendment alone would get rid of most of the bureaucratic fluff we are already dealing with. In simple and basic terminology, the 10^th Amendment grants states the powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution.

Perhaps the founders weren’t hip to the acronym, K.I.S.S. That or we’ve voted for politicians dumber and more selfish than the founders could have ever imagined. 

If, for some reason, the desire for control is not clear, let’s examine further.

From CBS News:

“The new rules, which go into effect Thursday, require owners of ‘dangerous dogs’ to carry $1 million in liability insurance, post signs, complete an obedience class with the dog, and keep the dog in a locked, fenced-in area. Owners must also comply with seven pages worth of other requirements to keep their pets in the city.”

Had this policy been named, “Danger Congressmen” Insurance Policy, I’d be in full favor. 

“How do you decide what’s dangerous,” she said.

You mean, like an “assault” dog?

Someone should have told her that it’ll probably wind up being the responsibility of the IRS.

“Violation of the dog ordinance is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by a fine up to $500 and 90 days in jail.”

I think that it’s safe to say that on a national or local level, our priorities are poorly chosen. 

Do you really want these laws to be enforced by people like this:

The dog, named Ella, was fenced in her yard when the animal control officer showed up saying she attacked another dog, was rabid and needed to be shot.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there is any gun control proposed for officers, is there?

Great job, America! Keep handing your liberties over to these people. 

Well done.

- NJ Front

Alternate Route, Part I

Alternate Route, Part I

April 28, 2013

On April 15, 2013 on Boylston street in Boston Massachusetts, Dzhokhar, age 19, and Tamerlan Tsarneaev, age 26, allegedly planted two bombs injuring a reported 282 people additionally killing three people:

Krystle Marie Campbell, 29, Lü Lingzi, 23 and Martin William Richard, an eight-year-old boy. May they rest in peace and Justice be served in their names.

I have found it quite challenging to find all of the facts on this story in one place, so I will try to put them in a chronological order with logical reasoning. While this post is not a conspiracy pot (and never will be) there are details that hit the  “mind-boggling” level on the stupidity meter. I feel the questions need to be raised. Even if a direct answer is not formed, knowing the holes in cases like this is important.

Monday, April 15, 2013: After the two brothers set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon, they went into hiding. As police and FBI reviewed images from security cameras of nearby buildings, they came up with two suspects. Upon the release of these images that following Thursday, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan fled Boston, shot and killed an MIT campus police officer, carjacked a Mercedes SUV and wound up in Watertown, MA. where the Tsarneaev brothers had a shootout with police. Tamerlan was killed and Dzhokhar briefly escaped only to be found hiding in a Watertown resident’s boat. 

The materials used in the bombing were simple: pressure cookers filled with gun powder, nails and ball bearings, to insure maximum damage. When Dzhokhar’s and Tamerlan’s pictures were made public, they were merely suspects. They were picked out of several still images that were captured from surrounding stores. An enlarged image was able to show that both Dzhokhar and Tamerlan had large back packs that seemed to be full and sagging heavily. These pictures are widely available on the internet, but here are two of them:

Thursday, April 18, 2013:

In the midst of all of this, you might have heard that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan robbed a 7/11 in between the Boston bombings and the MIT shootout. At first it was widely reported by major news organizations, but now few stories remain regarding the 7/11 robbery. This part of their rampage has seemingly been misreported, yet curiously forgotten at the same time. USA Today has been the only popular news source to even address the correction. Other news sources have pulled their initial reports altogether. This was the image that was released upon the first reports of the 7/11 robbery:

USA Today reported that “Margaret Chabris, the director of corporate communication at 7- Eleven, says the surveillance video (the picture above) of the crime was not taken at a 7-Eleven and that the suspect that did rob the 7-Eleven does not look like Tamerlan or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.” 

So not only did they not rob the 7/11, the picture widely released (initially) is NOT EVEN FROM A 7/11! It would be reasonable to place blame for the robbery on two terrorists, but the problem here is the media. This story was WIDELY reported at first, and then pulled because they figured out it was a wild goose chase. Where is the fact checking? Apparently, it’s better to pretend that you didn’t run a story than it is to accept responsibility and correct yourself. So, the story was pulled altogether. But that doesn’t answer the question of where the picture comes from, because the picture clearly shows Dzhokhar in some store wearing the same sweat shirt he was wearing when he was eventually caught (see below). So, for now, why this 7/11 story was run and where the picture comes from remains a loose end. 

While we don’t know for sure who robbed the 7/11, mistakes in reporting can be common and even more common in hysterical times such as these, but why bother pulling almost ALL of the news reports regarding the 7/11 robbery? Why not just correct the reporting as USA Today did?

Logical reasoning would say that it would make sense for the Tsarneaev brothers to keep a low profile by not robbing anything, let alone the 7/11 in Cambridge, minutes from Boston. On a separate, but related note, why didn’t Margaret Chabris ever release a surveillance photo the correct suspect? Little things like that tend to raise eyebrows. 

Looking at this map, it doesn’t make much sense to rob a 7/11 in Cambridge after detonating two bombs in Boston a few days earlier.

(Point A (green), Watertown, MA. where Dzhokhar is found in a resident’s boat. B - Red point, Cambridge and 7/11 location. East of Cambridge is Boston.) 

Later that Thursday night, around 10:30 PM, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan shot and killed MIT campus police office Sean Collier. 

“Collier’s shooting sparked the bloody, bizarre chain of events — authorities say they carjacked a Mercedes SUV in Cambridge, then tossed bombs and traded gunfire with cops during a furious shootout in Watertown — that ended in the death of suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and led to the daylong manhunt and eventual capture of his brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19.” - Boston Herald 

Here, we run into another problem with the stories being reported. Reportedly, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan carjacked a Chinese-American citizen (who no one has heard from or interviewed) of his Mercedes SUV. If he is worried about his anonymity (a legitimate concern) they have makeup artists, voice modulators and blackouts for interviews in cases like this. People have a right to know this man’s story. Because as of now, it just seems to fit the story's purpose. Aside from that, the timing of all of this is important, at what time did they “toss bombs and trade gunfire” after the carjacking?

The timing is relevant because one of the brothers apparently found the time to stop at an ATM.

This image taken from surveillance video provided by the Boston Regional Intelligence Center shows Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at a Bank of America ATM in Watertown, Mass. at 11:18 p.m. on April 18, 2013. 

As you can see from this picture, captured from an ATM camera, the younger brother is wearing the same shirt that he was pictured wearing during the supposed 7/11 robbery (notice the yellow diagonal stripes on his right).

Note: the sweatshirt in both pictures is consistence with the picture taken when he was captured in Watertown, MA (below). 

Back to the carjacking, “Police sources told the Globe that the carjack victim has told police that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan, pointed guns at him and, in an apparent effort to intimidate the victim and dissuade him from trying anything foolish, Tamerlan Tsarnaev told him, “We just killed a cop. We blew up the marathon. And now we’re going to New York. Don’t [expletive] with us.” 

When suspects just come right out and say things like to witness no one knows exist, it really helps confirm the police reports. 

::End Sarcasm::

“The carjacking took place in Allston shortly after, police say, the Tsarnaevs ambushed Collier as he sat in his cruiser in Cambridge.”

More good news for the police reports came when Boston.com reported, “According to the official, the bombers repeatedly told the carjack victim that they were going to New York, which is why they used his ATM card at various locations: they needed cash for the trip.”

How wonderful, everything is falling into place just like an NCIS episode.

Of course details are still being learned and new evidence being found, but the very idea that many mainstream news groups simply take a story and run with it, so to speak, is quite frightening. If it wasn’t clear before, it should be clear now: Fact checking is outdated and whatever is entertaining enough to sell goes on the shelf (or web in our case). Don’t enough conspiracy stories and blogs exist that we should be able to rely on popular news sources. After all, if they aren’t reliable and interested in fact checking, why are they so popular? 

April 20, 2013 Sequestration

                                                           Define Budget Cuts

April 20, 2013

If there is anyone who follows the news, maybe you can help me figure this out. Because of the sequestration (budget cuts), convicts have been released into the public all across the country:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/02/27/sequester-budget-cuts-lead-to-controversial-release-of-jailed-illegal-immigrants/ 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/24/3304486/criminals-among-the-225-immigrants.html

Sequestration will also cause the FAA to close 149 air traffic control towers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/faa-closing-air-traffic-towers_n_2934601.html

The budget cuts were so severe that the White House has even (temporarily?) stopped doing tours: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/white-house-tours-sequestration_n_2900527.html (not sure about that title either, Jason Linkins...)

Why are there all of these "cuts" when the sequestration actually only stops the budget from expanding more than it would have? Our budget is still about $1BILLION more than the total revenue, so how is not spending enough such an immediate problem?

The question really begs an answer when you consider that there was enough money for Michelle Obama to have Beyonce and Adele perform at her birthday party this year,

 http://www.bet.com/news/music/2013/03/11/adele-beyonce-to-perform-at-michelle-obama-s-50th-birthday-party.html

There is also enough money for the DHS to buy 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo, 2,700 new armored vehicles, and 7,000 new assault rifles. "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat."

http://www.businessinsider.com/dhs-fletc-ammunition-purchases-750-million-200-million-40-caliber-rounds-2013-1#ixzz2Oc5CkZuG

"While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/#ixzz2Oc6N8ae8 

- NJFront

Please email njfront@rocketmail.com for

any polite comments, critiques and opinions regarding this article. 

Please email the same address for all of the links mentioned in this article.