Sunday, April 28, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
The "Facts" Keep Changing About the Boston Bombings -- And It"s Fueling a Conspiracy Theory Industry
In the aftermath of massive, complicated crimes it’s not uncommon for a bit of crucial information to be immediately put forward by police, only to be contradicted later on. While it’s understandable that initial leads and assertions might end up being wrong in a dynamic situation like the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, wholesale contradictions can encourage skepticism of the motives of those releasing inaccuracies — as with initial, false reports that Osama bin Laden hid behind his wife when U.S. forces shot him. Another effect of changing details can be to encourage conspiracy theorists who latch onto inconsistencies, and to undermine trust in authorities.
Now, almost a week after the Tsarnaev brothers fought a rolling street battle with dozens of heavily armed police officers, we learned Wednesday night that they had only a single handgun, according to sources who spoke with ABC News and the AP, something that directly contradicts what officials had previously said.
Here are some of the biggest changes to facts released in this investigation:
- Suspects’ arms – After the manhunt, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said the brothers were “heavily armed” and numerous reports detailed a fairly extensive arsenal. According to a New York Times report from April 21 citing a law enforcement official, “The authorities found an M-4 carbine rifle … two handguns and a BB gun.” Now unnamed sources say there was only a single 9mm pistol between the two brothers. Indeed, photos of the shootout suggest only one brother had a weapon.
- Boat gunfight? – Police initially reported that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fired on police when they found him hiding in a boat Friday night. “It was back and forth … yes — he was firing,” Watertown Police Chief Ed Deveau told CNN Saturday (though the FBI cautioned at the time that only federal authorities had official information). In its definitive “tick tock” of the events, the Washington Post reported that the suspect inside the boat “was shooting back.” But later, the Washington Post and the AP reported yesterday that Tsarnaev was unarmed when police found him after what what was described as a gunfight. As it turns out, police may have been spooked by an errant shot, and fired into the boat, but apparently zero shots came out.
- 7 -Eleven and the MIT officer – Initial reports suggested the brothers tried to hold up a 7-Eleven, and then killed an MIT officer who either responded to the robbery or just happened to be in the area. But days later, authorities revealed that the holdup was committed by different suspects and the confusion was caused by the close proximity of the two events. It’s still unknown exactly why the brothers killed the police officer.
- Carjacking – Some reports indicate that the person whom the brothers carjacked escapedwhile they inexplicably went into a store to buy snacks, while others say the brothers let the victim go because he wasn’t American. It’s also still unclear which brother stole the black SUV, and which drove the Honda that followed.
- Trip to NYC - What the suspects did after the bombing remains a mystery, but one detail that emerged was that they were planning to head to New York City — to party. That’s what New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said yesterday. But today, NBC News reports the brothers discussed trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square, but that the plan was not well developed and “aspirational at most.”
We’ll update this post as more examples emerge.
Related Stories
- The Facts Keep Changing About the Boston Bombings — And It"s Fueling a BConspiracy Theory Industry
- Watch: Jon Stewart Lambastes Constitution-Obsessed Fox News for Turning on the Constitution
- Medical Examiners Confirm Death of Missing Brown Student Misidentified as Boston Bomber
The "Facts" Keep Changing About the Boston Bombings -- And It"s Fueling a Conspiracy Theory Industry
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—But His Policy Is Wrong
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has fashioned himself as a GOP maverick of late, upsetting people in his own party almost as often as political opponents. From praising President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy last year, to seeking a ban on the .50 caliber Barrett rifle more recently, he keeps managing to ruffle Republicans’ feathers.
His push to restrict violent video games, however, part of his plan to deal with gun violence, is likely to please the right. Christie wants to require parental consent in New Jersey in order for minors to purchase “Mature” rated video games. The idea aligns with the NRA’s own suggestions for curbing school shootings and has broad appeal. It’s not actually a ban, but rather another layer of regulation.
“This is just common sense,” the governor said of his plan, “and means that parents and legal guardians are actively engaged and aware of the kinds of games their kids are buying and renting.” Christie’s reasoning is actually pretty sound—even if his legal thinking isn’t. (More on that in a minute.)
When I’ve written about violence in video games in the past, I’ve argued that the most important thing a parent can do is be actively engaged in what their kids are playing. (That goes for any kind of media consumption.) Play games with your kids, and make sure the content they’re zapping into their impressionable young minds is something you approve of. I don’t think most kids will be transformed into violent monsters by video games—and to date, there is no solid research indicating that’s a serious possibility—but that doesn’t mean each game out there is appropriate for every kid.
The problem with Christie’s plan is that it runs afoul of the right to free speech; attempts to ban violent video games or restrict their sale have already been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the video game industry has actually done a vastly improved job at self-regulating over the last decade. Even though M-rated games aren’t backed by laws limiting their sale to minors, that doesn’t mean it’s easy for children to buy these games. A recent report from the Federal Trade Commission found that only 13 percent of minors were able to purchase M-rated titles in 2012, dramatically down over the last 12 years. The FTC sent undercover “mystery shoppers” between the ages of 13 and 16 into retail shops to gather this data. By comparison, the FTC found that minors were able to purchase CDs with explicit content nearly half of the time, and buy R-rated movie tickets nearly a quarter of the time.
In other words, the video game industry and the retailers who sell video games are leading the pack, effectively keeping minors from buying M-rated titles like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Most of the kids with these games get them from their parents, legal guardians, or other people over the age of 18.
The real trick is ensuring that parents are actually, well, parenting—overseeing or playing the games with their kids in the confines of their own homes, or in the homes of their friends. This is beyond the scope of government regulation.
Christie may have great intentions, but his legislation will almost certainly not hold up in court, and even if it did it’s unlikely that we’d see a significant change in video game sales to minors. And it requires another leap from there to assume that stricter regulations on video games would have any impact on real world violence, including school shootings. It would be better for Christie and other leaders to continue pushing for better gun control laws—even though that may allow their opponents to score political points against them.
Speaking of gun control and “political suicide,” I’ll leave you with this hilarious yet deeply troubling segment from The Daily Show‘s John Oliver:
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Gun Control & Political Suicide | ||||
| ||||
Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—But His Policy Is Wrong
Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—but His Policy Is Wrong
New Jersey governor Chris Christie has fashioned himself as a GOP maverick of late, upsetting people in his own party almost as often as political opponents. From praising President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy last year, to seeking a ban on the .50 caliber Barrett rifle more recently, he keeps managing to ruffle Republicans’ feathers.
His push to restrict violent video games, however, part of his plan to deal with gun violence, is likely to please the right. Christie wants to require parental consent in New Jersey in order for minors to purchase “Mature” rated video games. The idea aligns with the NRA’s own suggestions for curbing school shootings and has broad appeal. It’s not actually a ban, but rather another layer of regulation.
“This is just common sense,” the governor said of his plan, “and means that parents and legal guardians are actively engaged and aware of the kinds of games their kids are buying and renting.” Christie’s reasoning is actually pretty sound—even if his legal thinking isn’t. (More on that in a minute.)
When I’ve written about violence in video games in the past, I’ve argued that the most important thing a parent can do is be actively engaged in what their kids are playing. (That goes for any kind of media consumption.) Play games with your kids, and make sure the content they’re zapping into their impressionable young minds is something you approve of. I don’t think most kids will be transformed into violent monsters by video games—and to date, there is no solid research indicating that’s a serious possibility—but that doesn’t mean each game out there is appropriate for every kid.
The problem with Christie’s plan is that it runs afoul of the right to free speech; attempts to ban violent video games or restrict their sale have already been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the video game industry has actually done a vastly improved job at self-regulating over the last decade. Even though M-rated games aren’t backed by laws limiting their sale to minors, that doesn’t mean it’s easy for children to buy these games. A recent report from the Federal Trade Commission found that only 13 percent of minors were able to purchase M-rated titles in 2012, dramatically down over the last 12 years. The FTC sent undercover “mystery shoppers” between the ages of 13 and 16 into retail shops to gather this data. By comparison, the FTC found that minors were able to purchase CDs with explicit content nearly half of the time, and buy R-rated movie tickets nearly a quarter of the time.
In other words, the video game industry and the retailers who sell video games are leading the pack, effectively keeping minors from buying M-rated titles like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Most of the kids with these games get them from their parents, legal guardians, or other people over the age of 18.
The real trick is ensuring that parents are actually, well, parenting—overseeing or playing the games with their kids in the confines of their own homes, or in the homes of their friends. This is beyond the scope of government regulation.
Christie may have great intentions, but his legislation will almost certainly not hold up in court, and even if it did it’s unlikely that we’d see a significant change in video game sales to minors. And it requires another leap from there to assume that stricter regulations on video games would have any impact on real world violence, including school shootings. It would be better for Christie and other leaders to continue pushing for better gun control laws—even though that may allow their opponents to score political points against them.
Speaking of gun control and “political suicide,” I’ll leave you with this hilarious yet deeply troubling segment from The Daily Show’s John Oliver:
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Gun Control & Political Suicide | ||||
| ||||
Chris Christie Is Right About Parents and Violent Video Games—but His Policy Is Wrong
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
What Doomsday Preppers Can Teach You About Home Defense
The topic of doomsday prepping is quite divisive. To many, the idea of stockpiling food, fuel, generators, medical supplies, firearms and ammunition to prepare for a natural disaster and/or large scale civil unrest seems more than a little extreme. On the other hand, preppers are typically surprised at how many of their neighbors fail to take basic precautions for themselves and their families in the event of a catastrophe.
You need look no further than Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath to comprehend the importance of disaster planning. Americans were able to see firsthand the chaos that ensued in the days and weeks following the hurricane. The importance of self-reliance became crystal clear, as government assistance was not readily available. In fact, many credit Katrina as being the catalyst for the recent wave of interest in prepping.
To put it simply, “If it’s predictable, it’s preventable.”
Sure, being prepared is great. But some tend to take prepping to the extreme. For instance, most would agree having a first aid kit in your vehicle is a reasonable step to help ensure you can provide medical treatment, if necessary.
Although converting your personal vehicle into an ambulance would enable you to better treat someone who was injured, your significant other might not appreciate rolling around in your “meat wagon.” It’s important to strike a balance between preparation and practicality.
Regardless of your stance on prepping, there is a definite correlation between preparing for a hurricane, wildfire, tornado—even a zombie apocalypse—and preparing to defend your home from a criminal intruder. When it comes to home defense, you can learn a lot from preppers.
Preppers tend to be, well, prepared. This is in stark contrast to many homeowners, who seem to believe that their hunting rifle or shotgun will virtually appear in their hands fully loaded, should someone break into their residence.
Assuming you will readily access and load a firearm you’re not used to shooting—particularly one that’s not intended for defensive shooting—is far more absurd that someone who goes a little overboard planning for worst-case scenario. Far too many homeowners confuse mere ownership of a firearm with having a practicable home defense plan.
At the very heart of prepping is the acknowledgment that bad things happen even to good people and that we are vulnerable. Therefore, preppers by nature take the notion of protecting and providing for their family very seriously. Storing supplies is one thing, but preppers understand that without weapons and training, they will likely be unable to safeguard their cache from desperate neighbors who were less prepared but better armed.
A diligent prepper understands the pros and cons of various types of firearms and has ample personal defense ammunition on hand. With an understanding that skill-at-arms may be all that separates their life-sustaining rations from hungry, desperate outsiders, the true prepper has considered likely home invasion scenarios and developed a solid plan to safeguard their family and supplies. And you can bet that the hard-core prepper is not only mentally prepared to take a life if necessary, but also proficient in the tactical storage and deployment of firearms because he understands that in an emergency, seconds count.
While some preppers take the concept of having a safe room to the extreme—i.e., spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an underground bunker—the concept of having a designated room in your home where family members would converge in the event of a break-in is certainly viable.
A safe room is intended to be a rally point, where you can account for all family members and share information relevant to thwarting the home invasion. This is also the place where you or a designated family member can call 911 to initiate the police response.
Integral to the safe room concept is the notion that it’s much easier to defend a single room than to search the entire residence for bad guys, who could be waiting to ambush you. You should consider keeping a safe in the room in order to store a rifle or shotgun. While it may be more practical to be armed with a handgun while moving to the safe room, there are several advantages to having a long gun once you’re there.
Because of the longer sight radius and multiple points of contact to your body, a long gun is inherently easier to shoot than handgun. A long gun will also provide you better ballistic capabilities than a handgun and, in the case of an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, a much higher ammunition capacity.
When you’re armed with a long gun and monitor the door to the safe room from a position of cover, you’re at a tremendous advantage because you can narrow your focus to a single point. Of course, a prepper would have his most essential supplies in this room, but from a home defense standpoint, this is unnecessary.
A safe room doesn’t have to be elaborate, but at a minimum it should have a solid core door that is capable of being locked with a deadbolt from the inside. Ideally, there should be large, heavy furniture items within the room that can provide a degree of cover.
You may be tempted to dismiss preppers as paranoid or out of touch with reality. Just remember, the same is often said of individuals who carry a concealed handgun or own an AR-15 for home defense. There’s a fine line between paranoid and prepared. If the unthinkable were to occur, the paranoid prepper just might look pretty darn smart.
What Doomsday Preppers Can Teach You About Home Defense
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
What We Know About the Tsarnaev Brothers" Guns
We still don’t have a full account of where and how the Tsarnaev brothers obtained the firearms and explosives they allegedly used in the deadly attacks that began on April 17 at the Boston Marathon. Here are the details about their guns that have emerged so far:
How may firearms did they have?
Along with several pipe bombs, law enforcement officials recovered four guns they believed the Tsarnaevs used, according to a report in the New York Times. Authorities believe three of the firearms—two handguns of unspecified makes and models, and a BB gun—were used in the dramatic early morning shootout with police in Watertown that left Tamerlan dead.
Did they have military-grade weapons?
The other gun, described by the Times as an M-4 carbine rifle “similar to ones used by American forces in Afghanistan,” was reportedly found on the boat in the Watertown driveway where Dzhokhar was captured. It is unclear whether the rifle is a semi-automatic civilian model or the selective-fire model used by the military.
What gun laws would they have been subject to?
Both Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were residents of Massachusetts, a state with strict gun laws including a ban on assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Along with Washington, D.C., Massachusetts is one of just seven states with some form of assault weapons ban. No such restrictions exist under federal law, but if the M-4 is a selective-fire model it would fall under the highly restrictive National Firearms Act of 1934 that requires the registration of automatic weapons.
Did they have gun permits? Could they have gotten any?
Reuters reported that neither brother had a valid handgun permit in the state of Massachusetts. Because he is younger than 21, Dzhokhar could not have legally owned a handgun even with a permit. He also did not have the firearms identification card he would have needed to legally possess a semi-automatic rifle with a 10-round magazine. BB guns don’t require licensing for non-minors in Massachusetts.
What We Know About the Tsarnaev Brothers" Guns
What Doomsday Preppers Can Teach You About Home Defense
The topic of doomsday prepping is quite divisive. To many, the idea of stockpiling food, fuel, generators, medical supplies, firearms and ammunition to prepare for a natural disaster and/or large scale civil unrest seems more than a little extreme. On the other hand, preppers are typically surprised at how many of their neighbors fail to take basic precautions for themselves and their families in the event of a catastrophe.
You need look no further than Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath to comprehend the importance of disaster planning. Americans were able to see firsthand the chaos that ensued in the days and weeks following the hurricane. The importance of self-reliance became crystal clear, as government assistance was not readily available. In fact, many credit Katrina as being the catalyst for the recent wave of interest in prepping.
To put it simply, “If it’s predictable, it’s preventable.”
Sure, being prepared is great. But some tend to take prepping to the extreme. For instance, most would agree having a first aid kit in your vehicle is a reasonable step to help ensure you can provide medical treatment, if necessary.
Although converting your personal vehicle into an ambulance would enable you to better treat someone who was injured, your significant other might not appreciate rolling around in your “meat wagon.” It’s important to strike a balance between preparation and practicality.
Regardless of your stance on prepping, there is a definite correlation between preparing for a hurricane, wildfire, tornado—even a zombie apocalypse—and preparing to defend your home from a criminal intruder. When it comes to home defense, you can learn a lot from preppers.
Preppers tend to be, well, prepared. This is in stark contrast to many homeowners, who seem to believe that their hunting rifle or shotgun will virtually appear in their hands fully loaded, should someone break into their residence.
Assuming you will readily access and load a firearm you’re not used to shooting—particularly one that’s not intended for defensive shooting—is far more absurd that someone who goes a little overboard planning for worst-case scenario. Far too many homeowners confuse mere ownership of a firearm with having a practicable home defense plan.
At the very heart of prepping is the acknowledgment that bad things happen even to good people and that we are vulnerable. Therefore, preppers by nature take the notion of protecting and providing for their family very seriously. Storing supplies is one thing, but preppers understand that without weapons and training, they will likely be unable to safeguard their cache from desperate neighbors who were less prepared but better armed.
A diligent prepper understands the pros and cons of various types of firearms and has ample personal defense ammunition on hand. With an understanding that skill-at-arms may be all that separates their life-sustaining rations from hungry, desperate outsiders, the true prepper has considered likely home invasion scenarios and developed a solid plan to safeguard their family and supplies. And you can bet that the hard-core prepper is not only mentally prepared to take a life if necessary, but also proficient in the tactical storage and deployment of firearms because he understands that in an emergency, seconds count.
While some preppers take the concept of having a safe room to the extreme—i.e., spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an underground bunker—the concept of having a designated room in your home where family members would converge in the event of a break-in is certainly viable.
A safe room is intended to be a rally point, where you can account for all family members and share information relevant to thwarting the home invasion. This is also the place where you or a designated family member can call 911 to initiate the police response.
Integral to the safe room concept is the notion that it’s much easier to defend a single room than to search the entire residence for bad guys, who could be waiting to ambush you. You should consider keeping a safe in the room in order to store a rifle or shotgun. While it may be more practical to be armed with a handgun while moving to the safe room, there are several advantages to having a long gun once you’re there.
Because of the longer sight radius and multiple points of contact to your body, a long gun is inherently easier to shoot than handgun. A long gun will also provide you better ballistic capabilities than a handgun and, in the case of an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, a much higher ammunition capacity.
When you’re armed with a long gun and monitor the door to the safe room from a position of cover, you’re at a tremendous advantage because you can narrow your focus to a single point. Of course, a prepper would have his most essential supplies in this room, but from a home defense standpoint, this is unnecessary.
A safe room doesn’t have to be elaborate, but at a minimum it should have a solid core door that is capable of being locked with a deadbolt from the inside. Ideally, there should be large, heavy furniture items within the room that can provide a degree of cover.
You may be tempted to dismiss preppers as paranoid or out of touch with reality. Just remember, the same is often said of individuals who carry a concealed handgun or own an AR-15 for home defense. There’s a fine line between paranoid and prepared. If the unthinkable were to occur, the paranoid prepper just might look pretty darn smart.
What Doomsday Preppers Can Teach You About Home Defense
Sunday, April 21, 2013
17 Unanswered Questions About The Boston Marathon Bombing The Media Is Afraid To Ask
Will we ever learn the full truth about the Boston Marathon bombing? Personally, I have been looking into this attack for days, and I just keep coming up with more questions than answers.
(Image: imgur.com)
by Michael Snyder
End of the American Dream
April 22, 2013
At this point, I honestly have no idea what really happened. Why was a bomb drill being held on the day of the attack? Why have authorities denied that a bomb drill was taking place? Were Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev acting alone? What was the nature of their previous contacts with the FBI and other federal agencies?
Why did the FBI at first deny that they had been in contact with the Tsarnaev brothers previously? Why was the investigation of a mysterious Saudi national with familial links to al-Qaeda suddenly dropped shortly after the Saudi ambassador held an unscheduled meeting with Barack Obama? Why did Michelle Obama subsequently visit that mysterious Saudi national in the hospital?
If you are looking for answers to these questions, I am afraid that I don’t have them at this point. But what alarms me is that the mainstream media seems to be afraid to ask any of the hard questions that they should be asking. They just seem to swallow whatever the authorities tell them hook, line and sinker without following up on any of the things in this case that simply do not seem to make sense.
So what kinds of questions should they be asking? The following are 17 unanswered questions about the Boston Marathon bombing that the media appears to be afraid to ask…
#1 Why were runners being told that a bomb squad drill was taking place during the Boston Marathon? The following is from an article by Natural News…
Alastair Stevenson is a veteran marathon runner who has competed in dozens of marathons around the world, including the London Marathon. He’s very familiar with the security typically found at marathons, and he immediately noticed something odd about the Boston marathon security.
“They kept making announcements on the loud speaker that it was just a drill and there was nothing to worry about. It seemed like there was some sort of threat, but they kept telling us it was just a drill,” he was quoted as saying by Local15TV.com.
In the interview, you’ll hear Stevenson say:
“At the start at the event, at the Athlete’s Village, there were people on the roof looking down onto the Village at the start. There were dogs with their handlers going around sniffing for explosives, and we were told on a loud announcement that we shouldn’t be concerned and that it was just a drill. And maybe it was just a drill, but I’ve never seen anything like that — not at any marathon that I’ve ever been to. You know, that just concerned me that that’s the only race that I’ve seen in my life where they had dogs sniffing for explosions, and that’s the only place where there had been explosions.”
#2 Why did authorities deny that a bomb squad drill was being held?
#3 According to The Mirror, the FBI is reportedly “hunting” a 12-strong terrorist “sleeper cell” that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were allegedly a part of…
A source close to the investigation said: “We have no doubt the brothers were not acting alone. The devices used to detonate the two bombs were highly sophisticated and not the kind of thing people learn from Google.
“They were too advanced. Someone gave the brothers the skills and it is now our job to find out just who they were. Agents think the sleeper cell has up to a dozen members and has been waiting several years for their day to come.”
If that is the case, why are authorities in Boston adamantly insisting that the two brothers were acting alone?
#4 CBS News is reporting that the FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev back in 2011. The mother of the two Tsarnaev brothers insists that the FBI had been in contact with them for up to five years. At first, the FBI denied any previous contact with the two suspects. Will we ever learn the true scope of the previous relationship between the FBI and the Tsarnaev brothers?
#5 Debka is reporting that the Tsarnaev brothers were “double agents” which had been “hired by US and Saudi intelligence to penetrate the Wahhabi jihadist networks which, helped by Saudi financial institutions, had spread across the restive Russian Caucasian.” Could this possibly be true? If so, will the American people be told the truth about these links?
#6 According to their uncle, there were “mentors” that “radicalized” the Tsarnaev brothers. So precisely who were those “mentors”?
#7 What happened during Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s trip to Dagestan and Chechnya last year?
#8 Were the Tsarnaev brothers in contact with a rebel leader named Doku Umarov who is known as “Russia’s Bin Laden”?
#9 Did Tamerlan Tsarnaev post a video on YouTube last summer that expresses a belief that the 12th Imam, Mahdi, will soon come and that an Islamic army with black flags with arise out of a province in Iran known as Khorasan?
#10 Why aren’t we being told that the “pressure cooker bombs” used in the Boston Marathon attacks are very similar to the kind of pressure cooker bombs that are commonly used in the Middle East?…
The Daily Beast has confirmed with U.S. counter-terrorism officials that the bombs placed Monday at the marathon were made from pressure cookers, a crude kind of explosive favored by insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan. A recipe for a bomb that uses the pressure cooker was part of the debut issue of Inspire, the English-language online magazine of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
#11 Initially we were told that Saudi national Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi was a “person of interest” in the case. But now he is scheduled to leave the country with the full blessing of the U.S. government. Why is there such a rush to get him out of the United States?
#12 Why aren’t we being told that Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi was photographed with two other Saudis in the vicinity of the Boston marathon bombings?
#13 Why aren’t we being told of the shocking familial links that Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi has to known members of al-Qaeda? The following is from research complied by Walid Shoebat…
Many from Al-Harbi’s clan are steeped in terrorism and are members of Al-Qaeda. Out of a list of 85 terrorists listed by the Saudi government shows several of Al-Harbi clan to have been active fighters in Al-Qaeda:
#15 Badr Saud Uwaid Al-Awufi Al-Harbi
#73 Muhammad Atiq Uwaid Al-Awufi Al-Harbi
#26 Khalid Salim Uwaid Al-Lahibi Al-Harbi
#29 Raed Abdullah Salem Al-Thahiri Al-Harbi
#43 Abdullah Abdul Rahman Muhammad Al-Harbi (leader)
#60 Fayez Ghuneim Humeid Al-Hijri Al-Harbi
Source: http://aalhameed1.net/vb/showthread.php?t=1565Then you have Al-Harbi clan members in Gitmo:
Salim Salman Awadallah Al-Sai’di Al-Harbi
Majid Abdullah Hussein Al-Harbi
Muhammad Abdullah Saqr Al-Alawi Al-Harbi
Ghanem Abdul Rahman Ghanem Al-Harbi
Muhammad Atiq Uwaid Al-Awfi Al-Harbi
Source: http://www.muslm.net/vb/showthread.php?169019-أسماء-(90)-سعودياً-لا-زالوا-محتجزين-في-جوانتاناموThere are specific Saudi clans that are rife with members of Al-Qaeda, which makes it quite alarming as to why nearly a hundred thousand student visas are issued to these. Americans are clueless as to clan ties when it comes to terrorism.
#14 Why did U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have a private meeting with a Saudi foreign minister shortly after Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi was identified as a potential suspect?
#15 Why did Barack Obama hold an unscheduled meeting with the ambassador from Saudi Arabia shortly after Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi was identified as a potential suspect?
#16 Why did Michelle Obama visit Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi in the hospital?
#17 Why did numerous mainstream media outlets openly suggest that “right-wing extremists” were behind the bombings in the immediate aftermath of the attack?
Are there any other unanswered questions that you would add to this list? Please feel free to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below…
Intellihub.com
17 Unanswered Questions About The Boston Marathon Bombing The Media Is Afraid To Ask
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Disturbing Facts About State Lotteries: They Prey on the Poor and Trash the Economy, and Political Leaders Don"t Care (Hard Times USA)
The following article is part of AlterNet"s series on poverty, Hard Times USA.
State lotteries amount to a hidden tax on the poor. They eat up about 9 percent of take-home incomes from households making less than $ 13,000 a year. They siphon $ 50 billion a year away from local businesses—besides stores where they’re sold. And they are encouraged by state-sponsored ads suggesting everyone can win, win, win!
State lotteries, which once were illegal, now exist in most states. What many people don’t know about lotteries is that they prey on those who can least afford it; most people never win anything big; and 11 states raise more money from lotteries than from corporate taxes. Beyond the moral, mental health or religious debates over gambling, lotteries are another example of how society preys on the poor and the working-class.
Let’s look at why state lotteries do far more harm than good—especially at the bottom of the economic ladder.
1. Legalized gambling is almost everywhere.Legalized gambling is available in every state except for Utah and Hawaii. This includes state lotteries, which are in 42 states, Puerto Rico and Washington DC. Lotteries were illegal for most of the 20th century, but that changed in 1964 when New Hampshire—a state without an income tax—reinstituted a state lottery. The first lotteries predate the American Revolution, but those mostly privately run efforts were so corrupt they were completely prohibited by every state in 1894.
2. They suck billions out of the economy.In 2009, $ 50.4 billon was spent on state lottery tickets and video kiosks. The government pocketed $ 17.9 billion of this total in 2010, which breaks down to 30 percent in profits and 8 percent in administrative costs, including advertising. The rest went to prizes and commissions to stores selling the tickets. Many corner stores could not remain open without the income from lottery sales.
3. They are a tax from anti-tax politicans. Tax-averse Democrats and Republicans have increasingly been relying on state lotteries to subsidize basic public programs like schools instead of raising taxes for that purpose. In 11 states—Delaware, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Oregon, South Dakota, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Washington—the lottery raised more per person than corporate income taxes. “The long-term shift in tax burdens from capital and corporations to individuals and their activities is perhaps best illustrated by the rise of state lotteries,” wrote tax expert David Cay Johnston, calling lotteries “the most heavily taxed consumer product in America.”
4. They hit the poorest the hardest. “Simply put, lotteries take the most from those who can least afford it,” wrote economist Richard Wolff. “Instead of taking those most able to pay (the principle of federal income tax in the U.S.), state leaders use lotteries to disguise a regressive tax that falls on the middle and even more on the poor.” A 2010 study found that households with take-home incomes of less than $ 13,000 spent on average $ 645 a year on lottery tickets, which is about 9 percent of their income. The reason people play lotteries varies, but it mixes hopes and dreams with desperation: poorer people see it as a slim chance to radically improve their standard of living.
5. Communities of color, less-educated spend the most. Numerous academic studies have found that non-whites spend much more on lotteries than whites, with one study putting the figure at $ 998 for African Americans and $ 210 for whites. Household with incomes under $ 25,000 spent an average of about $ 600 a year, while $ 100,000-plus earners spent about $ 300 year. People who never graduated from college spent the most, about $ 700 a year, while graduates spent under $ 200.
6. They redistribute money up the economic ladder. Most people buy tickets and win little or nothing. This is taking more money from the poor, working and lower middle-classes than from those most able to pay taxes. These billions also are diverted away from local businesses—with the exception of the stores where tickets are sold. “This is exacty the opposite of the kind of economic stimulus a depressed economy needs,” wrote economist Wolff.
7. They give the wrong message about solving poverty. Lotteries reinforce libertarian political messages, suggesting that everyone needs to take individual action in response to socirty’s inequities, even though the government has helped well-connected individuals, businesses and industries become rich for decades. This easy money for states diverts political debate away from society-wide analyses and solutions to what prevents people from moving up the economic ladder. Instead, it pushes individuals in marginal circumstances toward gambling as their hope for gain.
8. They amount to one of the highest investment tax rates. Another way to look at the social policy hypocrisy surrounding state lotteries is to skip the moral dimension—the religious objections to gambling, the mental health costs of gambling addition, the hidden state income tax—and just compare the tax rates on this form of investment with tax rates on other types of inventments, such as stocks. State lotteries impose a 38 percent tax rate on buying tickets, according to Johnston. No taxes are paid when a person buys a stock or bond, a more preferred investment vehicle for wealthier households. Moreover, the current federal tax rate for earnings from short-term investments—held less than a year—ranges from 10 to 35 percent.
9. Hypocritical when compared to state drug laws. One of the rationales for criminalizing drugs is that abuse leads to addiction, which harms individuals, families and society at large. But state-sponsored gambling also feeds addictive behavior—people who are addicted to gaming, including lotteries. “I work in a convenience store and the way some people are addicted to the lottery is downright sickening,” wrote toddpugz, responding to a DailyFinance.com report on the topic. “I see people every day who scrape together their last few pennies to play the lottery. Even worse are the ones who claim the lottery is ‘fixed’ but continue to play it on a daily basis. And let’s not forget those who actually ‘study’ past numbers thinking it will give them some insight into the next day’s numbers.”
10. Big winners often see their lives unravel. One of the surprises that comes with winning the lottery—for the rare few who win big—is how a fast infusion of money can wreck families, disrupt friendships and even invite violent crime, con-men, and targeting by jealous family members. Some winners spend all their winnings in no time. Others just use it to fuel more gambling binges.
Revenue-strapped state legislatures may see state lotteries as an easy way to bring in the hundreds of millions that they need for basic government services—schools, police, roads and social safety nets. But state lotteries have become an easy way to take from the least wealthy Americans and avoid the harder task of making everyone pay their fair share. State lotteries may be as old as America, but so is the country’s history of economic exploitation.
Fri, 04/05/2013 – 16:36
Disturbing Facts About State Lotteries: They Prey on the Poor and Trash the Economy, and Political Leaders Don"t Care (Hard Times USA)
Saturday, April 6, 2013
OBAMA TRIES TO WOO GOP WITH BUDGET, Coburn: Is gun filibuster about Rand Paul?, The gay marriage backer"s playbook, A mixed homecoming for Portman, USA Today front: Airport cutbacks on the radar
(swong@politico.com or @scottwongDC)
OBAMA BUDGET CALLS FOR CUTS TO ENTITLEMENTS, FEWER TAX HIKES – Zachary Goldfarb reports this morning for the Washington Post: “President Obama will release a budget next week that proposes significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security and fewer tax hikes than in the past, a conciliatory approach that he hopes will convince Republicans to sign onto a grand bargain that would curb government borrowing and replace deep spending cuts that took effect March 1. When he unveils the budget on Wednesday, Obama will break with the tradition of providing a sweeping vision of his ideal spending priorities, untethered from political realities. Instead, the document will incorporate the compromise offer Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last December in the discussions over the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ – which included $ 1.8 trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases. …
– “While Republicans are certain to be skeptical of Obama’s call for more taxes, the president also is likely to face immediate heat over his budget proposal from some Democrats and liberal supporters. Obama proposes, for instance, to change the cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in a way that will reduce benefits for most beneficiaries, a key Republican request that he had earlier embraced only as part of a compromise. Many Democrats say they are opposed to any Social Security cuts and are likely to be furious that such cuts are now being proposed as official administration policy.” http://wapo.st/XhtokK
88,000 JOBS ADDED IN MARCH – Seung Min Kim reports for POLITICO: “The economy added 88,000 jobs in March while unemployment dropped to 7.6 percent, the Labor Department reported Friday. The number was far below the expectations of analysts who predicted the economy added about 190,000 jobs last month. Friday’s jobs report is the first to reflect the post-sequester world. With a divided Washington unable to reach a deal, a series of automatic budget cuts to nearly all government programs kicked in March 1, and economists have warned that the sequester could take a hammer to the still-recovering economy. In particular, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected the sequester could cost the economy 750,000 jobs this year and scale back economic growth by 0.6 percent.” http://politi.co/16Bl5Do
COBURN: IS GUN FILIBUSTER ABOUT 2ND AMENDMENT ‘OR IS THAT ABOUT RAND PAUL?’ – Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a conservative and gun-rights advocate, has come under enormous pressure during recess to back away from any bipartisan talks about gun-control measures, The Wall Street Journal’s Janet Hook and Kristina Peterson: “After Mr. Coburn was asked multiple times an identically worded question about whether he would join Mr. Paul’s effort to block gun legislation as he traveled around Oklahoma in recent days, Mr. Coburn bristled at the idea that Mr. Paul would threaten to filibuster a bill before its contents were made final. ‘Is that about filibustering a bill to protect the Second Amendment, or is that about Rand Paul?’ Mr. Coburn said at a town-hall meeting at the Oklahoma Sports Museum in Guthrie, Okla., on Wednesday. ‘I’ve done more filibusters than Rand Paul is old,’ Mr. Coburn said, but he added that he doesn’t announce such moves before he understands the bill. http://on.wsj.com/10EaIcH
COMING MONDAY: POLITICO Pro will unveil Pro Report, an end of the day newsletter designed just for Pros. This is something many of you have been asking for: The most essential policy news that broke since the morning cycle – all in one place. The roundup will also offer a sneak peek into the next day’s biggest storylines. Pro Report will be sent to all Pro readers by 6 p.m. every weekday and published later that evening on POLITICO’s home page. An excerpt of the newsletter will also appear in the next morning’s print edition.
THE GAY-MARRIAGE BACKER’S PLAYBOOK – Lois Romano and Katie Glueck write for the hometown paper: “There’s clearly a new playbook for senators just now coming out for gay marriage: quietly post something on Facebook, slip it into your Tumblr feed or release a statement to friendly media outlets. What most lawmakers are not doing is talking for the cameras. In the past month, 11 senators have endorsed gay marriage, providing a nearly daily storyline of increased support for marriage equality. Lawmakers say they’ve ‘prayed,’ ‘evolved,’ discovered gay children to stand behind or had epiphanies following an illness. ‘It’s sort of been like flower-of-the-month club,’ said LGBT activist David Mixner.
– “Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is the latest, sending a statement Thursday to the Tampa Bay Times. ‘Simply put, if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn’t, and I won’t,’ Nelson said. But for all the hoopla over their announcements, combined with media coverage of last month’s Supreme Court arguments on the issue, these moments are scripted to be public — but not too public. There’s little footage available for opponents to use in the next campaign or live interviews with reporters who might ask difficult or inconvenient questions. The fact that so many of these announcements are coming from lawmakers who are retiring or just reelected helps make it even safer for them to take a stand. … Sticking with Facebook posts or issuing a simple statement can also help avoid freelancing on live television and going beyond the language they previously wrote or approved.” http://politi.co/10CADS1
NELSON BECAME THE 51ST SENATOR TO BACK GAY MARRIAGE, notes Roll Call’s Emily Pierce. There are now just six Senate Democrats who oppose it: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. http://bit.ly/10EdYEQ
A MIXED HOMECOMING FOR PORTMAN – The New York Times’ Trip Gabriel reports from Cincinnati: “No one heckled Senator Rob Portman during his first appearance before thousands of Ohioans since becoming the most prominent elected Republican in the country to endorse same-sex marriage. ‘Wouldn’t you say,’ he said, turning to his wife, Jane, after marching in an opening day parade for the Cincinnati Reds on Monday, ‘that most of the comments were thank yous and thumbs up and ‘You did the right thing’?’ True, but for some of the Ohioans who acknowledged Mr. Portman, doubts flickered below the surface. ‘Senator!’ said one spectator, Pete Kidnocker, reaching out to shake Mr. Portman’s hand. But after Mr. Portman passed, Mr. Kidnocker said he would vote for an alternative in a Republican primary and accused the senator of ‘betraying his principles.’ ‘If you’re a Christian and you believe in those principles, whether your son or daughter is a homosexual, you can’t change your principles,’ he said.
– “Mr. Portman’s reversal of his long-held opposition to same-sex marriage — he said it was spurred by a son’s disclosure that he is gay — has intensified and quickened debate over the issue here in his home state. Though his shift has been welcomed by gay rights advocates as an example of how a family’s love can change minds, social conservatives have denounced Mr. Portman and vowed to block his re-election. … One impact of Mr. Portman’s change of heart has been to fuel a movement seeking the repeal of a constitutional amendment in Ohio that bans same-sex marriage, according to the group leading the effort, FreedomOhio. Requests to download petitions from the group’s Web site more than doubled overnight, to 50 a day, after Mr. Portman’s announcement, said Ian James, a co-founder of FreedomOhio. ‘His endorsement of freedom to marry, I would submit, has done more than any politician other than Barack Obama,’ Mr. James said.” http://nyti.ms/Xtixql
New York Times, A1, “Schumer’s new brief: Turning foes into friends,” By Jeremy W. Peters: “For much of the last decade, Senator Charles E. Schumer’s job was to bury Republicans, as one of his party’s most ruthless strategists and tireless fund-raisers. It was a job he did so effectively that he was asked to do it twice. But to watch Mr. Schumer operate these days, it would seem he has managed to get some Republicans to forget. There are now regular early-morning chats on immigration reform with Marco Rubio in the Senate gym. There was the excursion last week to the Mexican border with John McCain, who after learning that their visit would fall during Passover offered, ‘I’ll bring the latkes.’ Just this week, Mr. Schumer spent a good deal of time on the phone with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the Senate’s most unyielding conservatives, trying to keep the door open to a deal that would expand background checks for all gun sales.
– “No one in the Senate right now has a legislative portfolio thicker than Mr. Schumer’s, and no one’s political fortunes are as closely linked to the outcome of the major public policy fights now consuming Congress. He is not only a whisperer to Republicans but also an envoy to the White House and a trusted confidant to the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who having handpicked Mr. Schumer to keep Republicans in the minority is now counting on him as his most important bipartisan bridge builder. … If Congress passes comprehensive legislation on either of these issues, few lawmakers will be able to claim more credit than Mr. Schumer. He would add to his résumé a significant achievement that could make it easier to attain what colleagues believe is his ultimate goal after Mr. Reid steps aside: the majority leader’s post. But if these efforts fail, few will shoulder more of the blame.” http://nyti.ms/YzYaqe Schumer Slideshow: http://nyti.ms/ZDsR9i
POLITICO FLASHBACK: “Schumer plays role of deal maker,” Feb. 25: http://politi.co/WnQwKY
GOOD FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 5, 2013, and welcome to The Huddle, your play-by-play preview of the day’s congressional news. Send tips, suggestions, comments, complaints and corrections to swong@politico.com. If you don’t already, please follow me on Twitter @scottwongDC.
My new followers include @DreenaWhitfield and @jehred00.
TODAY IN CONGRESS – The House and Senate are in recess this week.
AIRPORT CUTBACKS ON THE RADAR – In two front-page stories on the sequester cuts, USA Today warns about longer lines for international travelers and pilots turning to ‘see-and-avoid’ as airport towers around the country go dark: “Starting Sunday, tens of thousands of pilots flying each day will have to rely increasingly on ‘see-and-avoid’ as the Federal Aviation Administration begins to close nearly a third of its air-traffic control towers to cut costs,” writes Thomas Frank. “The 149 affected airports — small facilities in 38 states catering to private and commuter flights — will remain open but without controllers to keep airplanes a safe distance apart and to warn pilots about runway hazards they may not see. The tower closures are among thousands of steps federal officials are taking to cut $ 85 billion in spending this year as a 2011 law requires. But unlike furloughs, removing 871 controllers who guide 8 million planes a year around airports raises fears that pilots, passengers and bystanders will be killed. ‘You’re putting people’s lives at risk,’ said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., who is trying to restore funding for the control towers, including five in his state. ‘It’s like taking down the stop signs in your town.’ …
– “U.S. airplane collisions have killed an average of 30 people a year since 1982 — a total of 910 deaths, according to a USA TODAY review of federal records. Another 167 people have been seriously injured, and 729 airplanes have been destroyed or substantially damaged in the collisions, the records show.” Check out the interactive map of where these tower closures are located: http://usat.ly/11w5IdV PDF of front page: http://bit.ly/14Jbr36
– And international travelers are facing longer waits at customs checkpoints, Bart Jansen reports: “Travelers taking off from the nation’s biggest airports aren’t facing longer security lines from federal spending cuts yet, but many of those arriving from overseas are. A USA TODAY survey of airport officials and travelers at Atlanta, Chicago’s O’Hare, Los Angeles, Miami, New York’s JFK and Washington Dulles this week finds that lines at Transportation Security Administration checkpoints aren’t noticeably longer for most departing passengers a month after federal spending cuts were imposed. However, customs lines for many people arriving on international flights are growing — prompting Los Angeles airport officials to hold passengers on planes for up to an hour at busy times before letting them into terminals.” http://usat.ly/Y2gN25
CONSERVATIVE GROUPS BACK IMMIGRATION REFORM – Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman report for POLITICO: “High-profile conservative groups are taking on an unexpected cause: passing immigration reform. A diverse mix of the Washington consultant class is cutting TV ads, revving up the grassroots and advising lawmakers on messaging and strategy in hopes of getting a bill across the finish line this year. The surprising effort is a new element to the immigration debate — and one that could influence Republican lawmakers reluctant to support the cause. The next few weeks will be a critical phase for the immigration fight, as lawmakers return to Washington from a two-week recess to face mounting pressure from advocates on both sides.
–“‘We’re doing it to make sure…that Republican congressman and senators feel comfortable,” said American for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist in an interview. “They look out and hear the guys on talk radio, and they go ‘Oh my goodness, everybody out there thinks this. That’s not necessarily where I was, but I guess if everybody thinks that way, I’ll either be quiet or go along, or I’ll listen to them so they can convince me.’ They’re now hearing the other side of the issue.’ Conservatives say the strongest case in favor of immigration reform is an economic one, not values-based, arguing that an expanded pool of legal workers will boost the economy — the message that tests best in focus groups.” http://politi.co/16vyYky
– One of the next fights for the Gang of Eight will be what to name the immigration bill, The Hill’s Molly Hooper writes: http://bit.ly/Xtonbd
– Mark Zuckerberg’s new immigration group is stumbling out of the gates, POLITICO’s Reid Epstein reports: http://politi.co/YzkMXF
A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP has been confusing to Americans, writes NYT’s Julia Preston: “In six nationwide nonpartisan polls released since January, at least 70 percent of Americans said they supported options allowing those immigrants to remain in the country with some form of legal status. Generally only about one-quarter of those polled said the immigrants should not be allowed to stay. But results vary widely when Americans are asked whether legal status should include the possibility of citizenship. In a large national poll released on March 21 by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution, 63 percent of Americans said immigrants here illegally should be allowed to become citizens if they met certain requirements. In a poll published a week later by the Pew Research Center, which asked about citizenship in a slightly different way, only 43 percent said they would give citizenship to the immigrants, while 24 percent said the immigrants should be allowed to stay as permanent residents but not citizens. The 20-point gap points to a difficulty facing lawmakers as they sell their proposals to revamp the immigration system: its procedures are unfamiliar and puzzling to many Americans.” http://nyti.ms/13X4WdG
SPRING TRAINING OVER FOR COLBERT BUSCH – Alex Isenstadt reports for POLITICO: “For months, rookie South Carolina congressional candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch has had the luxury of kicking back and watching Republicans fight among themselves. With a big hand from her famous brother, comedian Stephen Colbert, she’s drawn money and publicity that other first-time office seekers could only dream of. Spring training is over now. With former Gov. Mark Sanford’s GOP primary battle behind him, Republicans say they’re laying the groundwork for a scorched-earth general election, branding Colbert Busch as a down-the-line liberal who’s out of step with the 1st District’s conservative electorate. She will have to show she can go toe-to-toe with a seasoned, though obviously flawed opponent who was once regarded as potential presidential material. Sanford’s general election strategy is straightforward: divert attention from his own personal baggage, and make the race about Colbert Busch’s support for the policies of the national Democratic Party — in a district where those policies are not popular.” http://politi.co/16vzaAj
THURSDAY’S TRIVIA WINNER – We have a tie: Both James McCaghren and Tom Flanagin correctly answered just seconds apart that Thomas Hart Benton, who would go on to become a senator from Missouri, shot Andrew Jackson, the future president, in a street brawl in 1813.
TODAY’S TRIVIA – Jerry Skurnik has today’s question: Who is the only U.S. Senator to graduate from a branch of City University of New York? First to correctly answer gets a mention in the next day’s Huddle. Email me at swong@politico.com.
GET HUDDLE emailed to your Blackberry, iPhone or other mobile device each morning. Just enter your email address where it says “Sign Up.” http://www.politico.com/huddle/
POLITICO – Top 10 – The Huddle
OBAMA TRIES TO WOO GOP WITH BUDGET, Coburn: Is gun filibuster about Rand Paul?, The gay marriage backer"s playbook, A mixed homecoming for Portman, USA Today front: Airport cutbacks on the radar