Chris Barry, who attended the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth with Tsarnaev, described him as normal teenager who loved to smoke pot and cigarettes every day.
“He was a pot head, a normal pot head,” said Barry in an interview with Politico. “I couldn’t even imagine him being mad at someone let alone hurting someone.”
Tsarnaev, a Muslim, did not come across as strongly religious, said Barry.
“He never brought it up. It seemed like he could care less,” he said.
Tsarneav’s Twitter account provided clues about the suspected bomber’s political views. On November 6th, he retweeted several statements suggesting a preference for President Obama over Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
He retweeted a statement from President Obama’s Organizing for Action account that said: “This happened because of you. Thank you,” in reference to Obama’s victory.
He also retweeted a statement and a picture making fun of Romney. The Tweet said: “WTF Romney is winning ??” and linked to this image.
Not all left-wing people are crazy, but all crazy people are left-wing.
The secular leftist media was really hoping that those responsible for the Boston marathon bombing would be their political opponents. “This time, Republicans for sure!” they said. “If a person is for lower taxes, less government spending, the right to life, and natural marriage, then they are hateful racist violent bigoted crazies!”
The liberal online magazine Salon published an opinion piece Tuesday evening by columnist David Sirota entitled, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.”
Sirota argued that if the perpetrator of Monday’s bombing attack, which left at least three people dead, is identified as a Muslim, then conservative Republicans will use the tragedy to block Obama administration policy goals like immigration reform.
[…]Sirota is not the only liberal media commentator to attempt to politicize Monday’s tragedy. CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer speculated on a link between Patriots Day and the motive behind the bombings, while NBC News reporter Luke Russert speculated that the 1993 Waco siege, which occurred on Patriots Day, might have inspired a right-wing terrorist in Boston.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof used the tragedy to attack Republican politicians, tweeting Monday, “Explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment.” Kristof later apologized for the tweet.
Sirota has employed attention-grabbing, race-baiting rhetoric in the past.
Sirota said in December, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, that a new profiling system should be established to monitor mentally-ill individuals, but that Republicans would not support that effort because it would mean profiling white men.
Now you might think that’s racism and bigotry, but it’s not, because the mainstream media tells me that racism can never be committed by leftists.
And now let’s see what reality has to say about the speculations and wishing of the radical lefttists in the mainstream media.
Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev posted links to Islamic websites and others calling for Chechen independence on what appears to be his page on a Russian language social networking site.
Abusive comments in Russian and English were flooding onto Tsarnaev’s page on VK, a Russian-language social media site, on Friday after he was identified as a suspect in the bombing of the Boston marathon.
[…]On the site, the younger Tsarnaev identifies himself as a 2011 graduate of Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, a public school in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[…]His “World view” is listed as “Islam” and his “Personal priority” is “career and money”.
He has posted links to videos of fighters in the Syrian civil war and to Islamic web pages with titles like “Salamworld, my religion is Islam” and “There is no God but Allah, let that ring out in our hearts”.
He also has links to pages calling for independence for Chechnya, a region of Russia that lost its bid for secession after two wars in the 1990s.
It seems to me that the liberal media is trying to have it both ways. They want to agree with Kermit Gosnell on abortion, they want to agree with Floyd Lee Corkins III on gay marriage, they want to agree with Hugo Chavez on economics, and they want to sympathize with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on foreign policy. Then they want to believe that pro-family, pro-life, pro-child, free market capitalists are all radical terrorists. Sorry mainstream media, but you are the nutters. You are the crazies. You are the radicals.
See the related posts below for more leftist violence. The reality, which the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know, is that it is far more likely that violence is caused by the radical left. The radical right is too busy getting married, making babies, starting businesses, waking up to go to work, paying our taxes, helping our neighbors and listening to sermons in church. The radical right doesn’t have time for violence, we’re trying to live well and we are good at it.
Left-leaning commentators hit President Barack Obama hard on TV and the Internet after the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night, saying GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney handily defeated his more experienced opponent.
MSNBC hosts were “stunned” by Obama’s performance, suggesting the president was rusty for not having debated in four years.
“I don’t think he explained himself very well on the economy. I think he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight,” Ed Schultz said.
“Where was Obama tonight?” Chris Matthews asked.
Matthews said Romney addressed Obama “like the prey. He did it just right. I’m coming at an incumbent. I’ve got to beat him. You gotta beat the champ, and I’m gonna beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy moderator, whatever he thinks he is, because I’m going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning.”
“It does remind you that the last debate Mitt Romney had was seven months ago and the last debate that Barack Obama had was four years ago,” said Maddow.
The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan called Obama “tired,” “bored” and wrote that he might have even lost the election.
“He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight,” Sullivan wrote, later adding, “Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn’t there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.”
Sullivan, an Obama supporter, was even more vicious on Twitter, calling Obama’s performance “terrible” and “political malpractice.”
“This is a rolling calamity for Obama. He’s boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney!” he wrote. “He’s throwing the debate away.”
Another Obama supporter, liberal comedian Bill Maher, went on a similar Twitter rant, firing off such comments as, “Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney.”
According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious.
“No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
While nearly half of debate watchers said the showdown didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate, 35% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney while only 18% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect the president.
More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.
[…]The sample of debate-watchers in the poll was 37% Democratic and 33% Republican.
[…]Debate watchers thought Romney was more aggressive. Fifty-three percent said Romney spent more time attacking his opponent. Only three in ten thought Obama spent more time taking it to Romney. By a 58%-37% margin, debate watchers thought Romney appeared to be the stronger leader.
The problem with Obama is that he had four years to run the economy, and he ran it into the ground. You can’t defend failure like that by shifting blame and pointing fingers. He failed because his ideas are wrong. We need new ideas – a different approach. But that doesn’t explain why Obama performed so poorly. Obama performed poorly because he has been totally isolated from any disagreement or critical evaluation for the last 4 years. In his mind, it’s not just the private sector that’s fine. The unemployment rate is fine, the national debt is fine, the budget deficit is fine, the terrorist attack in Libya is fine, socialized health care is fine, poor education outcomes is fine, taxpayer-funded abortion is fine, Iran having nuclear weapons is fine, and gay marriage is fine. He just has complete and utter contempt for anyone who disagrees with him – he has been indoctrinated to think that anyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong, but evil. And maybe even that all disagreement with him is motivated by racism. He came across as a whiny, petulant child, because of his ideological rigidity and lack of humility.
The mask came off Wednesday night, and it was all Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers underneath. The media and the teleprompter could not protect him from his real self.
On Tuesday, leftist lackey Chris Matthews went on a jaundiced tirade against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s speech for the Iowans for Tax Relief. Specifically, he derided Rep. Bachmann’s citation of John Quincy Adams as one of this country’s forebearers who worked tirelessly for abolition.
First, of all, let’s look at this post on Big Government which explains what John Adams did.
As a Founder and the second President, it’s true that John Adams put the Republic above what was then an impossible issue to resolve. It is inaccurate to suggest he was a proponent of slavery with no role in its ultimately being eliminated in the U.S. No, he did not sacrifice the forming of a Republic for it, which is precisely what a strong position against it would have meant. But he did make his sentiments known (for more), taking pride in never having employed a slave. He is said to have found it “repugnant” and he argued against the Southern position that blacks not be included in population figures during the Continental Congress.
Now back to Letitia and John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams.
John Quincy Adams: according to biographies of Adams’ life, he repeatedly attempted to introduce bills by abolitionist groups into Congress calling for the abolition of slavery. Such was the opposition to his ongoing attempts, Southern Democrats passed a number of gag rules in order to prevent Adams from introducing any more abolitionist bills.
“Throughout he was conspicuous as an opponent of the extension of slavery, though he was never technically an abolitionist, and in particular he was the champion in the House of Representatives of the right of petition at a time when, through the influence of the Southern members, this right was, in practice, denied by that body. His prolonged fight for the repeal of the so-called “Gag Laws” is one of the most dramatic contests in the history of the U.S. Congress. The agitation for the abolition of slavery, which really began in earnest with the establishment of the Liberator by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831, soon led to the sending of innumerable petitions to congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, over which the Federal government had jurisdiction, and for other action by congress with respect to that institution. These petitions were generally sent to Adams for presentation. They aroused the anger of the pro-slavery members of congress, who, in 1836, brought about the passage of the first “Gag Rule”, the Pinckney Resolution, presented by Henry L. Pinckney, of South Carolina. It provided that all petitions relating to slavery should be laid on the table without being referred to committee or printed; and, in substance, this resolution was re-adopted at the beginning of each of the immediately succeeding sessions of congress, the Patton Resolution being adopted in 1837, the Atherton Resolution, or “Atherton Gag”, in 1838, and the Twenty-first Rule in 1840 and subsequently until repealed. Adams contended that these “Gag Rules” were a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and refused to be silenced on the question, fighting for repeal with indomitable courage, in spite of the bitter denunciation of his opponents. Each year the number of anti-slavery petitions received and presented by him increased; perhaps the climax was in 1837, when Adams presented a petition from twenty-two slaves, and, when threatened by his opponents with censure, defended himself with remarkable keenness and ability. At each session, also, the majority against him decreased until in 1844 his motion to repeal the Twenty-first Rule was carried by a vote of 108 to 80 and his battle was won.” (Source: NDDB biographies, http://www.nndb.com/people/370/000026292/)
Incidentally (or not incidentally, if you believe in Divine Providence as I do), in the last year of Adams’ life, he mentored a young Congressman to work toward abolition. This Congressman later went on to become the 16th President of the United States. Oh, what was his name? Abraham Lincoln.
She then links to this Youtube video showing the details of the connection between John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
Letitia is a friend of mine, so I recommend that everyone read the rest of her post. Her blog is called “Talitha, Koum”. There’s a Biblical meaning to that phrase.
I’m going to compare Chris Matthews to Michele Bachmann to see which one has more education, more experience and higher moral standards.
Let’s review Matthews’ academic history. He has a bachelor degree in something, no site will say what, from the College of the Holy Cross. When people don’t say what the degree is in, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is something totally useless like drama or music or education or women’s studies. And he did one year of graduate work in economics before DROPPING OUT. He then spent some time working as a police offer on Capitol Hill.
In contrast, Michele Bachmann has a B.A. and a J.D. and an LL.M in tax law from the College of William and Mary, a prestigious law school. That means she has completed her bachelor degree, doctorate in laws, and a post-doctoral degree in tax law. She worked as a federal tax lawyer before starting a successful career in politics.
When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police. Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary. Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration, and later worked for six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.
Michele Bachmann meanwhile has run for office at the state and federal level and won numerous times, in a blue state, no less. In all, she has spent six years as a state senator, and 4 years as a congresswoman, and was just elected again. She has not ruled out a run for the Presidency in 2012.
[…]the conservatives will find the evils of sodomy, the evils of, uh, uh, infidelity, the evils of sex of any form. It seems like the conservatives don’t like sex and they’re very focused on that and the liberals are focused on social injustice.
So he rejects Biblical morality on sex. And why should we be surprised? He is a Democrat -the party of John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, Eliot Spitzer, etc. For Democrats, affairs are OK – they never resign because they think that there should be no rules around sex. My opinion is that he is an atheist like most Democrats, although he is not going to come out and say that.
Note what being pro-abortion really means. Being pro-abortion means that one group (adults) can choose to kill another group (the unborn) simply because it makes them happier to do so. To make this sound more palatable, they marginalize an entire group of human beings to being non-human trash. As Frank Turek recently noted, this is EXACTLY what slave-owners did. Slave-owners marginalized an entire class of human beings to trash because it made them happier. If Matthews had been alive during the time of slavery, he would have been a slave-owner. He would have called abolitionists “terrorists”, just like he calls pro-lifers “terrorists”.
In contrast, Michele Bachmann is an outspoken evangelical Christian. Her views are consistent with the Bible across the board.
On a recent installment of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews could not contain his mocking laughter as he announced the breaking news that Michele Bachmann had been appointed to the House Intelligence Committee. Matthews does not make any case to support the idea that Bachmann lacks the competence to be on the intelligence committee; to him it is simply a forgone conclusion based on her gender and political leanings. Matthews has made trivializing remarks about Christine O’Donnell as well. During O’Donnell’s campaign, Matthews dismissed her as a “cute” girl that is “just having fun.” Somehow, conservative women are inherently bimbos.
However, the most glaring examples of the bimbo narrative are focused upon Sarah Palin. Matthews, along with many in the mainstream media, have repeatedly accused her of lacking intelligence. From the outset of her emergence upon the national stage Matthews has questioned her intelligence: calling her an empty “vessel” that lacks “independent thinking” which will be filled up with conservative rhetoric. When Palin’s first book deal was announced, Matthews was quick to dismiss: “If she can read, if she can write, she’ll make money.”
Last Friday, preemptively criticizing an upcoming appearance on Hannity, Matthews compared Palin’s appearance to an infomercial that would be “selling makeup foundations.” Palin was to discuss the recent blood libel comment she made in response to accusations that she incited the Arizona shootings.
On “Hardball” Thursday, Chris Matthews responded to critics who claim he recently made sexist comments about Hillary Rodham Clinton, which they say is part of a history of similar conduct.
Controversy erupted after Matthews made remarks on Joe Scarborough’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC that “the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win there on her merit.”
Naturally, Michele Bachmann won’t do this – she is an intelligent woman. She knows how hard it is to actually finish graduate school and win election campaigns… unlike Chris Matthews. She actually finishes what she starts… unlike Chris Matthews.