RUTHFULLY YOURS

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/tamerlan-tsarnaev-vowed-to-die-for-islam-judge-prematurely-stopped-brother/#ixzz2RT0QLsq0

EXCLUSIVE: Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev sent text messages to his mother as early as 2011 suggesting he was willing to die for Islam, the FBI told lawmakers this week according to two officials with knowledge of the Capitol Hill briefing.

Tsarnaev, who was killed days after the April 15 bombing in a shootout with police, is said to have embraced radical Islam in recent years and recruited his younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to carry out the attack that killed three and wounded more than 180 near the finish line of the world’s most prestigious road race.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was caught alive but wounded on Friday and charged with use of a weapon of mass destruction, for which he could get the death penalty.

The FBI filed a federal criminal complaint against the 19-year-old on Sunday, and federal District Court Judge Marianne Bowler arrived at the hospital where he is being treated to preside over his initial hearing Monday, when she read him his Miranda rights.

But Fox News’ sources say there was confusion about Bowler’s timing, with some voicing concerns that investigators were not given enough time to question Dzhokhar under the “public safety exception” invoked by the Justice Department.

https://www.mikesullivanforsenate.com/

from

N. Richard Greenfield

Michael Sullivan for US Senate

In 2010 Scott Brown won a stunning victory in a state that is not supposed to elect Republican candidates and finally we had a Senator representing us.

We don’t know each other, but it’s likely that you and I voted for Scott then and also voted for many of the same candidates for office over the years. We do that in spite of the conventional wisdom that in Massachusetts we have little hope of electing the people we vote for. The fact is though, that we turn out and comprise and consistent statewide 30-35% of the electorate in any given election.

When we vote, we may be voting for the Republican or against the Democrat, but in no small part, we are motivated by the awareness that the smothering one-party nature of this state, a reality that creates a level of corruption that produces a mind numbing apathy for our politicians and the process itself, dominate us. [With three felons as former Speakers of our House of Representative, it is hard to avoid this conclusion]. The legislative dominance of our Congressional Delegation by the Democrat party is symptomatic of the disenfranchisement you and I and about a third of the electorate feel all the time in this state.

The 2010 Scott Brown election might have been an aberration or possibly the sign of a new beginning in the Commonwealth. That he was subsequently turned out of office in 2012 doesn’t diminish the fact that in order to do that, the Democrat had to spend 22 million dollars, a state record by a wide margin, and rely on hordes of well-funded union and special interest groups to swamp our Commonwealth with additional millions of dollars to get it done.

In a few weeks we are being presented with another opportunity to try and elect someone who can genuinely represent us. There are three candidates who want the Republican nomination notwithstanding the fact that the winner is likely to be faced with the same onslaught of outside money, orchestrated union attacks and strongly incented uninformed voters that we fight against in every election. No matter what the punditry tells us; no matter how much is spent to push us one way or another; the first task we have is to vote for and elect the most viable candidate in the field. It is up to us to nominate a candidate who can fight this fight and win it. Someone who can go up against the overwhelming odds and overcome them.

In my opinion, only one of the three candidates in the Republican field fits that description: Mike Sullivan. READ IT ALL

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/u-n-leader-u-s-israel-first-ethos-to-blame-for-boston-jihad-attack/print/

While our nation continues to deal with the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terrorist bombings, which killed three people and wounded more than 260, jihadists and their sympathizers gloat, rationalize or turn the blame for the bombings back onto the United States and Israel. Leftists, who were so quick to accuse Tea Party members or right wingers for the bombings, have remained mostly silent as the truth of the Islamist roots of the bombing suspects became known.

The suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now dead, and his younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, now in custody, were described by one U.S. government official as “aspiring jihadists.” They were led to their alleged evil act by their understanding of their Muslim faith. Tellingly, on the Russian social networking site Vkontakte, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev described his world view as “Islam.”

They reportedly turned to Inspire magazine, an English-language online magazine published by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, for bomb-building instructions.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is said to have told investigators that he and his brother were motivated to commit their alleged heinous act by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also reportedly told investigators that he and his brother were not connected to any foreign terrorist groups. Whether true or not, they are certainly heroes in jihadist circles.

Members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah were “dancing in the streets of Gaza, handing out candies to passerbys,” according to the Israeli News Agency. Mohammad al-Chalabi, the head of the Muslim Salafi group, which is a jihadist group headquartered in Jordan, proclaimed that he was “happy to see the horror in America.”

Amidst the outpouring of concern for the victims who lost lives and limbs at the hands of the jihadist bombers, a deluded caller to a PBS radio program, just hours after the bombings, said the bombings were a response to “our drone attacks,” while another caller explained it as “a kind of retribution for torture inflicted by American security forces acting under the authority of the government.”

Richard Falk – a top official of the United Nations Human Rights Council, who quoted these callers in his Foreign Policy Journal article, entitled “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders” – looked at the Boston terrorist attacks as an understandable reaction to the “American global domination project.”

Falk brought Israel into his discussion. “As long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy,” Falk wrote. And he took verbal shots at Israel’s “belligerent leader, Bibi Netanyahu” and at President Obama for “succumbing to the Beltway ethos of Israel First.”

Falk went on to write that “America’s military prowess and the abiding confidence of its leaders in hard power diplomacy makes the United States a menace to the world and to itself… We should be asking ourselves at this moment, ‘How many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?’”

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/how-the-left-yearned-for-a-white-american-bomber-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang had the honor of being joined by actor Basil Hoffman, (The Artist), actor Dwight Schultz (DwightSchultzFansite.nl) and
Ann-Marie-Murrell, the National Director of PolitiChicks.tv.

The Gang members gathered to discuss Will Obama Try To Disarm Americans? The discussion occurred in Part II (beginning at the 11:00 mark) and focused on what will happen if the administration launches a full-out war on the Second Amendment. The segment began with a focus on Rachel Maddow’s Brain Numbing Attack on David Horowitz, which analyzed why MSNBC’s terminally sophomoric host scoffs at an author’s books without reading them. The dialogue shed light on how and why progressives oppress blacks and Hispanics while pretending to be their saviors. (See Frontpage’s article on it here). The segment also touched on: Will Americans Soon Live Like Israelis?

Part I focused on How the Left Yearned for a White American Bomber. The discussion centered on the Boston Massacre and David Sirota’s article in Salon which expressed his wish that the Boston Marathon bomber would be a white American terrorist. (See Daniel Greenfield’s analysis of it here.)

See both parts of the two-part series below:

Part I:

Part II:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-solway/allah-made-me-do-it/ Writing in Islamist Watch for April 17, 2013, David Rusin draws our attention to a recent case in an Australian court which would beggar belief if we had not grown inured to such outrages through repetition and cultural submission. As Rusin writes, “Esmatullah Sharifi, an Afghan refugee who came to Australia in 2001 and […]

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/steven-plaut/john-kerrys-sympathy-for-terrorism/ Leave it to Secretary of State John Kerry to exploit his state visit to Turkey for some pro-terror swiftboating. As reported on the conservative Israel National News web site: Speaking at Istanbul, Turkey, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a jarring comparison between the victims of the Boston Marathon terror bombs and terror […]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
The murderer is the new celebrity. He emerges out of nowhere with a rags to mass murder story, and is swiftly accorded all the trappings of fame. Reporters track down anyone who knew him to learn about his childhood and his main influences. Relatives and friends both contribute fuzzy anecdotes, mostly indistinguishable from the ones they would present if he were competing on American Idol or running for president.

The disaffected form fan clubs around him. The experts discuss what his rise to fame means. Books are written about him and then perhaps a movie. And then it ends and begins all over again.

The Tsernaev brothers, the living one and the dead one, are already receiving that treatment. Like most murderers they have already become more famous than their victims. More famous than the rescuers. The original Tamerlane is better known than any of his countless victims. The new one is already eclipsing his victims. Before long one of those Chechen bards whose videos he tagged into his playlist on YouTube will write a ballad about the Boston massacre and the circle will be complete.

That ballad, murderous and vile, will still be more honest than most of the media coverage about the two Chechen Muslims has been. The media’s coverage is weighed down by its old fetish of murder as celebrity. The media covers murderers and celebrities in the same way. It writes exhaustively about them, but rarely meaningfully. The murderer, like the celebrity, is famous for being famous. And fame clips context and suppresses meaning. It becomes its own reference. A thing is famous for being known. It is known for being famous. It enters the common language as a reference. A metaphor.

In the case of the Tsernaevs, the surface coverage, the endless rounds of interviews with friends and relatives, with anyone who ever met them or retweed them, is mandatory because it avoids the more difficult question of why they killed.

The better news outlets answer with convenient terms like “radicalization” or “self-radicalization” and much of the public, primed to react to meaningless political jargon as if it had meaning, will think that they understand. A radical, they know, is a bad person, except for a brief period when surfers and ninja turtles could use it and still be good people. They don’t quite know why that is, but they also don’t know why high debt is good for the economy or why Islam is a religion of peace.

Radical and extremist are convenient terms for dismissing people and subjects without discussing them. Mental shortcuts like that can be convenient. No one really wants to spend every waking moment debating the people who think that the moon landing was faked or that we are ruled over by miniature T-Rex’s who somehow look just like people. But when the body count gets high enough, dismissing it as extremism or radicalism doesn’t hold up. The question must be discussed.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/terrorism-we-encourage

The two Boston bombers were born in Dagestan and despite their alleged grievance over the treatment of Chechens, never lived there. For law enforcement officials and counter-terror experts this radical view that inspired their heinous act is a conundrum. Even President Obama asked plaintively, “Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country resort to such violence?”

Their relatives have expressed anguished bafflement. Some have suggested these young men had divided loyalties. Are they Muslim first or American? Others speculate that they came under the spell of an Australian cleric. Still others refer to tribal codes based on revenge for U.S. counter-terrorism strikes. Add feelings of guilt and frustration and there appears to be a combustible mix. But is any of this more than mere speculation?

Both brothers enrolled in college – the elder brother at Bunker Hill Community College, though he dropped out; the younger at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. The elder, Tamerlan, was a Golden Glove boxer and was married with a child. His younger brother, Dzhokhar, was a popular student at a Cambridge school and was given a scholarship to attend college.

By any reasonable standard both were doing well. They had the privileges of American life. Whether they appreciated these privileges is another question. Like the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, who became the leading advocate of jihad against the West, an educational exchange program developed into a revulsion of American life. Similarly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attacks, spent four years studying in North Carolina.

Is it possible that American educational institutions directly or inadvertently create the seeds of extremist behavior? After all the drumbeat of anti-American sentiment is ubiquitous at campuses across the country. To read the major textbooks on American history, one imbibes the view the U.S. is a colonial nation with an imperial drive to influence the world. Moreover, the government has systematically exploited Indians and minorities and, encouraged class hatred and the concentration of power in the hands of the privileged.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/23/boston-mosque-radicals/2101411/

Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.

Cambridge mosque was founded in 1982 by students at MIT, Harvard and other Boston-area schools
Affiliated with Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors call an “overt arm” of Muslim Brotherhood

More than half of the $15.5 million used to found the Boston mosque came from Saudi sources

BOSTON — The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon bombing has been associated with other terrorist suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.

Several people who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque’s first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince.

And its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terror suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.

The head of the group is among critics who say the mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.

“We don’t know where these boys were radicalized,” says the head of the group, Charles Jacobs. “But this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there.”

Yusufi Vali, executive director at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, insists his mosque does not spread radical ideology and cannot be blamed for the acts of a few worshipers.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-muslims-with-no-name-islamists-cover-up-their-existence-in-the-media?f=puball

As reported by U.S. News & World Report on April 4, 2013, the Associated Press (AP) has revised its definition of “Islamist” in the latest edition of the AP stylebook after the AP announced that it would likewise no longer approve of “illegal immigrant.” This move, advocated precisely by a troubling Muslim group justifiably called Islamist in the past, shows once again how difficult it is for modern free societies even to identify their Islamist foes in the face of politically correct pressures.

Added to the AP stylebook in 2012, Islamist initially had the following entry: “Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.” The updated entry reads:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), praised “this revision” as a “step in the right direction” that “will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims.” Hooper considered the “key issue with the term ‘Islamist'” to be “not its continued use,” but rather “its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”