Replies

Liberals were desperately hoping that people were killed and maimed in the Boston bombings by militants from the Heritage Foundation.

They wanted that almost as badly as another Sandy Hook shooting spree, to get their gun bans through Congress.

So badly did libbies want right wingers blamed for the bombings, they were seen bowing five times a day toward Mecca -- the New York Times.

Armed with reams and reams of no evidence, Chris Matthews on Monday took to the airwaves to denounce the "right wing" for the bombings. As 'proof' that conservatives had planted two bombs near the finish line of Boston's Marathon, he pointed to a fire on Monday at the JFK Presidential Library. As Matthews brilliantly noted, John F. Kennedy was a prominent Democrat. But it later turned out the fire had nothing to do with what the barbarian, bastard Reaganites had perpetrated at the Marathon.

(It also turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist.)

Michael Moore responded to the bombings by noting that the bombings occurred on tax day, so the perps had to be conservatives demanding a lower capital gains rate. (After all, 2 + 2 = ? Just as 2 tons + 2 tons = Michael Moore's current weight?)

An outraged Obama responded to the bombings by holding a Rose Garden event about gun control. He whined that he's trying to be a strong leader but the NRA won't let him.

The New York Times responded to the bombings by publishing a moving tribute to the victims -- the two bombers. "Far From War-Torn Homeland, Trying to Fit In," read the title to the feature story about the two dear little lads.

Approximately 10.3 seconds after the bombings, Salon's David Sirota expressed hope that people were murdered at the Marathon by a white American bomber.

"Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American," read the nuanced title of his piece. Informed that the bombers were just as he had dreamed -- white Americans! -- he was still disappointed that they weren't Knights of Columbus types -- but Muslims instead. He claimed his only concern was of a backlash by racist, intolerant, extremist Christian bigots against racist, intolerant, extremist Muslim bigots.

In fact, when it was shockingly discovered the bombers were Muslims, the Council on American Islamic Relations responded movingly by denouncing 'Islamophobia,' and demanding sympathy for Muslims.

The group's Chicago honcho urged Americans not to see a connection between the bombers' Islamic faith and their violence. Islam is peaceful -- draw a cartoon of Muhammad and you'll see!

Like Sirota, he expressed fears of a mythical backlash against Muslims. After each Muslim atrocity, we hear the same predictable blubbering nonsense -- about a backlash coming. After 9/11, watch for a backlash! Never happened. After Fort Hood, watch for a backlash! Never happened. After the underwear bomber, watch for a backlash! Never happened. Their predictions are as flawless as the local weather forecaster's.

And now the liberals' hoped-for backlash against Muslims after Boston isn't happening either.

Come to think of it, libbies have had an awful week:

-- They were hoping Texas District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife were murdered by the Aryan Brotherhood. Turns out the murderer was a former Texas justice of the peace. The accomplice was his wife.

-- Liberals were hoping to pass more gun control, secretly wishing for another Newtown massacre to push it through. A massacre did happen, but the weapons used were pressure cookers, not Glocks. Instead, their bill went down in flames. (As will the 800-page alien amnesty bill.) Now liberals howl that America's left with a scant 20,000 gun laws on the books, rather than 20,001, which would have done the trick!

-- Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shoot-out with police.

-- The Kermit Gosnell murder trial went viral.

As for the 19-year-old Boston bomber, "Bombing Suspect In and Out of Consciousness," says the WSJ, which is more than you can say for liberals. As regards Islamic terror, libbies blissfully slipped out of consciousness decades ago and never drifted back. Even now, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick says he hasn't a clue what might have motivated two Islamic psycho killers to kill. (Was it the Sequester? The expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Mad about Obamacare?)

Fearing a backlash against the little Muslim darlings, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored warnings about the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Army recruiting station shooter in Little Rock, etc. The Russians urged the Obama administration a few years ago to vet the elder Boston bomber. The FBI says it did (after initially denying it), putting him through a thorough background check, culminating finally in a no-holds-barred sit-down interview, in which they asked the future bomber a series of key questions, such as, 'Would you be interested in a tenured professorship at Illinois U, at Chicago?'

By his repeated screw-ups, Obama has spent 5 years diligently working to rehabilitate the war on terror credentials of the Bush administration. Why quit now?

Anyway, that's ...
My Two Cents ...
"JohnHuang2"

In the NY Times piece, they report that the younger brother was flunking his college classes:

“He was talking about how he wasn’t doing as good as he expected,” San said. “He was a really smart kid, but having a little difficulty in college because going from high school to college is totally different.”

Going from high school to college "is totally different"? Like this isn't something that EVERY college freshman doesn't experience?

(His older brother had already dropped out of college)

The most interesting quote from NY Times is "Neighbors said that people were constantly coming and going at the apartment and that they were uncertain who lived there and who was just visiting". Really? Makes me wonder who all these visitors are, how long they've been hanging out with jihadis, and whether the reason the younger brother was flunking out was because he was spending too much time socializing with jihadis.

The older brother described himself as "not having a single American friend". This did not mean he was lonely. It means that he was so alienated from American society that he only had non-American (foreign Muslim?) friends.

What we had here, were two bothers who had failed to achieve the status they had hoped for in American society, and were angry at American society as a result.

In an un-free society, if you are not connected to the right people, your chances of success are very limited. So the people who stay poor can say t themselves "it was just bad luck that I was not born into a family that's part of the ruling class".

The downside of living in a free society, is that any failure to achieve requires you to confront the possibility that the reason was that you were inadequately smart, energetic, and driven. Many people cannot deal with that thought.