And This Is Why (well, one reason anyway) They Are Deadly:

"... I think there's a resurgence of antisemitism (in Sweden and throughout all of Europe)  because, at this point in time, Europe has not yet learned to be multicultural, and I think we're going to be part of the throes of that- of that-  transformation which must take place! Europe is not going to be the monolithic - ah - ah - societies they once were in the last century. .... Jews are going to be the center of that. It's a huuuge transformation for Europe to make, they are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive."

So, according to this old American crone who politely smiles when wielding a shank,  

1) There's an uptick in 'antisemitism' (whatever that may mean and who knows how the hell it is measured). 

We've had multiple occasions in the US where high school and university students have penned 'antisemitic' pamphlets, graffiti and letters. When investigations have been done, a Chosen is revealed as the perpetrator and then the story quickly vanishes from sight. Is that what's behind the supposed rise of antisemitism in Sweden?  Antisemitism is a horrible thing, we've learned time and time again in school and from the media and our preachers and parents and friends and co-workers. A travesty. 'Never Again' is the mantra we're all taught. We've heard and read the stories and fables about great historic suffering endured by jews. We've cursed the dirty Muslims for not acquiescing to israel. 
Then something frightening happens. We begin to look into the facts behind this mass jewish suffering and we find ourselves confused at first: 'Gosh, I know what Germany did to to the jews was terrible, but y'know, I can't find any real evidence of the ''6 million'' '. Then we screw up the courage to dig deeper, but this is a somewhat terrifying step to take. We know if we fail to find real evidence of 'nazi atrocities' then our world-view will be forever be altered. Maybe even our relationship with our Creator. Many turn away at this point. Fearful and with hearts pounding they instinctively know the journey to reality will be too much for them to physically or socially or domestically bear.  But for those of us who do have the fortitude to travel that path, at some point we compare the jewish fairy tale of suffering with other historical sufferings. We consider how many Eastern Orthodox Catholics and Christians were murdered by the jew-led Bolshevik revolution.  How many Vietnamese murdered by the jewish banker influenced French and American campaigns of the 1940's, 50's and 60's. How many Chinese at the hands of the jewish banker-influenced opium wars instigated by the English. How many Native Americans at the hands of my forefathers in North America. Then we ask, even if it were real, why is jewish suffering the suffering that transcends all other peoples' suffering? And that's when we learn the jewish 'suffering' is nothing more than an advertising tool, designed to shame us into buying additional faulty or harmful ideas, laws, and  fraudulent beliefs. 

2) 'Without that transformation (to multiculturalism) Europe will not survive' claims LernerSpectre. 
Now, taking Sweden for instance, why would that nation not survive without jewish enforced multiculturalism? It has survived for thousands of years when it was populated by Swedes. They actually made their nation into a bit of a socialist paradise. Even if one despises socialism, one can't ignore the fact that Swedes have healthcare for all, have housing for all, and have a retirement system that isn't forever going bankrupt. They accomplished it without the joys of LernerSpectre's threatened multiculturalism, somehow. 

That LernerSpectre is whining about antisemitism and the absolute essential need of multiculturalism tells us there are many in Sweden who despise the idea. Otherwise they would not be threatened with their very survival. It isn't just Sweden however. There are plenty of other folks living in Europe who've already witnessed previous changes this woman and her kind have dropped on their heads. They recall the world wars instigated at the behest of jews. And Europeans, from Greece to Portugal, Ireland to Italy, Iceland to Russia, are sick and tired of the banking system jews already gifted Europe. Recall, Usury was outlawed by both the Church and Islam. It wasn't until some evil, rotten men (Oliver Cromwell, for instance) allowed the jews to return to lands from which they had previously been expelled, and crypto-jews ascended to the Papal Seat (Medici, for one) that the jewish toe-hold was gained via the banking cartel. Slowly but surely every man and nation was captured up in the net, like sardines. 

Strangely though, despite what the jewess import from America says, Europe IS multicultural today, and it WAS in the past, even before LernerSpecter's ancient relatives left the Steppes and adopted 'judaism'. 
Irish inhabit one part of Europe. Sicilians another. Poles live in Poland and Swedes live in Sweden. You see, Ms. LernerSpecter, Europe was (until the late 19th century)  perhaps the most naturally 'multicultural' continent spinning on board Mother Earth. People like you though, you seek to drive out the 'cultures' you dislike and replace them with a perverted judeafied Culture of Death that is more malleable to your goals and whims. 

People like yourself, Ms.LernerSpectre, are the most racist of any people this world has ever known. If you really cared about that Multicultural flag you fly, you'd be hanging out in Occupied Palestine, urging your own kind to adopt multiculturalism in that fraudulent nation you call israel. That thing called israel is so horribly racist that multiculturalism isn't even the issue right now. Your kind first have to end apartheid in the land you occupy. 
You claim to be against hate yet you embrace ethnic cleansing, you embrace the theft of land, you embrace the subjugation of people. You kill, maim, injure, steal, and incarcerate others whenever it serves your own kind's interest. Yet you dare to tell Swedes how to live in their own homeland? 

 There was a time in America when charlatans and confidence men traveled from town to town, looking to bilk residents out of their property and wealth. Usually the fraudsters would clear out of town before the folks caught on to what was happening. There were times though, when the con's luck ran out before he had run out.  He'd be stripped down to his underwear while the tar was being heated until hot, then brushes applied the tar to the miscreant's skin and chicken feathers were dumped over his head and tossed onto his body and then he'd be allowed to 'move on' to another, perhaps more hospitable burg. In some cases after the tar and feathers were applied the people would ride him out 'on a rail' - usually a tapered fence railing or 2X4, on which the conman would 'ride' as the people carried the railing and his 'privates' were jolted and pained and then they'd dump him on the edge of town. I doubt any of the individuals who received this treatment ever returned but instead may their way to greener pastures. 

I'm uncertain whether or not Sweden has a history of 'tarring and feathering' those who came into its towns with the intention of  running a confidence game on them, but the con LernerSpectre and others are operating is much more injurious to all than those  performed long ago by simple thieves. For that reason I'd advise Swedes to look into it. It is the 21st century, so women should be eligible for the humiliating ride. 

Added 4/24 @ 7:04 PM: 

I just came across the following video on Noor's blog and have to add it here as it fits perfectly with this subject. It is also a very funny video - until you think about it, that is...

Added again
4/24 @ 11:33 PM

Gee -

Just re- viewed Lerner Spectre's saccharine speech -

Did you hear that brief chuckle uttered just after LernerSpectre's closing threat: "... Europe will not survive."???

Psychopathic, Satanic, Luciferian, Cold, Dark, Lifeless; however one wishes to describe this Death Cult, the best way is: Soul-Less.

We all have to - readers, bloggers, occasional visitors, occasional commenters, we all have to do whatever is in our own personal power and authority to wake all who will accept truth to the reality of the situation. 

Time it is a ticken' 

Men and Women

As I was attempting to pen a post and searching for references I stumbled upon the following website:
The name, 'no-maam' at first made me think it was a joke - like an homage site to Al Bundy. 

Instead I found myself reading chapters of the e-book linked above. It makes a compellingly honest (though most women will be offended) assessment of the male/female roles that are natural to us as humans (truth) and the roles as dictated to us by 'cultural norms' (another term for that which is shoved down our throats from infancy onward). 

Quite often when we think of “Rites of Passage” the image of a primitive society performing some bizarre ritual comes to mind, such as the Vanuatu Land Divers.

"Both a harvest ritual and a rite of passage amongst the tribes of the small pacific island of Vanuatu, land diving is now a tourist phenomenon. The men who live on Pentecost Island in Vanuatu, climb a rickety 98-foot-tall (30-meter) tower, tie vines to their ankles and dive to the ground, falling at speeds around 45 mph (72 kph). When a dive goes correctly, the person gets close enough to touch his shoulders or his head to the earth. However, unlike bungee jumping, these vines aren’t elastic and a miscalculation in vine length could lead to broken legs, cracked skulls, or even death. Boys once they have been circumcised at about age 7 or 8 begin participating, though they usually are permitted to jump from a shorter tower. As a boy makes his first dive, his mother holds an item representing his childhood. When he jumps, she throws the item away. Divers also refrain from sex the day before they jump — legend says it will cause the jump to go badly." -- 10 Bizarre Rites of Passage

I, however, would argue that rites of passage are actually more of a sign of an advanced society. It is patriarchy that builds civilization. Patriarchy is the idea of "putting sex to work," which is based on the ancient contract of marriage. The ancient contract of marriage is an economic contract whereby a woman "sells" her sexual reproductive abilities to a man (ie. the children of marriage are his children, not hers) in return for the superior protection and providing abilities a man can, and will, procure once yoked to children of his own. What does this have to do with rites of passage, you ask? Well, in order for men to be attractive to women, a man must surpass the female so that he has some tangible benefit to offer the female which she either cannot do herself, or is unwilling to do herself, and therefore fulfill Briffault's Law:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

The Corollaries to Briffault's Law:

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely). 

It is the nature of the female's mothering instinct to be 100% totalitarian. Small children need this type of totalitarianism or they would soon get themselves into all sorts of trouble. Thus every boy starts off life completely dominated by a female and it takes a decisive change to escape his mother's gravity field and grow into a man so that the next generation of women will have men to marry. For all the ballyhooing in the media of "the man-child" and for all the haughty snipes of women at males to "be a man," they don't seem to understand that in order to be a man, he cannot behave like a woman. Our thoroughly feminized society has relentlessly propagandized us to believe "the right way" for humans to behave is "the female way" while at the same time has attacked and derided everything that once defined masculinity as "macho" and unfavourable.

Just as children are not equal to adults, men are not equal to women - a "man," who is a man in the true sense of the word, has surpassed the level of women and has grown beyond it. This fulfills Briffault's Law and also enforces the hypergamy which women need to be exposed to in order to be sexually attracted to a man. Thus, a family hierarchy develops - and this hierarchy works... we know it works because we have historical evidence of it working for several thousands of years in our very own Western Culture - the family as based upon the Bible.

Man --> Woman --> Children

It's the natural order of things. Women take care of themselves and children, and men take care of themselves, women and children. It does not work in reverse.  

Lots of women spit and fume about this, but what they are forgetting when they are told Biblically to submit to their husbands, is that husbands are also commanded to submit to God, or to The Truth. And as Jesus pointed out, to rule is to serve. Thus, this is the proper ordering of human existence if we are to live above that of the beasts of the field. Only when a man lives in proper accordance to The Truth can he expect a woman to be in proper relation to him.    

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children

In reality, there is no such thing as equality. All relationships are hierarchical in one way or another. Sometimes they change, or often what is going on underneath is entirely different than what appears on the surface. The men who stood on the deck of the Titanic so that their women could survive is an example of how the underlying hierarchy is often different than the social appearance of hierarchy.

"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle, The Spartan Women

"Equality" really only has meaning in relation to the sphere of human law - in the realm that all people are equal before the law in regard to their rights as put forth by the American Founding Fathers: The rights to self-ownership, life, liberty and property. Certainly not the "right" to a job, or to healthcare, nor to be able to vote to bankrupt the future of one's children so that we may party it up today on their credit card bill.

"Men" are not on the same level as women. When men consider themselves "equal" to women, they are resented and disrespected by women. The sexes are different, and thus need different things from each-other. Women need men to be their tool in society, and therefore men have to bring something to women that women cannot do themselves. (Watch how birds court each-other) Thus, if he remains "equal" to a woman, she has no use for him. A "man" has to graduate beyond the level of women - if he doesn't he will be completely flattened by women when he encounters them. It is women's natural right to be in authority over children but it is not right for women to be in control over men. If a man behaves as a boy and relates to his wife as "Is it OK for me to be me, Mommy?" he is not a man equal to women - he is beneath them. This is what happens in many marriages today - the husband ends up treating his wife as his mother, and as such she begins to resent him. How can something that is her own creation (a boy, a child) be equal to its creator?  

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE

Only when boys separate from the totalitarian power of the Mother and grow into men do they truly have a sphere to address women and from which women respect them as men. However, women instinctively try to prevent boys from leaving their field of power - children are women's "possessions" and who wants to lose a possession? To mother, he will always be "her little boy." Also, it is not wrong for it to be a struggle to escape the totalitarianism of mother, for manhood not "won" is not manhood at all. Women cannot show boys how to become men because it is an entirely foreign concept to them - just as children cannot show adults how to behave because adulthood is something children simply don't understand. Women are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict, which might cause people's feelings to get hurt, and thus, they try to prevent boys from growing away from their field of influence and into men.

"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." -- Fred Reed 

Women want us all to be women - or children - because that is what they understand. They have no comprehension of "men" or what it takes to be a man. Children deprived of their fathers through divorce are horribly abused in this way, for they get "aborted" at the female/child stage of development and have far greater challenges "growing into men" and learning how to address women in any other way than seeking the approval of mother.  

Along with the thorough feminization of our culture, so have we removed many of the aspects that used to make boys into men, and in turn we are finding that there are less and less "men" for women to want to associate with. Once a woman enters into a male institution, it immediately becomes feminized - thus we now even see that girls are allowed into the Boy Scouts. Men and boys need to have places separate from women where they can meet and be men, free from female influence.

Learning self-reliance and self-confidence is essential for boys. Thus things such as camping and learning how to build fires from scratch are good builders of character for young boys. Women are creatures who depend upon others, but men are creatures who must depend solely upon themselves. Not only must they depend upon themselves, but they must also be able to depend on themselves in excess, or they will not become sufficient "tools" for the next generation of women.

In our feminized school systems, when children play sports like soccer they no longer keep score so that the children's feelings will not be hurt by being "losers." This again undermines masculinity. When I was a kid, I played on a soccer team and we were the worst team in the league. I don't think we won a single game all season - but our coach did a very good job with us in teaching us how to lose gracefully. It builds a boy's character to lose and accept it. Many endeavors a man takes on in life will not be successful, but learning how to lose gives him the confidence to try anyway... and if he keeps on trying because he is not afraid of losing, sooner or later he will find success. Our schools are "aborting" boys development by robbing them of the opportunity to lose - and when they can't figure out why boys aren't developing properly, they fill them with Ritalinrather than addressing the fact that boys and girls are different, and need different strategies to develop.

Learning to deal with the bully is also a rite of passage for many boys. I remember as a young boy when my father taught me how to stand up to the bully. I had gone to a private Christian school as a child and there was this one kid named Peter who was constantly bullying me. Two grades higher than me and bigger than me. One weekend we were at a church camp-out, shortly before my 11th birthday, and Peter started picking on me and shoving me around in his usual way. I remember I went running back to find my Dad and told him what was going on.  

My dad told me, "Boy, there's just some times that you are gonna have to take care of these things on your own." 

I still remember his words, and in fact, have followed lots of them to this day. 

- Always walk from a fight, but never run. 
- There's a time for talking, and then there's a time to stop talking. 
- Once you get into a fight, fight to win. But even if you don't win, you've got to show him (and the others) that when they mess with you there's going to be consequences. 

I recall him providing me with a strategy too. "There's nothing 'fair' about this fight. This kid is two years older than you and he's bigger than you. If you have to knee him in the nuts, then do it, and start punching him - and don't stop until he's on the ground." 

I remember walking back out to where all the kids were playing, and that's how it worked out. He started shoving me around again, and I kneed him right in the nuts, and punched him in the head about five or six times as he was going down, then I turned and walked away. Everyone was shocked. 

When I walked back amongst the row of RV's, as soon as I rounded the corner, there popped out my old man (he must have been watching). I was trembling like a leaf. He just put his arm around me - never said a word to me about it, neither good nor bad - just walked with me. 

Today, here in Canada, there is a great big "anti-bullying" campaign going on. All the kids are encouraged to wear pink shirts to symbolize they are against bullying, there are bullying "hotlines" set up, and every time there is a conflict between two kids, the mothers are called in to the principal's office to "work things out." Apparently, at some school in Toronto, there is a ten year old boy who decided he was gay (how can you decide you are gay when you are ten?). In order to keep this "gay" ten year old from being bullied, the school has appointed a teacher to walk around with him full-time to keep him safe. The old "schoolyard rules" have been completely abolished and we are raising our boys to be feminized sissies, not independent men confident in their own abilities.  

Being bullied is part of life for men and it is important for them to learn how to stick up for themselves.  

Re-framing this culturally, the boys of today are similarly being bullied by feminists. It's a similar 'fair' fight. They're bigger, smarter and they fight very dirty. And this is something this generation of boys needs to sort out themselves, because the older guys will not be around forever. Perhaps becoming Men Going Their Own Way and passing feminism's cultural fitness-tests might be the new Rite of Passage for the boys and men of today and tomorrow. 

Related: Diagnosis ODD -- by Hawaiian Libertarian

"Mothers find in their children satisfaction for their desire to dominate, a possession, an occupation, something that is wholly intelligible to them and can be chattered with: the sum of all this is what mother love is; it is to be compared with an artist's love for his work.  Pregnancy has made women kinder, more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit; and just so does spiritual pregnancy produce the character of the contemplative type, which is closely related to the feminine character: it consists of male mothers." -- Freiderich Nietzsche  

Thank You For Thinking

For Yourselves. 

Many have visited this blog and others over the past week seeking truth. Some of you long ago crossed the Rubicon and will no longer believe anything without first verifying what is for yourself. Others just don't feel right about one aspect or another of the BMB story, maybe because the reporting of the Newtown/Sandy Hook story didn't entirely seem entirely convincing. Or maybe your doubts go back to 9/11 or 7/7. It matters not where you are on your journey for truth, but that you have dared to question authority, and dared to face truth not knowing how the truth will affect you personally. Most important, you are taking steps to think for yourself. If you are just beginning the journey there's a few things you should know:

Just as you cannot rely on MSM or governments or corporations to tell you what is true and what is false, you should also refrain from trusting any blogger on the Internet. It is not that we intentionally lie (the ones I know and I have listed in the blog roll to the right of these words - over there -> are some of the ones in which I have confidence - not that they are perfect in everything they write but rather that they are doing their best to get at the truth - and that's all you should expect as a reader), but rather that we are striving to find answers to some important questions, and the answers are not readily available. By disseminating questions to a wide audience, we, all together, are more apt to come up with the right answer. There are blogs written by liars. The more you read and learn for yourself, the more readily you'll be able to spot the miscreants. Quite often that type of blogger is paid for his or her work, though it might not be readily apparent if the blogger is on someone's payroll.  I'd argue, were I forced to paint with a broad brush, that anyone who consistantly argues ANY government's point of view or who often takes the side of an oppressor or spreads fear should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. 

That being said, from now until the day the internet is unplugged, people working for truth will ALWAYS attempt to ferret out the little nuggets of gold from the acres of crap that always seem to make for the 'official story' whenever there is a terror or other major 'shocking' news story. So many of us learned, thanks to 9/11, that the official story always contains falsehoods. And the BS has been layered on thick for some time now. Oswald did not murder John F. Kennedy with an old rifle while at the window of the Texas Book Depository. James Earl Ray did not murder M.L. King, Jr. from the boarding house across the street from the Lorraine Motel. There is more to the Sirhan Sirhan murder of Robert Kennedy (assuming Sirhan fired the shot at all). There may be more to the story of John Lennon's murder at the hand of Mark Chapman (assuming Chapman fired the shot at all). There is much more to the story of the Iran Contra affair than a President and a few 'bad apples' sneaking around the embargo of Iran in order to sell taxpayer purchased weapons for cash. And there's more, much more, to the 9/11 story than we've been told by the government and its fawning media. I'd argue Anyone who explores any of those stories with an open mind, and is willing to devote the time and effort to do so, will come to the same conclusion. 

When I first wrote about the Bauman/Vogt similarities, I said: " "I hesitate to even insert this paragraph and the above photo array in this story as it is total conjecture." 

Conjecture being that the 2 are in fact the same man.  And, as I responded later to a commenter, I do not, in fact, believe they are the same individual. How did I arrive at that conclusion? Asking the question elicited more information. More information served to (in my mind at least) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are 2 distinctly different men. And that is one of the great services provided by my fellow bloggers and those who take the time to leave informed comments.  One cannot be afraid to ask a question.  For instance, some have recently written that they believe the fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, may have been set off by a missile. They have raised a question. Others have written about that possibility seeking to either prove or deny it. This is what it means to seek truth . Bloggers make such truth seeking easier as we're able to disseminate questions to a wide variety of folks worldwide. No question should be 'out of bounds'. It is hard for people to remember this all the time, but in the US the government survives strictly at the behest of the People. The People have (I'm speaking of a perfect world here) authority. The People have a right to ask any damn question they want, and it is incumbent upon the gov. to provide an honest and complete answer. Fear of questioning the State only serves to further empower evil forces within the State.  

But some are angry that such questions would be asked in the first place. To paraphrase a comment I read at BuelahMan's excellent blog, 'I'd happily give up my first amendment rights if it meant that idiots like you weren't allowed to write this garbage any longer'.
That's an amazing comment. The person who wrote it takes her Natural Right to be able to speak and write and wants it taken away from everyone in order that she'll no longer stumble onto a blog that asks her to think for herself. A lot of people, I have no doubt, agree with her. She also added towards the end of her comment a 'this is America - love it or leave it!' canard. But she, the 'lover' of America, is the one who'd freely erode more rights in order to not be personally offended... 

At the end of a week there are still a number of questions outstanding in regards to the BMB. 

1) Video still has not been released of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev exiting the boat, although it clearly must exist. There's video released of a portion of the 'firefight', where police and agents were shooting at the boat which held Tsarnaev. That video, all of it that I've seen, shows Tsarnaev lying on his back or stomach onboard the boat, never moving, and on the far side of the boat from the police. How did he engage in a gun battle from this position? There is a still photo taken which is apparently of Tsarnaev exiting the boat after the 'shootout'. In that photo we see he is not cuffed and is coming out under his own power. Yet we are told that Tsarnaev either attempted suicide onboard or a police bullet went into his mouth and exited the back of his neck. 
Why has the entire video, as taken on board a police helicopter, not been released? If he was mobile when he exited, what happened in the intervening moments between when he was taken into custody and apparently arrived at the hospital close to death?

2) We know there was at least 1 drill taking place at the time of the race. How many, in total, drills were there? Which agencies authorized the drill(s)? What was the purpose of said drill(s)?

3) Who exactly was to provide security for the race? Does the Boston Marathon contract with outside security services? If so, which ones? Who are the men who've been photographed who appear to be security contractors (or perhaps 'mercenaries' is a more descriptive word for them,depending upon your point of view) who were in the vicinity of both bombs just prior to detonation? 

4) There are a host of questions that surround the accusations made by Tsarnaev's mother and father. Were one or both of their boys indeed recruited by Al Qaeda or another CIA front terror provider? Were they double agents as has been alleged in the Israeli press? 

5) With the trillions of dollars spent since 9/11, the two wars fought and thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqi and Afghan lives lost, and the freedom and rights we've been told we must relinquish if we are to be safe from terrorists, how were 2 young men who had already been eyeballed by the FBI able to get away with such an act? Does this not serve to prove that palaces being built across this nation to house DHS offices are a gigantic waste of dollars? 

5) What, if any, is the connection between the Saudi national and this attack? How is Israel involved?

6) The Dept. of Justice has already determined the guilt of Tsaraen. Therefore, it is judged by the DOJ (and seconded by some Republican members of Congress) that advising Tsaraen or any future 'terror suspect' of their rights against both self-incrimination and their right to representation need not be mentioned. This is a frontal assault on every American's 5th and 6th Amendment rights. 

What other questions do you have?

Isreali Doctor Treating Tsarnaev Says Suspect May Never Speak Again

Really?

Haaretz reports:

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may never speak again, according to the Israeli director of the Boston hospital where Tsarnaev is being treated.

Tsarnaev, 19, was wounded in his throat, Kevin Ilan Tabb of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told Ynet.

Tabb is a board member of Hadassah Ein Kerem hospital in Jerusalem, where he studied medicine and completed his residency.

"Unfortunately, I have had a lot of experience with these types of injuries after years of treating people injured in terror attacks in Israel," Tabb, 49, told Ynet. "We have a few Israeli doctors in the emergency room, and the director of the ER is also Israeli. But most of the physicians at the hospital are not Israeli, and they functioned exceptionally well."

As a West Coast guy I may be mistaken, but I always had heard that there were famous universities in the Boston area. Medical schools and the like. 

But apparently these schools either produce 3rd rate physicians or the doctors that do graduate all want to get the hell out of Massachusetts. 

Either way, at least we can rest easy tonight knowing Tsarnaev is in the care of a team of Israelis. 

Another Anomaly

According to 'sources' within the FBI, the surviving brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, while hiding in the boat, very likely attempted to commit suicide while his gun battle with police and agents raged. 

Currently, Tsarnaev is not in good shape and lost a lot of blood, explained CBS News correspondent John Miller. The suspect has a bullet wound to what appears to be the back of his neck and another to his leg. But it's bullet wound to the neck that is actually pretty intriguing to investigators.

Of course, he and his brother were in a big shoot-out," said Miller. "But [investigators are] saying that wound to the back of the neck is very possibly a suicide attempt. They say it appears from the wound that he might have stuck a gun in his mouth, and fired and actually just went out the back of his neck without killing him. That's one of the reasons he's unable to communicate, but he can understand what they're saying. And they believe there will be a point where he will be able to talk to him.

As for what investigators hope to learn when Tsarnaev is able to recover and communicate with them, Miller said it will be to know three primary things: 'Did you do this alone? Is there anyone else out there? Is there another plot?'

One can hear sounds of the gun battle that, it is said, lasted for hours, on the video located at the link here.

The video here was taken via a police helicopter and shows Tsarnaev in the same position in the boat throughout the ordeal (laying down flat on the side of the boat that happened to be facing away from the police) yet somehow he apparently managed to engage in an hour long firefight with police...

Even more curious is the statement quoted in Miller's report above: "They (FBI) say it appears from the wound that he might have stuck a gun in his mouth and fired and actually just went out the back of his neck without killing him. That's one of the reasons he's unable to communicate.''

So - you are to believe Tsarnaev, already bleeding and injured before police were called (the boat owner, it is said, saw blood outside his boat and that piqued his curiosity) -  then engaged police in an hour long shootout while laying prone in the boat - and then exited the boat under his own power without first being handcuffed and stripped of weapons.... 

1) I don't believe for a second the police and FBI and Homeland Security agents on the scene would have simply allowed this murdering terrorist, the most wanted man in America, the freedom to stand up and walk himself out of the boat.

2) I find it stretches credulity to think a gravely injured and exhausted Tsarnaev managed to climb out of that boat under his own power and then, moments later, looked like this:

 

and this:

Governor Duval Patrick says: "I hope he survives because we have a million questions."

Yes, gov, we do have a million questions.  

Which Photo Best Represents the Victim?

As per Anon's comment on This Post
here is a photo of Bauman in the hospital:

and here's photos of Bauman /Vogt: 

 

And Vogt:

Does the man in the hospital in the first photo look like the man in the 2nd and 3rd photos? Or does the man in the 2nd photo look more like the man in the 3rd photo?

And a warning: As I type this Hagel is on his way to Occupied Palestine. That means money is soon to vanish.... Hopefully lives will not.