News Media Reports: Times Square Bomber’s Motive “Shrouded in Mystery”

CBS News reports that Faisal Shahzad (you know, he’s that guy who tried to blow up Times Square about a week ago) is somewhat of a mystery man.  An enigma of sorts, one might say.  His motive is “shrouded in mystery,” report those hard-hitting news folks over at CBS. 1

Now I’m thinking, well, if the smart-as-a-whip guys and gals over at CBS News can’t figure him out, then how the heck am I, your typical Joe Six-Pack, going to be able to do it?  Well, I guess I’ll just have to give it the old college try.  So here are some of my theories:

Theory Number One: Shahzad is a Tea Partier.

I think NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg hit the nail right on the head when, before they had even arrested anybody, he speculated to Katie Couric of CBS News (there’s that CBS news again!) that it was probably somebody “home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the healthcare bill or something.” 2  Katie’s journalism instincts immediately kicked into high gear, and she responded with a knowing look.  So Bloomy nailed it: it’s those damn government-hating Tea Partiers!  I think that makes a lot of sense.  Double-plus good, Mike!  I mean, anyone who’s crazy and racist enough not to want free healthcare must be so mentally deranged they’d want to blow up Times Square and kill innocent people right?  Also, if Shahzad was willing to blow himself up too, then he obviously wouldn’t have had any need for healthcare because he’d be dead!  But he didn’t blow himself up.  Okay, maybe this theory isn’t so great after all.  That’s too bad.  I was really hoping I could blame this on those damn tea baggers! 

Theory Number Two:  Shahzad Suffers From Post-Home-Foreclosure-Derangement-Syndrome.

So some really creative psychologists have come up with this new disease for the new economy we’re in: post-home-foreclosure-derangement-syndrome.  Or at least I think that’s what it’s called.  Anyway, the idea is that people who are about to lose their homes go out and do wacky stuff like blow people up in Times Square.  Well, it just so happens that the mortgage on Shahzad’s Connecticut home was in foreclosure.  Or about to be foreclosed or something like that.  Hey, times are tough!  You know, it’s that lousy Bush economy we’re still mired in.  I know, I know, it’s been almost two years since Bush has been out of office, but according to the media, Bush put us in such a hole that… Oh, wait, that’s right, now we’re supposed to be in a recovery.  Isn’t that what Obama said?  The “jobless recovery.”  So is it Bush’s recovery or Obama’s recovery?  Maybe the jobless part is Bush’s and the recovery part is Obama’s?  I’m so confused!  All right, let’s move on to another theory, shall we?

Theory Number Three:  Shahzad is a Right-wing Republican and Talk-Radio Listener.

Okay, try to stay with me on this one.  There are reports (probably also from CBS News) that the radio in Shahzad’s SUV was tuned to an AM station!  Now, follow this logic.  Who is on AM radio?  Rush Limbaugh!  That right-wing extremist and rabble rouser.  See what I’m sayin here?  Shahzad is a right-wing Republican and AM radio listener.  As for why that would make him want to blow up Times Square, I uh… well I refer you back to Theory Number One.

Theory Number Four: Shahzad is Anti-Disney or Anti-Lion King, or Maybe Just Anti-Lion.

Did you know that Shahzad’s SUV was supposedly parked right near the theater that shows the Broadway musical “The Lion King?”  Coincidence?  I don’t think so.  You know, it is Disney’s The Lion King.  So maybe Shahzad was anti-Disney. Or maybe he just saw a performance of The Lion King and really (I mean really) hated it.  Or maybe he just hates lions!  Hey, we need to cover all the possibilities here.  After all, Big Sis Janet Napolitano—our beloved Homeland Security apparatchik—reassured us all that Shahzad probably acted as just a “one-off.”  So maybe his “one-off” thing is that he’s anti-lion!  It’s possible!  Okay, maybe this one is a little thin.  Next!

Theory Number Five: Shahzad is a Violent Islamic Extremist and Terrorist

Now, I realize I’m going way out on a limb here, but maybe, just maybe, Shahzad is an Islamic terrorist.  I know, it’s that tired old canard again, and I can find hardly anyone in the news media to back it up, but I guess it should kind of be considered, no?  Ok, I’ll back off.  Sorry for sounding so politically incorrect and racist and all that.  I mean I really am so in agreement with MSNBC’s news anchor Contessa Brewer on this one.  Speaking on the liberal Stephanie Miller’s radio show, Contessa offered up this trenchant analysis:

“I get frustrated… There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country… There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”  (Emphasis added.) 3

Contessa is just so right.  I much prefer her form of trendy, up-to-date bigotry instead.

 ———————–

 Footnotes:

 Fn. 1: See the full CBS News article on Times Square Bomber’s Motive here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/05/national/main6462351.shtml

Fn. 2:  Excerpt of Bloomberg interview with Couric:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/05/03/cbs-features-ny-mayor-bloomberg-speculating-bomber-was-mad-about-obamac

Fn. 3: For the Contessa Brewer quote:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/05/04/msnbcs-contessa-brewer-frustrated-times-square-bomber-muslim-0

Hey, This Universal Healthcare Thing is a Big F*ing Deal!

Yes, Mr. Vice-President, it is a big f*ing deal!  Shredding the Constitution always is.  Joe Biden is of course a buffoon, and he might even be slightly crazy.  (Boy-oh-boy, we sure are lucky we didn’t end up with that loose cannon Sarah Palin!)  But every now and then, in his own inimitable way, he says something that is on the mark.  The latest gaffe — dropping the F-bomb on an open microphone during the healthcare bill signing ceremony — being a case in point and, in this writer’s humble opinion, an understatement.  But you probably know my views on the healthcare law by now.  1   For the present discussion, I want to focus on the illustrious Mr. Biden.

As I am sure everyone is well aware, Joe Biden is compulsively prone to making these kinds of wacky remarks, always, it would seem, at the worst possible moments.  He has done so as Vice President, as a candidate for VP, and also over his long career as a United States Senator.  Here is just a sampling of the rich repertoire of Bidenisms:

•  As the titular head of the White House team that is supposed to keep track of stimulus spending, Biden was on the CBS “Early Show” touting a government-run website that allegedly tracks stimulus money.  When he was asked for the site’s web address, he said: “You know, I’m embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?” he asked an aide standing out of view. “I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m actually embarrassed.”
• And of course, we all remember his colorful remarks last year about the Swine Flu:  “I would tell members of my family – and I have – I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now.  It’s not that it’s going to Mexico – if you’re in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft…. I would not be at this point, if [my family] had another way of transportation, [be] suggesting they ride the subway.” 
• At a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House, Biden took a moment to honor the memory of the Irish prime minister’s mother—a woman who is still very much alive.  “God rest her soul,” Biden said.  But he quickly corrected himself noting it was the prime minister’s father who had passed: “Wait … your mom’s still, your mom is still alive. It was your Dad (who) passed. God bless her soul. I gotta get this straight.” 
• Finally, when recently asked to comment on why no one seems to pay attention anymore when he says something off-the-wall, he said, “A couple weeks ago, I insulted this disabled kid and a pregnant lady all in one day, but all anyone wanted to talk about was how President Obama was hating on the Special Olympics.  I’ve gotta figure out ways to elevate my game.”

The temptation is to write off old Joe as the crazy but affable uncle of the Obama administration who they keep locked up in the attic of the White House (or in the cellar, if you prefer) and only let out when they have to—for special ceremonies and such.  And even on these occasions it almost always looks like Obama is actually on the verge of tackling Biden before he blurts out some hellishly embarrassing thing in front of a live microphone.  Though I have to admit that lately it seems the President has resigned himself to the Vice President’s risible verbosity.  I mean, what can he do but laugh it off and hope no one is paying that much attention.  And of course the Government Information Ministry, formerly known as the mainstream media, is more than happy to laugh along with the President over Joe’s gaffes as though it’s all a big joke and we needn’t worry that he’s only a heartbeat away from running the country.

So there is this temptation, encouraged by the media, to say, “Well, it’s just Biden being Biden” and to ignore whatever he has to say.  And make no mistake; a lot of what he does say is indeed rambling nonsense.  But bear in mind, he sits in on all national security briefings and other top level meetings with the President and the Cabinet.  He obviously has the highest level security clearance which gives him access to all sorts of classified information. (I mean, he has to have that right?)  And after all, he is next in line to be President if, God forbid, anything should happen!  So one has to think that he knows about stuff, lots of stuff, and that he has known about it for a long time, going all the way back to the days of the 2008 campaign. 

But therein lies the pickle this administration finds itself in.  Biden is the Vice President.  But he is also Joe Biden.  He is still the big, likeable, garrulous, grinning guy from Scranton, PA who can’t wait to tell everybody what he knows or to blurt out whatever’s on his mind, even if what he knows or what’s on his mind is a big f*ing deal, to put it in the vernacular of the Vice President.  And so, every now and then, chatty Joe blabs about something that he’s not supposed to.  He lets out something that he’s just heard, or read, or been told is a really big secret.  I’m alluding to what Biden said back during the 2008 campaign.  Remember?  It was on the campaign trail and Biden had recently been selected as Barack Obama’s running mate.  In fact, you could say this was one of his first gaffes as a member of “Team Obama.”  He was at a fundraiser in Seattle, surrounded by the party faithful.  He was in his element.  He hadn’t realized that there were any press in the room (not that they make any difference anyhow) until after he had rambled on about some very revealing stuff.  Here are some excerpts: 

“Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy…. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you — not financially to help him — we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right….  Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ … So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us… There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision.’  … I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.” (Emphasis added.)  2

As the then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden also touted his own credentials and said he would add value to the Obama ticket. “I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know,” he said, “so I’m not being falsely humble with you.” 

So what exactly was Joe, the humble foreign policy expert, talking about?  What did the Obama people confide in him was going to happen?  What kind of test?  JFK had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis which brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.  Is that what he meant?  Just what kinds of decisions were going to be coming down that would make folks say “Whoa… I don’t know about that decision!”  Liberals (nervous liberals especially) will conveniently dismiss this as Biden just opening his big mouth.  But I think Biden gave us a brief, rare glimpse into the inner sanctum here.  He opened up a small window into the mind of this administration when it was in its infancy, sensing that victory was at hand and planning about all the fundamentally transforming things they were going to do, both domestically and on the international scene.  And Biden was like a new convert who had just come out of a revival meeting, having heard the true Progressive Gospel for the first time; and he just couldn’t wait to spread the word, to tell everybody what he knows.

While this administration has seen its challenges in the international arena, a catastrophe of the magnitude that Mr. Biden was suggesting has yet to materialize.  There have been no Cuban Missile-size crises or 9-11’s to deal with.  So Biden’s prognostications as to timing have been wrong…  so far.  However, just about every week it seems like there is some new big f*ing deal.  Some new push.  Some new peeling away of the onion.  Some new chipping away at the foundation.  Gradually, the curtain is being pulled back on this President and his administration to reveal the inner-workings of the machine; the levers and pulleys of the mechanism of fundamental transformation.  But none of these things rise to the level of actual crises.  Certainly none have been “generated” by our enemies.  They don’t even come from someplace else in the world.  Rather, they are ginned up right here, at home, by this President and his administration.

For example just this past week, the Obama administration announced a new nuclear policy for the country.  For the first time, we unilaterally and preemptively have said to the world that we are fundamentally altering our policy as to when and against whom we will and will not use our nuclear arsenal.  In particular, the new policy actually allows certain nations to attack us with biological and chemical weapons and we will politely refrain to retaliate with a nuclear weapon.  Without here debating the merits or recklessness of such a decision (i.e., whether or not our existing or potential enemies will be inspired to follow suit or actually emboldened to press an advantage) it is beyond dispute that such a move is unprecedented in the history of American nuclear security policy.  In fact, it is a radical change in that policy.  It is a meddling with something that does not cry out for meddling with, indeed, something that has stood us in good stead for some sixty odd years.  And yet, this decision follows a pattern and formula that has become the hallmark of this administration.  That being: fundamental change, for its own sake.  Fundamental change, based on an intellectual argument.  Fundamental change, whether you like it or not. 

So again, what was Joe Biden talking about?  What kind of long range plans and schemes did the Obama people let him in on (before it dawned on them they were talking to Joe Biden.)  Did he hear something but misinterpret it?  There is certainly a high likelihood of that!  Maybe he got the “test” part right but mixed up the antagonists.  Just who is testing whom here?  Is it this President who, like John Kennedy, is being tested by the world?  Or is it perhaps the other way around?  We could ask Joe Biden, but he’d probably honestly say he doesn’t remember.

———————————-

Footnotes:

Fn. 1: In case you don’t, I expand on why this law is an affront to the U.S. Constitution in several prior posts. To read, start by clicking here:  https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/why-you-don%e2%80%99t-have-a-right-to-healthcare/

Fn. 2: Source: 

 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html

Why I Love Ann Coulter

“Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire.  He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light.  But he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.  Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators, the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors, stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed. Every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid – but they won.   No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered. His truth was his only motive.”

— Excerpt from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (Howard Roark’s closing statement in his own defense.) 1

First, let me say that this is not a defense of Ann Coulter.  As far as I’m concerned, she needs no defending.  And if she ever did, she’d be able to acquit herself quite well.  On the other hand, if you are looking for any semblance of objectivity here, stop reading.  I freely admit my bias.  This is instead a kind of open love letter to Ann: an offering of homage to someone whom, for reasons I expand upon below, I hold in very high regard.  I can only hope she reads it!

Now, I could gush all day about Ann’s charming ebullience, her rapier wit, her gifted erudition, her unapologetic boldness, her sexy blonde mane, or the immense joy I get at seeing how she afflicts liberals with apoplectic fear and rage.  But I find that this unique woman possesses one quality above all others for which I truly admire her.  That quality is her love of the truth.  You see Ann, believe it or not, is a moral person.  She lives by a moral code — her own principles and sense of right and wrong as rooted in her Christian values — to which she steadfastly adheres no matter what the consequences.  And among the tenets of that moral code, she champions speaking the truth above all.  In other words, I believe that her truth is her only motive.

Ann speaks the truth openly and unreservedly and, yes, sometimes even offensively.  I am not going to recount here all of the controversial statements made by Ann Coulter.  (Remember, I’m biased.)  Besides, they are widely known.  And if you are not aware of them, a ten second Google search will satisfy your curiosity (the liberal blogosphere is all agog about even her most casual remarks.)  Regarding these controversial statements, most people simply dismiss them or relegate them to hyperbole, satire, or just bad jokes.  A few of us view these comments in their context and see the larger point being made.  The rest are liberals.  These comments are Ann’s signature rhetorical devices and, while sometimes they are indeed over the top, one cannot say they are unoriginal, and they almost always make a big impression.  As General George S. Patton once said when asked why he used profanity while addressing his troops: “When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty.  It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember.” 2

Of course, it has reached the point now where no matter what Ann says she gets herself in trouble with liberals and progressives.  In fact, she doesn’t even have to say anything anymore.  The mere prospect of her speaking is enough to make them all aflutter.  The most recent incident was the “welcome” she received by the students and administration at that world renowned institution of higher learning, the University of Ottawa.  To make a long story short, Ann was prevented from speaking at the school after the school’s provost sent an email warning her to watch what she says as certain speech may run afoul of Canadian “hate speech” laws.  The obvious innuendo being that Ann is incapable of opening her mouth without potentially saying something tantamount to a crime!  Needless to say, this touched off a firestorm and an on campus student protest ensued (a protest against Ann, not the provost) which created a dangerous environment and caused Ann’s security detail (yes, she needs that now) to call the whole thing off.  For the full story, click here:

https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/gem-of-the-week-oh-canada-what-a-houles-you-are/

The attitude among liberal and progressive opponents to Ann Coulter’s right to speak is best summed up in their own words.  When interviewed, University of Ottawa student protest organizer Mike Fancie stated he was pleased that they kept Ann from speaking.  “What Ann Coulter is practicing is not free speech, its hate speech,” he said. “She’s targeted the Jews, she’s targeted the Muslims, she’s targeted Canadians, homosexuals, women, almost everybody you could imagine.” (Source: The Boston Herald)  Well, if according to this genius “she’s targeted … everybody,” including groups on either side of a particular debate, then she can’t really be said to be targeting anyone, can she?  It is this kind of aggressive stupidity that Ann comes up against almost every time she speaks in public.  But worse than that, it is political correctness run amuck.  It is liberal-progressive oversensitivity codified into absurd laws and rules and enforced by academicians and apparatchiks like the University of Ottawa administrator. The sick irony, though, is that they do so in the name of tolerance.  Only in their Orwellian world could suppressing freedom of speech and expression be viewed as “tolerant.”

The face of liberal tolerance: A University of Ottawa student protester

Liberal rules regarding hate speech and free speech raise all kinds of subjective questions: Precisely what is hate speech?  What is appropriate speech?  When is speech offensive?  When is it not?  Which groups can you offend and which can you not?  Is no group or individual at any time ever deserving of offensive speech?  What about child rapists and murderers?  What about terrorists? What about racists, adulterers and sleazy politicians?  What about liars in general?  Are all of these exempt from being the target of offensive speech as well?  And if not all, then which are and which aren’t?  What about the bogeymen of liberals: conservative speakers and commentators?  Is there also a prohibition on speaking offensively to or about them?  It would appear that there is not!  I guess targeting conservatives, like Ann, is a-okay with liberals and progressives because they level their hate-filled rants and offensive slurs against her all the time.  Apparently when Ann is the object, it is open season on hate. All of this points out the absurdity and insidious evil of liberal and progressive “rules” when it comes to what can and cannot be speech. Lies and corruption are the tools of the collective: they are the means by which it pushes around the individual and stifles any free thought or expression that does not fit into their agenda of political correctness.  The status quo of political correctness and moral relativism are phenomena that have become entrenched in modern American culture, much to our great misfortune. Ann attacks and roots out this liberal hypocrisy wherever she finds it: whether it be in academia, the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, or Hollywood.  She tears away at the façade of their lies and reveals the faulty edifice underneath.  With a truth as hard as steel, she exposes their hypocrisy for what it is, and they hate her for it.  Speaking truth to power, I think is what it is called, and it has become, in a way, her mission.

But one needs to ask, why does Ann even bother with all this?  What is her motivation? Liberals assign a variety of motives: she is vile and malicious and can’t help herself; she is pure evil; she is a natural-born hater; she is only doing this to boost her book sales; etc. They lean on these rationalizations because they refuse to accept that anybody of her obvious intelligence would actually believe the outrageous things she says.  They are so arrogant (or perhaps insecure) in their belief that they are right, that they are convinced there must be some ulterior motive.

Howard Roark

Ann has only one motivation: she actually believes what she says.  And she says what she believes, no matter how offensive.  The truth trumps polite conversation.  Of course, Ann pays for this truth in the frightful extreme.  She endures insults, scorn, contempt, even threats, and like Howard Roark, Ayn Rand’s hero in The Fountainhead, outright hatred for causing the entire foundation of their corrupted structure to shake.  As in Rand’s novel, they would destroy her.  They would burn her at the stake with the very fire she’s introduced, if they could.  But therein lies the beauty of speaking the truth, it will always triumph over falsehood.  Some might say her enemies always fall into her trap, but really it is not a trap at all, it is the truth: the logic of truth which will always unmask a lie.  In the end, the status quo of the corrupt liberal collective is beaten.  The individual of vision wins.

But if indeed this is Ann’s motive and mission, is truth-telling really necessary even when it offends to the point of provoking hatred and fear?  I don’t think anyone would openly admit that it is better not to know the truth (though it would seem that for many, willful ignorance is truly bliss.)  But what about the truth that offends?  Is that really necessary?

It is truth, in all its forms and expressions that advances the human condition.  Truth in speech, art, music, poetry, literature, truth in invention and truth in creation of any kind has been the foundation stone upon which all else: cultures, societies, economies, governments and entire civilizations are built.  This is also the case when truth offends.  The truth is always opposed when it confronts men and women, governments and institutions, whose “principles” are warped and corrupted by lies and hypocrisy.  In these circumstances, truth is essential to the advancement of the human condition – not just when it offends, but because it offends.

The world as we know it today didn’t just come about over night.  Down through the ages, the broadening of views, ideas and perspectives and the shifting of paradigms in the religious, political, economic, scientific, social and cultural spheres all took place only because someone said something or did something or created something that offended the status quo.  In this country alone, the improvement of the human condition for blacks, women and other minority groups would never have happened unless someone ticked off somebody else.  Indeed, the country itself would never have come to exist unless a courageous few spoke certain truths that were an affront to a mighty many.  In all these instances, the offensive nature of truth was not just coincidental, it was essential. 3

At the end of Ayn Rand’s novel, the architect hero Howard Roark prevails.  He stands atop the steel framework of his creation, admired by the woman who has finally come to see the true meaning of his spirit.  His truth — the truth of one individual’s vision — wins out over the hypocrisy of the collective.  Whether or not Ann Coulter shall ultimately prevail, only time will tell.  But one thing is for sure: that quality of unabashed truth-telling is a rare and wonderful thing in this world, and it is why I love Ann.  You see, I am a recovering idealist who wakes up every day looking for an honest man.  Unlike Diogenes the Cynic, I do believe that at long last I have found one; only she’s a woman.

Diogenes Sitting in His Tub, by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1860)

________________________

Footnotes:

Fn. 1: See the Comments section to this post for a video clip of the entire Howard Roark speech from the film, The Fountainhead.

Fn. 2: For a fuller version of the Patton quote: “When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can’t run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn’t fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag … As for the types of comments I make, sometimes I just, By God, get carried away with my own eloquence.”

Fn. 3: Of course, none of this is to suggest that all truthful speech need be offensive or that just because speech is offensive it is truthful.  On the contrary, there is plenty of offensive speech that is just plain offensive.