THE SHOOTINGS AT COLUMBIA MALL

Columbia Mall is located in Howard County, Maryland and is an upscale mall.

 On Saturday, January 26, 2014, Darion Marcus Aguilar, age 19 and an individual with no known criminal record or other red flags, entered the Zumiez store and starting firing away. By the time the police arrived, he had killed two people and wounded others, then had turned the gun on himself.  The mall was closed, of course.  More interesting, none of the evacuated shoppers were allowed to drive their vehicles home; school buses and other buses were brought in to take the shoppers home.

Backpacks with primitive IED's were found inside the mall.  In fact, for many hours the police did not approach the shooter's body out of concerns that the body might be booby trapped. 

Who is Darion Marcus Aguilar? This photo, supposedly from Blake High School's yearbook, has surfaced:

Contrary to reports, Zumiez is more than a "skate store."  Rrecently, the store's main display has been one of snowboarding, perhaps in advance of the Sochi Olympics.

An eyewitness interviewed by CNN the afternoon of the murders stated, "The guy looked either Hispanic or Arab." I heard that interview myself when I was tuned into CNN so as to follow the events at Columbia Mall.  CNN never replayed that interview, but continued to replay multiple times any interviews blaming the gun.

Over and over again, despite the police statements to the contrary, various news media kept labeling the slayings as "workplace violence" or "a relationship crime."

Was Darion Marcus Aguilar a jihadist?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it seems to me that the mainstream media were doing all that they could to spin the story into something it appears that it was not, i.e., "a relationship killing."

IED DETONATED AT SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE IN ARIZONA

[Pictured at the left: Abdullatif Aldosary, arrested for detonating the IED on November 30, 2012]

The major mainstream media outlets continue to ignore whatever doesn't contribute to the agenda actively promoted by our so-called leaders. Thus far, only local media in Arizona have reported the name of the man arrested.

From Pajamas Media, dated December 2:

YET ANOTHER THING THE MSM KEPT UNDER WRAPS

From this source:

The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index found that the "American Dream is in jeopardy" and "The national ethos of the U.S. is under threat." The assessment of prosperity is based on material wealth and personal well-being. The Prosperity Index benchmarks countries in eight categories: Economy, Entrepreneurship & Opportunity, Education, Governance, Personal Freedom, Health, Safety & Security, and Social Capital.

The Unites States dropped out of the global prosperity ‘top ten’ for the first time to the twelfth position in the worldwide prosperity rankings and fell eight places in ‘Entrepreneurship & Opportunity’. The assesment found fewer US citizens agree that "hard work gets you ahead."

[...]

The report was first released on October 30, 2012, the group was hoping the report would have "electoral implications" but as always MSM remained silent....

The news media are anything but the news.

TRAYVON MARTIN?

Note THIS INFORMATION about Trayvon Martin, the story on the national news lately. If the information to which I'm linking in this post is accurate, Obama should retract his statement:

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said in his first comments about the shooting...

Is the photo below a more up-to-date likeness of Trayvon Martin?



Read THIS LINK. If the information in that link is accurate, the media are suppressing information that contradicting their present agenda.

Furthermore, Jesse Jackson should be held accountable for his recent statement that Trayvon Martin was "shot in the back of the head," as I heard on CBS News this morning. Such is not the case at all! He was shot in the chest.

Jesse Jackson said more:

Jackson said he would like to see the black population turn its anger over the death of Trayvon Martin into an energy directed at voter registration, economic inequity and other issues of discrimination and racial injustice.

"I would hope that movement would turn into Trayvon Martin voter-registration rallies," Jackson said in a press conference following the Sunday service.

Aha! There stands one agenda related to the shooting of Trayvon Martin!

Ron Reagan, Jr.

Ron Reagan's recently published book My Father At 100: A Memoir suggests that President Ronald Reagan was afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease while still in office — as early as three years into his first term as President.

What the mainstream media are omitting from their mention of the book is the following, indicating that (1) no conspiracy existed to cover up the President's alleged incapacity to govern and (2) President Reagan likely would have voluntarily left office if he had believed that his thinking processes were compromised by dementia:

"I've seen no evidence that my father (or anyone else) was aware of his medical condition while he was in office. Had the diagnosis been made in, say 1987, would he have stepped down? I believe he would have...

Read more of the book review in U.S News HERE. In my view, the portion about Ronald Reagan's having brain surgery revealing signs of Alzheimer's in 1989 does not contribute to Ron Reagan's credibility.

Also, please read Michael Reagan's response to his half-brother's book HERE. Not unexpectedly, Michael Reagan, whose book The New Reagan Revolution is due for release on February 6, is speaking out against Ron Reagan and his book.

As far as I can tell right now from the few available excerpts of Ron Reagan's book, the mainstream media are selecting statements out of context from that book so as to denigrate the memory and the accomplishments of President Ronald Reagan. Therefore, I have reserved a library copy of My Father At 100: A Memoir and will read the book for myself. Although I don't like Ron Reagan, Jr., I know of no way to judge what he has written other than to read his book and check his statements against the available facts from other sources. I've also reserved a copy of Michael Reagan's The New Reagan Revolution.

TRUTHFUL HEADLINE IN TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST

The big headline below the hard-copy fold reads "Arrests suggest U.S. Muslims, like those in Europe, can be radicalized abroad."

True enough.

And one of the stories below the fold begins as follows:

The five men from Northern Virginia under arrest in Pakistan had exchanged e-mails written in code for months with a recruiter for the Pakistani Taliban and had a map indicating they were bound for the tribal area where al-Qaeda is thought to be based, Pakistan officials said Friday.

But both of the two stories dance around the radicalization from within of American Moslems, in spite of the other of today's stories beginning as follows:

A spike in terrorism cases involving U.S. citizens is challenging long-held assumptions that Muslims in Europe are more susceptible to radicalization than their better-assimilated counterparts in the United States.

Both stories mostly ignore the seriousness of the internal threat from the fifth column, and both stories do not mention any of the radical Wahhabist imams preaching at mosques all across America.

Furthermore, the other of today's two stories in the WaPo is calling upon two dangerous groups to curb the radicalization of Moslem youth within the United States:

...[T]wo major groups -- the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- said this week that they would launch counter-radicalization programs aimed at young people...

Half-awakened in the media is not necessarily better that not awakened at all.

The second story, as one might expect from the WaPo, blames the United States for radicalization:

Several U.S. and international terrorism analysts say that American Muslims, as a group, remain more prosperous, assimilated and moderate than those in Europe. But the analysts also note that immigration trends, the global spread of a militant Islamism and controversial actions by the United States and its allies since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks increase the chances that U.S. Muslims could carry out a domestic attack.

It is beyond the capabilities of liberals to blame the tenets of Islam, and the media continue to dance around those jihadist tenets.

Reliapundit points out in the post below this one that the New York Times is taking the same position as the WaPo.

Until the media tell the truth, Americans will continue to snooze or half-snooze. It is more comfortable not to recognize the truth about Islam.

IN NEWSWEEK?

From this article:

In the Middle East, myths have a way of stubbornly clinging to life. A new book by two experts, Dennis Ross (back in government after an eight-year hiatus) and David Makovsky, lays out the region's most tenacious falsehoods—and explains how the United States has been misled by them.

Two of the four points listed:

The notion that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will cure the entire area's dysfunction is wrong. Most Arab problems have nothing to do with Israelis and Palestinians, and will fester long after any peace agreement between the two sides.

[...]

Engaging extremist groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah is counterproductive because it undermines moderate Arab forces and discredits U.S. peace efforts.

Read it all. The article even mentions that the GWB administration had a valid point with his idea of promoting democracy in the Middle East. Heh.

Wonder what BHO thinks of that little Newsweek item?

VIDEO AND MUSIC: SEND IN THE CLOWNS, THE POLITICAL VERSION

Spotted at Z's site:



Actually, we do something about some of those clowns in 2010.

As Reliapundit says, "VOTE ACCORDINGLY!"

THIS WEEK'S COVER OF NEWSWEEK

Note the following text: RADICAL ISLAM IS A FACT OF LIFE. HOW TO LIVE WITH IT.

Article HERE.

Take your Pepto Bismol before reading the article.

ON FOX NEWS CHANNEL THIS MORNING

In a discussion about the recent cover of the New Yorker magazine, Brian Kilmeade, one anchor of Fox and Friends, said, "I've been on the Internet. It's a scary place."

Yeah, Brian. We bloggers are scary, all right. Get used to it.

CNet: Tech News as reported by "Progressives"

Balanced reporting from Declan McCullah, who purports to be a tech news writer at CNet. The headline -- Obama, not McCain or Clinton, votes for electronic privacy -- captures the flava.

A U.S. Senate vote that took place two hours ago reveals how much three of our leading presidential candidates are committed to electronic privacy and the rule of law.

Barack Obama passes the test. John McCain failed. Hillary Clinton gets an incomplete.

The vote was on an amendment to deny AT&T and other telecommunications companies legal immunity if they are proven in court to have violated federal privacy law by opening their networks to the National Security Agency...

Quick quiz: which candidate does he favor?

Immediately after 9/11, when said wiretaps occurred, I don't recall many media types railing against the U.S. Government's invasions of privacy. It was perfectly obvious that the feds would begin (and the public was demanding) interception of calls leaving or entering the country if they were connected to known terrorist enclaves.

Furthermore, it is patently a legal practice, considering every time we leave or enter the country, we are subject to warrant-less search and seizure of property.

It's called "Customs". Perhaps Mr. McCullah's heard of it.

I wonder how Mr. Partisan Tech Reporter could distinguish an electronic Customs bureau from a physical one.

As for the constitutionality of FISA, it strikes any serious observer as counterintuitive (putting it kindly) that the Commander-in-Chief can order terrorist camps in Afghanistan pulverized with bunker-busters... but can't listen to a phone call from the same camp to a safe-house in New Jersey!

Put simply: your right to privacy ends at the border. An international flight should put the question to rest for Mr. McCullah.

Also see: National Defense 101: A public service for "Progressives"

Double standard? What double standard?

Yesterday, a prominent U.S. Cardinal pilloried federal officials for permitting Iran's president Ahmadinejad to visit New York City last year.

We should have executed the dictator. Everyone in the West knows that Iran's president must die. And we could have easily made it appear he died of natural causes.

Oh. My mistake. Did I say a U.S. Cardinal?

I meant that a prominent Iranian cleric called for the beheading of George W. Bush; he expressed disgust with Arab leaders for not taking advantage of Bush's visit by assassinating the U.S. president.

Stepping back for a moment, what does it say about religious authorities who call for executions? And what does it say about a mainstream media that can't be bothered reporting this news. Of course, had a real Catholic official called for Mahmoud to be killed, we can be sure the New York Times would have erupted in righteous liberal progressive outrage.

Double standard? What double standard?

The AP: willful accomplice in the run-up to idiocy

The Associated Press is marketing a new website by antiwar watchdog group Center for Public Integrity,, which lists "935 false statements" by President Bush and his administration during the run-up to war. The new site's headline reads Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War.

The Center's claim is galling on two fronts:

• The group had no access to any classified documents, intelligence summaries, shared foreign intel, Presidential Daily Briefs, or similar material that would help them judge the veracity of the statements.
• The group carefully restricted which persons could issue false statements (e.g., they had to be Republicans), ignoring the scores of Democrats who had access to the same information and made the same "false" claims.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism," -- Madeline Albright, 2003


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, 1998

"This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer." -- Nancy Pelosi, 2004


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, 2002

"[I]t is clear that the Administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fear of the American public about future acts of terrorism." -- Robert Byrd, 2003


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, 2002

"Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one." -- Ted Kennedy, 2003.


"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, 2002

"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war'... [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there... He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about." -- John Rockefeller, 2006


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton, 1998

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done... It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country." -- Bill Clinton, 2005


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"He [Bush] betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place." -- Al Gore, 2004


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation." -- John Kerry, 2003

"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion... Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." -- John Kerry, 2003

No party has changed course more often, more wrongly and with less commitment to the national security of the United States than the modern Democrat Party.

I think I'm going to summarize all of the false statements by the AP and the CPI and publish my own expose of their idiocy. Though I may need something more powerful than an Access database to track all of their fabrications.

MONOPOLIES ON THE NEWS

Here is one reason that we keep hearing the same old, same old in the mainstream media, despite the concerns about media consolidation in the 1920s, when William Randolph Hearst wielded powerful control over print-media and radio-media:

Today, about a dozen media corporations—the largest is Gannett Co., followed by the Tribune Co.—own roughly one third of the country's more than 1,400 daily newspapers. Some argue that the reduction in the number of news outlets could lead to fewer critical opinions, with grim implications for democracy....[According to] Mara Einstein, associate professor of media studies at Queens College in New York, if that editor operates in a market with several options[,] "You read one person's point of view and then another person's, and you can come up with your own idea of what you believe is best."Online sites may fill in where mainstream news leaves off, but Davidson points to problems "weighing the gravity and the authority of the voices."

The FCC may be getting ready to allow even more monopolies on the news:

As America prepares for the year of intense democracy that is a presidential election, the question of how and what information reaches the public is crucial. So when the Federal Communications Commission last month proposed to loosen restrictions on media ownership, the reaction was deeply divided. FCC Chair Kevin Martin said the new rules, which would lift a 32-year ban on cross-ownership, would improve news coverage and help the struggling newspaper industry, which he called the "watchdog and informer of the citizenry." But what happens when fewer companies are responsible for the watching and informing?

As in the past, some are objecting to the FCC's proposal:

The FCC has long struggled to promote access to diverse news sources. Starting in the mid-1990s, the panel has been trying unsuccessfully to change the formulas governing cross-ownership, and it has often been attacked on all fronts. In 2003, the panel proposed allowing one company to own three television stations, eight radio stations, and the monopoly newspaper in a single market. A federal appeals court rejected the rules, while agreeing that the blanket ban on cross-ownership was outdated.

[...]

...[A]s in 2003, the proposals face serious challenges. While the FCC can move to adopt the plan, there are checks on its ability to implement it. A bipartisan group of 25 lawmakers has pledged to slow the enactment of the rule changes, while the White House has vowed to oppose any congressional intervention. Between the opposition on Capitol Hill and possible court challenges, the rules might never take effect.

Read the rest of the entire article in U.S. News & World Report.

How would our Founders, supporters of independent sources for the news, feel about what has happened to today's "free press"?