I’ve never been a fan of Howard Stern. Today, however, I’ll step outside the box and share some interview clips the foul-mouthed shock jock shared with his radio audience. The responses given to relatively simple questions about political candidates reveal a lot about the types of people who vote for Barack Obama.
The people showcased by Stern remind me a lot of some of the young people I interviewed as they prepared to enter the Oakley Lindsay Civic Center during President Obama‘s April 28, 2010, visit to Quincy, Ill. See video below.
For the most part, I’ve avoided giving the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” movement any attention. During the days leading up to Veterans Day, I made an exception when I used photos from the National Archives to note how some occupations are more worthwhile than others.
A preliminary hearing for Mohamed H. Dawod is set to take place Oct. 12. Now, one question remains: Will the mainstream media show any interest in the case that involves a man with a Muslim name allegedly shooting a man he didn’t know in a public place on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States?
Mohamed H. Dawod
A 25-year-old man from Glendale, Ariz., Dawod pleaded not guilty Monday to charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the Sept. 8 shooting death of Justin Hall, 32, of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, at a Greyhound bus station in Springfield, Mo.
On Oct. 12, Dawod will appear before Judge Mark Fitzsimmons at 9 a.m. inside a courtroom at the Greene County (Mo.) Courthouse to answer charges that he shot and killed Hall in front of a crowd of fellow passengers on the bus traveling from Amarillo, Texas, to St. Louis.
Now, especially for members of the mainstream media, I’ll offer some background on the case.
In my first report on the shooting, published the morning of Sept. 9, I wondered whether or not this was a case of terrorism but reported it as only a possibility after officials in the Southwest Missouri community quickly said the shooting appeared random.
In an update several hours later, I cited a local television station report that raised questions about the alleged randomness of the shooting when it quoted Springfield police officials as saying that, because of a language barrier, they had only learned Dawod’s name andhad asked the FBI to help them with the investigation. In other words, I wondered how they could declare a shooting “random” if they were not able to communicate with the suspect.
In the same update, I shared a telling paragraph from the same television station report:
Ten separate witnesses say they did not notice the men fighting or arguing before the shooting. One passenger said she watched the suspect wander around the terminal until the call to line up to re-board the bus. “She then observed the suspect remove a silver and black handgun from a back pack he was carrying,” the officer wrote. “The suspect then pointed the handgun upward while saying something. The witness could not understand what the suspect said and didn’t know if he was speaking English.” No matter what was said the witness said Hall didn’t react or turn around. Shortly after the witness says Dawod shot him from a few feet away.
I also asked another question:
Could it be that, when the man pointed the handgun in the air, he shouted, “Alluh Akbar,” the cry that’s been heard coming from the mouths of so many Islamic extremists moments before they suffer from so-called “sudden jihad syndrome”?
Now, fast-forward to two days ago when I offered another update that contained stunning details that had been published in another local news report.
Based largely on interviews with three people who were at the scene of the shooting, the report noted two observations — that the shooter tried to fire again but could not because his gun jammed and that the witnesses believed the shooter intended to shoot several people — that I had already reported in my original post.
In addition, however, it noted that Patrick Beeman, a friend and traveling companion of the victim, said Dawod asked police a question in English after he was arrested: “He said, ‘if I quit shooting at people, can I get back on the bus?’” So Dawod does speak English.
I concluded that update with an observation, writing: The extent to which Dawod might carry out his version of “legal jihad” — that is, causing the U.S. court system to waste as much time, effort and money as possible on his case — remains to be seen.
What else remains to be seen is the extent to which the mainstream news media outside of Springfield covers this case if, indeed, they cover it at all. After all, neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security have breathed a peep about the possibility of this being a pre-9/11 anniversary terror attack.
Now, if he had been a member of the Tea Party Movement — WHOA! — things would be different!
UPDATE 9/28/11 at 9:27 a.m. Central: Listen to Klein Online Investigative Radio Sunday (2-4 p.m. EST) as I’ll be a guest, discussing this story with host Aaron Klein.
UPDATE 9/29/11 at 11:09 a.m. Central: Looks like Dawod had a 9-inch knife and plenty of ammo when arrested, according to this report.
UPDATE 10/13/11 at 7:34 a.m. Central: Dawod had a public defender appointed to represent him during a hearing yesterday, according to a Springfield (Mo.) News Leaderreport, and another hearing has been set to take place Nov. 28.
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
Jake Tapper seems to have had enough with Jay Carney. Yesterday, the ABC News White House correspondent let the president’s spokesman know it during a discussion about the apparent double-standard that exists when it comes to the use of harsh language about political opponents.
Mentioned during the Tapper-Carney “debate” above was a February 2008 campaign event in Cincinnati for then-Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during which radio talk show host Bill Cunningham referred to Obama by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, prior to McCain taking the stage. Afterward, then-Senator Obama demanded an apology from Senator McCain, and he got one, shown in the video below.
The double-standard-fueled showdown in the White House press room came one day after I reminded Americans of how, after hearing Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa call for a war on the Tea Party, President Obama seemed to forget what he had told an audience in Tucson eight months earlier:
“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” — Barack Obama, Jan. 12, 2011
UPDATE 9/7/11 at 11:26 a.m. Central: During a WMAL radio broadcast this morning, White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer offers a weak-kneed response to concerns about the president’s failure to distance himself from Hoffa’s anti-Tea Party remarks (see video below):
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
Can’t remember what Barack Obama said when he spoke in Tuscon, Ariz., at the Jan. 12 campaign rally disguised as a memorial service to honor the people killed in Tucson four days earlier? You’re not alone. After hearing AFL-CIO Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa call for war on the Tea Party Monday, the president seemed as if he had forgotten his words, too. Those words, by the way, surface at the 1:01:19 mark of the video below:
His exact words:
“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
Now, fast forward to Monday when AFL-CIO President Jimmy Hoffa spoke to a mostly-union crowd at a Labor Day rally in Detroit before introducing President Obama. The video below captures the first “lowlight” of the event:
Hoffa used the following inflammatory rhetoric:
“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war.
“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”
Being his usual self, President Obama responded by introducing the usual labor union suspects — including Hoffa — and saying he was proud of them. The video below captures the lack of leadership and class:
If this doesn’t seal the deal, what’s it gonna take? Vote wisely in 2012, folks!
UPDATE 9/7/11 at 11:28 a.m. Central: During a WMAL radio broadcast this morning, White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer offers a weak-kneed response to concerns about the president’s failure to distance himself from Hoffa’s anti-Tea Party remarks (see video below):
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
Has The New York Times shouldered any of the blame for injecting into the public square the possibility that Muslims were to blame for the recent terror bombing in Oslo? Of course, not! The newspaper has, however, attempted to foist some of the blame for the bombing upon conservative, “counter-jihad” writers — including yours truly — in the United States and Europe.
In case you missed it, the “Old Gray Lady” of newspapering — note, I didn’t use the word “journalism” — ran a piece Saturday which, on page two, including the following paragraph about who might be responsible for the deadly attacks at the Norwegian government building and on the island of Utoeya that, combined, left more than 100 dead:
Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.
The article ended with the following “insightful” commentary from John D. Cohen, principal deputy counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security:
“What happened in Norway,” Mr. Cohen said, “is a dramatic reminder that in trying to prevent attacks, we cannot focus on a single ideology.”
While I didn’t quote Cohen in my Saturday afternoon piece about the attacks, I did mention the alleged claim of responsibility by the Muslim group and was careful to cite the Times as having published that alleged claim.
Still, it didn’t take long for loyal readers of the Times — in particular, one chap from the United Kingdom who anonymously posted a dozen or so comments (most of which I deleted) — to come after me. “For what?” you ask. Allegedly blaming muslims for the dirty deeds in Norway and, ergo, wanting to kill them in revenge. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
Such attempts to paint conservatives — especially conservative writers like me — as extremists willing to exact death and destruction upon others as some twisted means of restoring freedom, justice and the American Way to daily living, makes me think we’ve entered Round Two of a thought-policing action that exposed more than two years ago in my post, Yikes, I Might Be Part of the Militia Movement!
In that report, I noted how I fit the criteria for being identified as a member of the militia movement, according to a report issued Feb. 20, 2009, by the Missouri Information Analysis Center — then a little-known branch of the Missouri State Police — and signed by the Show-Me State’s new liberal governor, Democrat Jay Nixon. Below are some of the examples I cited:
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF THE UNITED STATES: They explain, “Many militia organizations feel that the U.S. government will fall due to economic or racial issues.” They follow up on that thought by citing the influence of a recent political forecast by Igor Panarin, a Russian professor, upon militia members. Panarin predicted in December that the U.S. would collapse and split into six different regions controlled by foreign governments. Lock me up! On Dec. 29, I wrote and published a postabout Panarin’s prediction and even reprinted the very map contained in the MIAC document — and I did it on the same day as the subversives at the Wall Street Journal published an article on the same subject.
RFID TECHNOLOGY: They explain that militia members fear the government will enforce mass RFID human implantations that would make it possible for the government to continually know the locations of all citizens. Lock me up! I’ve written at least three posts about RFID technology since Aug. 30, 2008.
CHRISTIAN IDENTITY: Next to a page 4 subhead, “Christian Identity,” they explain that religious ideology is popular in extreme right-wing circles. Lock me up! I’m a Christian!
“It seems like they want to stifle political thought” is how Roger Webb, then-president of the University of Missouri Libertarians, described the motivation behind the report, according to an Associated Press article published March 14, 2009 (link no longer available). Based on what the folks at the Times are saying in the wake of the Oslo tragedies, I can only conclude that they would like to do the same.
UPDATE 7/25/11 at 7:12 p.m. Central: Cross-posted at BigJournalism.com.
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
The visual I found on the official website of U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) at 9:42 a.m. Central today seems an appropriate metaphor for the way the longtime congressman-turned freshman senator and members of his staff have rushed to the aide of Nixa, Mo., resident John Dollarhite.
Two months ago, Dollarhite contacted Senator Blunt for help in fighting USDA fines of up to $4 million in fines for selling too many bunnies. The senator replied with an electronic letter in which he said, among other things, that “Eliminating the option of humanely reducing the horse population may lead to even greater suffering on the part of these horses.” In other words, Dollarhite said, the senator’s staffers weren’t much help and his interaction with them left him “pissed off.”
Now, fast forward to the present day, and things aren’t looking much better.
Roy Blunt is for BIG Goverment….. I called Roy’s office in Springfield & Jefferson City today. They are supportive of the USDA and I should NOT have the right to own any animals of any kind because I did not have a license…… Please protest Roy’s Offices.
A short while after reading the Facebook update, I spoke with Dollarhite by phone to hear details about the calls which left him calling for protests at the senator’s offices. He gladly provided them.
After the folks at Senator Blunt’s Springfield office recommended he contact Elizabeth Behrouz at the senator’s Jefferson City office, Dollarhite said he did just that only to have the lady who answered his second call tell him that “Liz” was on the phone and, therefore, unavailable.
Dollarhite said he briefly tried to address his concerns to the nameless female voice on the phone but stopped after finding she was “very rude and very unfriendly” to the point that it was like she was telling him, “Well, you got what was coming to ya.”
Eventually, Dollarhite punted, saying, “I wasn’t going to sit there and argue and debate it with her.” Instead, he left his name and number along with a request that Behrouz call him back. A short while later, she called him.
A conversation ensued, Dollarhite said, and Behrouz told him that they could only ensure the USDA received his letters/complaints. Supporting a constituent wasn’t on the “menu” of services.
Stunned, he said he asked the woman if she believed the USDA was overstepping their bounds in coming after him in the manner in which they have, “…and she said, ‘No!’”
“It was very evident during the phone call that they’re against me,” Dollarhite said, referring to Blunt staffers represented by Behrouz.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I contacted Behrouz prior to writing this piece, but she refused to speak with me and, instead, referred my questions to Amber Marchand, communications director for the senator, who was not a party to the aforementioned phone call with Dollarhite. More on that interaction shortly.
When I asked Dollarhite if he feels like a man without a senator, he didn’t answer the question directly but did get a sharpened point across: “I’m not a Democrat, but at least (U.S. Sen.) Claire McCaskill tried.
“Claire McCaskill’s camp seems to be of the position that they think it’s a bunch of bull,” he said, adding his belief that the Blunt folks “think the USDA is just” in pursuing him with threats of nearly $4 million in fines and/or a lifetime ban on owning and breeding any animals — not just rabbits.
Shortly after 10 a.m. Central today, I called Marchand at Senator Blunt’s Washington, D.C., office, was told she was unavailable and asked to send my inquiry to her by email. At 10:14 a.m. Central, I did just that.
After providing some brief background about the Dollarhite case, I asked Marchand two questions and informed her that I had a deadline of Noon Central:
1. What, if anything, does Senator Blunt plan to do to assist Mr. Dollarhite as he tries to avoid surrendering his Constitutional rights and maintain his freedom to be the rural landowner/farmer/animal lover that he is?
2. Does Senator Blunt see any conflict of interest in the fact that the USDA person trying to impose such harsh penalties on Mr. Dollarhite is a former attorney for the Human Society of the United States? See Animal Rights Activism Fuels USDA Rabbit Chase for details.
Forty-five minutes later, Marchand replied via email: “Hey Bob, I’m in a meeting, but we do not comment on constituent casework. Thanks, Amber.”
Am I surprised that Senator Blunt’s folks seem so reluctant to discuss the Dollarhite case? Not at all. After all, this case involves fighting for Constitutional rights and freedoms — things members of the Tea Party Movement cherish — and the senator is definitely not a Tea Party guy.
If you don’t believe me, step back in time to Feb. 28, 2010, when Senator Blunt was in the heat of a Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by Kit Bond’s retirement. What he said during an interview with me — which begins about 15 seconds into the video below — led me to a conclusion that would become the headline of a post published later that day: Roy Blunt Needs Education About Tea Party Folks.
Despite being against him during the primary, I highlighted a handshake conversation I had with Senator Blunt in a pre-general election post, Everything Changes After the Primary Ends. I told the senator that, despite the fact that I rode him hard during the primary, he had my support in the general election. After all, I thought the ultra-liberal Democrat nominee Robin Carnahan was a much worse option. Today, I’m not sure there’s much of a difference between the two of ‘em.
UPDATE 7/19/11 at 5:22 p.m. Central: For the second time in seven weeks, Mark Steyn discussed one of my stories — this story, to be specific — while guest-hosting The Rush Limbaugh Show today. Listen to the segment online if you’re a member of Rush 24/7.
UPDATE 7/27/11 at 10:52 p.m. Central: I was on the road today, but was advised that U.S. Rep. Billy Long of Missouri’s 7th Congressional District — a guy who’s received a lot of attention on this blog — actually did something worthwhile. In short, he wrote letter to the USDA’s Sarah L. Conant on behalf of John Dollarhite. Stay tuned for updates as to whether or not it helped.
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
