Blue Texan at Firedoglake Trashes Right-Bloggers for Criticizing Senate Majority Cyclops Robert C. Byrd

This is really rich.

Yesterday left-wing extremist Blue Texan at Firedoglake erupted in outrage at the right's relatively mild reaction to the death of former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd. See, "Conservatives Trash Robert Byrd While His Body is Still Warm." Check the link. For reminding folks of Senator Byrd's disgraced past as an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, Blue Texan writes, "As always, the right remains a paragon of class."

But back in January, Blue Texan attacked former GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott as "chummy with racist hate groups." See, "Senate Majority Leader was Affiliated with White Supremacist Group."

Words fail.

Screen caps below.

I can't speak for fellow right-bloggers, but my personal policy is to denounce racism when I see it. That's apparently not the way it works with Blue Texan and Firedoglake. The hypocrisy is stunning of course. FDL is home to at least two of the biggest racist bigot bloggers on the web, Jane Hamsher (more here) and Tom Boggiani.

All in a day's work, I guess. Don't rest, friends. Expose these people for the enemies of truth and decency that they are.

Added: Cold Fury links with, "Death becomes them."

Here's the 'Repulsive' Campaign Ad in the Illinois Governor's Race (VIDEO)

It's not "repulsive."

Just talking about the kind of issues facing the electorate today gets you labeled an extremist or something.

At Politico, "Incendiary ad fuels primary challenge to Illinois governor," and "'Repulsive' campaign ad creates firestorm in Illinois."



Also, at the Chicago Tribune, "Rauner challenger Ives says she's 'a little bit surprised' about 'hysteria' around controversial TV ad."

Stay Classy Progressives: Gay Rights Extremists Lash Out After NOH8 Caught Wellstoning the Death of Christina Santiago

From the comments at, "Extremist NOH8 Campaign Exploits Christina Santiago Death for Crass Political Gain":

dave™© said...

Dear hste-filled wingnut asshole,

Go fuck yourself.

Too bad it wasn't a moron like you who got snuffed out instead of a loving person working to change the world for the better. The fewer clueless motherfuckers like you around, the better.

Did I tell you to go fuck yourself? Just checking...

August 17, 2011 5:59 AM

And the fever-nihilists at Balloon Juice endorse the hate. Plus, more from the haters at Truth Wins Out.

FLASHBACK: Recall my recent post that explains exactly this kind of violent extremism:

Gay activists are the most venal, vicious, and unprincipled political organizers going. It's like Rick Santorum noted the other day, when he suggested that gays enjoy "super rights." Progressive gay activists are the left's ultimate bullies. They are in your face, attacking anyone with the slightest inclination toward tradition as a "homophobe" and "racist." They browbeat, intimidate, and harass to get their way. They've threatened to destroy livelihoods over the simple act of voting on a proposition. They's lied and cheated in public forums, for example, with the mock judicial process that reviewed Prop. 8 in Federal District Court. Basically, they've raped the political process to leverage a disgusting and morally reprobate barebacking, rim-station sexual agenda that majorities of voters have consistently rejected nationwide. Fully thirty states continue to prohibit gay marriage across the country, but the tentacles of deathly progressivism have worked their subterfuge in the more left-leaning states, using all manner of deceit and duplicity to carry the day. Most of all is the sickening progressive discrimination that is the centerpiece of folks like the disgusting perv Dan Savage. I wrote recently on his sick bigotry and hatred of regular people: "Gay Sexual Abandon and the Perverse Inversion of Values by Same-Sex Extremists." The gay progressive program of ideological bigotry works because society has been beaten down by political correctness. No one wants to appear intolerant. No one wants to be attacked as anti "civil rights." The problem of course, is that gay marriage isn't a civil right, although regular people have been so brainwashed by progressive Orwellianism they don't know what is good and moral, and to even speak up for something decent is to be viciously attacked, with people's very lives being threatened.

No More Excuses for Islamic Monsters — #BokoHaram

From Ralph Peters, at the New York Post, "Stop making excuses for Islamist extremist monsters."

And Peters interviewed on Fox News, "Hillary Clinton Refused to Put Boko Haram on Terror List."

The Obama administration's engaged in "deceit, deception, and outright lies."

Who knew?!!

#ISIS Jihadists Enter Ruthless Alliance with Former Saddam Loyalists in Baath Party of #Iraq

Following up on my previous entry, "#ISIS Advance Through Iraq is 'Basically a Blitzkrieg'."

And now at the New York Times, "Uneasy Alliance Gives Insurgents an Edge in Iraq":

ERBIL, Iraq — Meeting with the American ambassador some years ago in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki detailed what he believed was the latest threat of a coup orchestrated by former officers of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

“Don’t waste your time on this coup by the Baathists,” the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, chided him, dismissing his conspiracy theories as fantasy.

Now, though, with Iraq facing its gravest crisis in years, as Sunni insurgents have swept through northern and central Iraq, Mr. Maliki’s claims about Baathist plots have been at least partly vindicated. While fighters for the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, once an offshoot of Al Qaeda, have taken on the most prominent role in the new insurgency, they have done so in alliance with a deeply rooted network of former loyalists to Saddam Hussein.

The involvement of the Baathists helps explain why just a few thousand Islamic State in Iraq and Syria fighters, many of them fresh off the battlefields of Syria, have been able to capture so much territory so quickly. It sheds light on the complexity of the forces aligned against Baghdad in the conflict — not just the foreign-influenced group known as ISIS, but many homegrown groups, too. And with the Baathists’ deep social and cultural ties to many areas now under insurgent control, it stands as a warning of how hard it might be for the government to regain territory and restore order.

Many of the former regime loyalists, including intelligence officers and Republican Guard soldiers — commonly referred to as the “deep state” in the Arab world — belong to a group called the Men of the Army of the Naqshbandia Order, often referred to as J.R.T.N., the initials of its Arabic name. The group announced its establishment in 2007, not long after the execution of Mr. Hussein, and its putative leader, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was one of Mr. Hussein’s most trusted deputies and the highest-ranking figure of the old regime who avoided capture by the Americans.

Referring to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s fighters, Michael Knights, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has researched the Naqshbandia group, said, “They couldn’t have seized a fraction of what they did without coordinated alliances with other Sunni groups.”

In some areas under militant control, including areas around Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit, he said, “there are definitely pockets where the Naqshbandias are wearing the pants.”

Mr. Douri, the king of clubs in decks of cards given to American forces in 2003 to identify the most-wanted regime leaders, is a mysterious figure, so furtive he was even declared dead in 2005. It is believed that he is still alive today — he would be in his early 70s — although even that is uncertain. After the American invasion he was said to have fled to Syria, where he reportedly worked with Syrian intelligence to restore the Baath Party within Iraq and led an insurgency from there that mainly targeted American interests.

“He’s a great totem of the old regime,” Mr. Knights said. “You need that kind of individual to keep the flame going.”

It's said that representatives of Douri's Naqshbandia group have met with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the secretive ISIS leader sometimes considered the next Osama bin Laden.

Notice the irony here: The left claimed there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein maintained ties or support for al-Qaeda before 9/11, and it was claimed no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq in 2003; but in 2014 Saddam's top butchers are now coordinating chemical weapons development with al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's splinter group, all while the Democrat who was once the most antiwar member of the U.S. Senate prepares to launch airstrikes on some of the world's most dangerous elements, who President George W. Bush had placed in the Axis of Evil.

Blow-back is a bitch sometimes, especially for the Democrats.

PREVIOUSLY: "No WMDs? #ISIS Jihadists Seize Saddam's 'Premiere' Chemical Weapons Production Facility."

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Says Obama's Extremism Summit a 'Mess'

Yeah, well, Mr. Ambassador, join the club.

At Foreign policy, "Russia's U.N. Ambassador Says Obama's Extremism Summit a 'Mess'":

Despite bitter differences over the fate of Syria and Ukraine, the United States and Russia still agree on one thing: the need to confront violent Islamic extremists from North Africa to the Middle East. But forging a coordinated strategy for combating the scourge has been complicated by the deteriorating state of relations between the Cold War superpowers.

With foreign dignitaries gathered in Washington for President Barack Obama’s conference on extremism, Russia’s U.N. envoy, Vitaly Churkin, denounced what he perceived as the latest American slights against Russia. He accused the United States of failing to seek Moscow and other capitals’ views on the event’s agenda, and said it snubbed Russia’s close allies, including Serbia, which was not invited to the conference.

“The United States believes in its exceptionalism and it has to say at every corner that the United States is going to lead,” Churkin said. “Fine, I’m prepared to listen to those statements if they want to position themselves this way.… What the hell.”

He added: “But they should not proceed from this premise in their relations with Russia and China, really, because they should take advantage of our willingness to cooperate.”

The Russian diplomat also offered a not-so-subtle warning that Russia’s cooperation on matters of vital importance to Washington, like the Iranian nuclear negotiations, should not be taken for granted. “Russia is a very responsible member” of the international community, said Churkin, noting that Moscow had worked very hard to have the Iranian nuclear talks succeed. “It would not take much for Russia to do some mischief in those talks, to make agreement even more difficult.”...



A week ago, Russia championed the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at helping to strangle the ability of the Islamic State and al Qaeda to raise money through the sale of oil, gas, and antiquities and the kidnapping of hostages. Following the vote, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, voiced strong U.S. support for the resolution in remarks to the council. But she made no mention of Moscow’s contribution, and instead took a swipe at Russia and China for blocking an earlier resolution that would have subjected Syrian leaders to the International Criminal Court.

Churkin accused the United States of pushing the United Nations to the sidelines, saying the international body should be the one that is leading in countering extremism.

America’s insistence on staking out a leadership role in the fight against terrorism would only embolden jihadis to take up the fight, Churkin said. It will “attract the extremists, you know, to fight that American-led coalition,” he said.

He also complained that while the Obama administration claims to be launching a broad international fight against extremists, it “did not consult us” about the substance of the meeting. “Originally, they did not even invite us,” Churkin said.

He lambasted the White House for inviting envoys from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to the counter-extremist event but ignoring Serbia, which currently chairs the group. Meanwhile, he said, Kosovo was asked to participate, even though it is not a member of the U.N.

And though Russia is eager to work with the United States on battling extremism, Churkin had low expectations on what the White House conference would yield. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s going to produce a mess,” he said.

The U.S. mission to the United Nations and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment on Churkin’s remarks.

The United States did invite a delegation from Russia, which was headed by Moscow’s top spy, Alexander Bortnikov, the director of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia’s modern-day KGB.

The three-day meeting began Tuesday with a focus on the domestic threat of extremism in the United States, and shifted on Thursday to the international effort to combat terrorism. Speaking Thursday morning at the State Department before representatives of more than 60 countries, President Obama painted a grim portrait of a world buffeted by terrorism...

'Guilt-Free Fur' Reveals Total Hypocrisy of Animal Rights Movement

At New York Times (where else?), "The Nutria, a Rodent Promoted as 'Guilt-Free Fur'."

Okay, sure, this is not a particularly attractive animal. And apparently these varmints are wreaking havoc on the Lousiana environment. But it's not like minks are all that much more cuddly (minks are cousins to weasels, for that matter). But now the former is becoming a politically acceptable alternative to the latter, which just goes to show that there's absolutely no intellectual integrity to the extremist animal rights movement. People either reject fur apparel, and hence eliminate demand for furry animals, or they stop yapping about how people who like luxurious coats are animal murderers. It's pretty simple, and wholly pathetic:

TREATING nutria as a kind of “guilt free” fur is tough when you’re cutting the pelt and fur gets caught in your eyes. That’s what Micha Michelle Melancon, a fashion designer in New Orleans, found out when she was making a cloak from what is commonly known as a swamp rat.

“This is an animal,” Ms. Melancon said, after her work space became filled with fluffy piles of excess fur. “A soft, furry, once-living-and-breathing being.”

But unlike other soft and furry animals, nutria is being rebranded as a socially acceptable and environmentally friendly alternative way to wear fur. The effort culminates this Sunday, when Ms. Melancon and about 20 designers take part in a “righteous fur” fashion show at the House of Yes, an art space in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Fluffy hats, muffs, leg warmers and even a wedding dress will be paraded down the runway, in a show expected to draw about 150 people. Don’t look for any celebrities in the front row. A reporter from National Geographic and someone who works at Marc Jacobs are among the expected V.I.P.’s.

But Nutria-palooza, as the show is being called, is not just about fashion. The main sponsor is the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary Foundation, a nonprofit conservation group in Thibodaux, La., that works to preserve the 4.2-million-acre swamp in southern Louisiana that is being threatened by the furry critter.

As any resident of Louisiana knows, nutria is a herbivorous rodent, about half the size of a beaver, that is native to South America. The animals were shipped to fur farmers in the United States as early as the 19th century, and some eventually escaped into the Louisiana swamps. At first, the population was kept in check by fur trappers and a marketplace that prized the exotic fur. Hollywood starlets like Greta Garbo were fans of nutria coats.

But when the fur market started to founder in the 1980s, the nutria population soared and started to endanger the fragile ecosystem. The invasive rodent eats away the bottom of the plants that hold the coastal wetlands together.

In 2002, Louisiana started paying trappers and hunters $5 for every nutria killed. The effort to control the nutria population had some success, with bounty hunters killing about 400,000 animals last year. But the carcasses were simply discarded or left to rot in the swamp.

That’s when Cree McCree, an environmentalist and designer from New Orleans, came up with her fashion idea. Instead of wasting all that fur, she wanted to market nutria as a “guilt-free fur that belongs on the runway instead of at the bottom of the bayou,” she said.

“If they’re being killed anyway,” she added, “then why not make something beautiful out of them?”

Lame justification.

The animals don't "need" to be killed in the first place. The "fur market started to founder" because of the left's attacks on the fur industry. And now that things are out of whack in the bayou, Voilà! Kill 'em all and let the "EVIL" marketplace sort 'em out? If these environmentalists were really worth their salt they'd find a way to balance the ecosystem naturally, without having to kill the poor rodents. What a joke.

Progressives and the Defense Budget

Yesterday I noted that Chris Bowers was acting rational. Today I'm not so sure. He's got a post up today that endorses an extremist view of fiscal policy and budgetary authority:

The most important appointment decision Obama will make during the transition, bar none, is who becomes, or remains, Secretary of Defense. As I have noted in the past, the Department of Defense oversees the expenditure of 52% of all discretionary spending, rendering it literally impossible for any other cabinet Secretary to oversee as much federal money. Further, keeping Gates on would only worsen Democratic image problems on national security, as he would be the second consecutive non-Democratic Secretary of Defense nominated by a Democratic President. The message would be clear: even Democrats agree that Democrats can't run the military ....

Secretary of Defense is the big enchilada. Arguably, due to the vast percentage of federal spending it receives, it is more important than all other cabinet secretaries combined. The President may be Commander in Chief, but it is the Secretary of Defense who is decides how most federal revenue is spent. We need change in the Department of Defense, and keeping Gates along with his entire team of advisors and assistants doesn't fit the bill.

Reading this, perhaps we can understand why Obama's strongly resisting the pressures from the netroots.

The Secretary of Defense decides how MOST federal revenue is spent? That's a new one.

The truth is that defense expenditures account for roughly 20 percent of federal expentitures. The biggest proportion of spending is consumed by PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS, and particularly income security expenditures. These outlays include programs for the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and funding healthcare beneficiaries - that is, social programs.

Naturally, as a progressive, Bowers wouldn't think about including social programs in the types of programs where money is "spent." Those are are essentially untouchable from a far left-wing perspective. Bowers, frankly, is advocating the fiscal logic of the anti-imperialist left, seen for example in this page from the socialist War Resisters League, "Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes." The pie chart above suggests what federal expenditures look like without including entitlements and automatic social outlays.

If we really want to think about who controls fiscal power in the federal government, think Thomas Daschle, the recently named nominee-designate as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle, as "health czar," is expected to have tremendous power in reforming the deliverery and access to healthcare in this country. Perhaps more importantly, Dashcle will oversee Social Security and Medicare, the most expensive entitlement programs in the nation. If these two granddaddies of the welfare state aren't reformed, they will consume the entire federal budget within a few decades.

If we're going to start talking about real budgetary choices, think social policy and entitlement reforms. Right now though, the incoming Obama administration is ramping up spending plans, and not on defense. The direction of federal budget expenditures will be one of the most important policy legacies the Obama administration will leave. Unfortunately, the left's antiwar crowd isn't talking about that.

Monumental Success of Neocons on Iraq

This essay, from Steven Cook at Foreign Policy, is a real disappointment. See, "What the Neocons Got Right":

Let me start out by saying that I do not believe the neocons got Iraq right. It may turn out right or it may not. It's too early to tell. So far, the March 7 elections look pretty good as the counting gets under way, despite 36 deaths. Analysts will likely point to the hard, messy coalition bargaining that is sure to come as evidence that Iraq is moving in the right direction. After all, Iraqis are processing their grievances through democratic institutions, which says a lot about how far the country has come since the dark days of 2006 to 2007. Perhaps it's my skeptical nature, but I am not ready to declare victory. We have seen too many "corners turned" and "watershed moments" in Iraq for me to be confident that anyone inside or outside the U.S. government actually understands Iraq.

The effort by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to bar certain politicians from politics was one prominent warning sign that Iraq might actually be moving toward the "Arab mean" -- Middle Eastern leaders have been reverting to this tactic since Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser invented it in the early 1950s. More profoundly, there seems to be an undeniable logic to Iraqi politics that concentrates power in Baghdad, which does not bode well for democratic development. It remains an open question whether the U.S. military's almost seven-year mission in Iraq has undermined the unwritten codes, norms, and rules of behavior that governed Iraqi politics for the better part of a century before Operation Iraqi Freedom. We'll just have to wait and see.

I guess it needs to be said, but if events in Iraq haven't proved neocons right, then there's really no point in making the assessment at all. But notice what Cook is saying: The al-Maliki government is another Nasserite regime? And the concentration of power in Baghdad -- which is of course the seat of power in Iraq -- bodes ill for democracy? Maybe Foreign Policy should have commissioned someone else to write this essay. What's happening in Iraq is exactly the stuff of a vibrant democracy, and the popular participation and repudiation of terror confirm the finest expectations of neoconservative idealism. Last week's election was the culmination of years of change -- essentially revolutionary change -- that's nothing short of miraculous. As the Wall Street Journal points out:

It takes a cynical mind not to share in the achievement of Iraq's national elections. Bombs and missiles, al Qaeda threats and war fatigue failed to deter millions of Iraqis of all sects and regions from exercising a right that is rare in the Arab world. Even the U.N.'s man in Baghdad called the vote "a triumph."

On Sunday, 61% of eligible voters came out in Anbar Province, a former extremist stronghold that includes the towns of Fallujah and Ramadi. In the last national elections five years ago, 3,375 people—or 2%—voted in Anbar. The other Sunni-dominated provinces that boycotted in 2005 saw similar numbers: over 70% turnout in Diyala and Salaheddin and 67% in Nineveh, all higher than the national average of 62%. American Presidential elections rarely have such turnout.

But see also, Richard Grenell, "Iraq: An Example for the Region":

Although Iraq still sees sectarian violence and terrorist bombings all too much, there is no question that the country has made monumental change to its political system and in a relatively short time.

This week's free and fair elections are yet another example of a young democracy taking hold in a country where just a few years ago real elections and campaigning were unthinkable.

No country in the Middle East gives its people more freedoms than Iraq does today. NGO's are being created weekly; a civil society has emerged to challenge the government's decisions, demand transparency, represent minorities and bring attention to people and issues that were ignored in the past.

Iraq has a free press that is unrivalled in the Arab world, unobstructed access to the Internet and a military that is becoming a force to be reckoned with in the heart of the world's most unstable territory.

While Iraq's very young democracy is messy, incomplete and imperfect, it is currently the envy of the Arab world.

RELATED: GSGF, "Getting it Right."

How to Take a Picture of a Severed Head

From Sebastian Meyer and Alicia P.Q. Wittmeyer, at Foreign Policy:

In the buildup to the premier of part one of VICE News' documentary, the company touted its journalist's "unprecedented access." Indeed, VICE's cameras appear to go deep into the caliphate, and the footage they capture is chilling: In the first two installments, based in Raqqa, Syria, children as young as 11 pledge loyalty to the caliphate, and IS members give brazen interviews that include pledging to "raise the flag of Allah in the White House." There are also happy scenes, of a sort: Men living under IS rule play with children in a river. And front and center, of course, are the demonstrations of Islamic State power: a tank spinning in circles; IS's signature black flag waving from a turret; a parade of stolen Iraqi weapons; a rally in which a crowd is prodded into a call-and-response: "The Caliphate!" "Established!"

In an email statement to Foreign Policy, VICE offered no details about the terms of the embed, nor did it share them in an interview with the Huffington Post. It said it offered "a previously unseen look at life under the control of this terrifying extremist group" and said filmmaker Dairieh "has worked in the region's most challenging environments ... and has extensive contacts."

Part I of the VICE series is here: "The Spread of Islamic State."

Ron Paul's Storm Troopers

Ron Paul's in the news again this week, following his big fundraising haul on November 5. The Chicago Tribune discusses the Paul campaign liftoff:

No more Department of Education. No more Federal Reserve Bank. No more Medicare or Medicaid. No more membership in the United Nations or NATO. No more federal drug laws. And, no more U.S. troops in Iraq -- or anywhere else on foreign soil.

The Internal Revenue Service would be history in the first week that Ron Paul sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. And the dismantling of the above-mentioned entities and relationships -- plus a long list of others -- soon would commence.

Think that sounds eccentric, strange, even crazy? Many of the libertarian-minded, 10-term congressman's rivals for the GOP presidential nomination think so and have said so.

But, to a growing, Internet-based pool of supporters, the silver-haired obstetrician turned politician is the sanest man at the Republican debates and perhaps in all of Congress. Paul attracts an unusual political potpourri of people of all ages and viewpoints, including a sprinkling of conspiracy theorists and other extremists whose views Paul's campaign disavows. While most supporters ardently oppose the Iraq war, what they all share is a deep disenchantment and distrust of the federal government in its present form and a fervent belief in Paul's plans to change it.

On Nov. 5, they demonstrated their passion for Paul in spectacular fashion, raising $4.2 million, mostly online, in 24 hours, rocketing him close to his $12 million goal for the fourth quarter. In terms of 2008 GOP presidential candidates, Paul's take broke the previous one-day record of $3.1million set by Mitt Romney Jan. 8.

Hammering home a singular message of freedom, free markets, smaller federal government and greater personal responsibility, Paul, at 72, is nothing if not consistent. Personally, he seems very much the same in a one-on-one conversation as he does on the stump: earnest, serious and slightly stunned. Although pleasant, he, unlike most politicians, makes no effort to charm. He leaves an impression that he is out to sell ideas, not himself.

Andrew Walden over at the American Thinker penetrates deep into the Paul internet contributor base to unearth the group remants of the shady side of American politics:

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com. It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

There is more. The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul.

Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls. Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [Update] Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.

Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.

Paul's fringe element support's not only among far right strom troopers:

Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims. Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser. There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.

An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America." MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group. The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy"....

The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well. David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos. Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories.

The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988. Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.

Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't. Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks. Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America. On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11". Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic."

See my earlier posts on the Paul campaign, here, here, here, and here.

Paul is endlessly fascinating, from a political science perspective in particular. His campaign is like a real-world laboratory on extremist ideology. We sometimes forget all the nasty strangeness lurking in the subterranean fringe of the American electorate. Paul's candidacy brings out the loons, demonstrating the weird power of internet advocacy in a time of political dealignment and policy discontent.

**********

UPDATE: Be sure to check this Buzztracker link, which has an aggregation of some top blog posts on American Thinker's, "The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters."

Countries Around the World Trying to Suppress the Flow of Jihadists to #ISIS

Well, good luck with that.

At the New York Times, "Nations Trying to Stop Their Citizens From Going to Middle East to Fight for ISIS":

UNITED NATIONS — France wants more power to block its citizens from leaving the country, while Britain is weighing whether to stop more of its citizens from coming home. Tunisia is debating measures to make it a criminal offense to help jihadist fighters travel to Syria and Iraq, while Russia has outlawed enlisting in armed groups that are “contradictory to Russian policy.”

The rapid surge of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and its ability to draw fighters from across the globe, have set off alarm bells in capitals worldwide. Countries that rarely see eye to eye are now trying to blunt its recruitment drive, passing a raft of new rules that they hope will stop their citizens from joining extremist groups abroad.

The United States has seized on the issue, pushing for a legally binding United Nations Security Council resolution that would compel all countries in the world to take steps to “prevent and suppress” the flow of their citizens into the arms of groups considered to be terrorist organizations.

Recruits from 74 countries are among the estimated 12,000 foreign militants in Syria and Iraq, many of them fighting with ISIS, according to Peter Neumann, a professor at King’s College London, who has culled the figures largely from government sources. The largest blocs of these fighters come from nearby Muslim countries, like Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, but smaller contingents come from countries as far away and disparate as Belgium, China, Russia and the United States...

Continue reading.

Norway Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg: 'We Will Not Be Intimidated'

At BBC, "Norway will stand firm, says PM Jens Stoltenber."

Also, at The Independent UK, "Norway to form independent commission to probe attacks":

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg vowed today that Norway will fight back against the twin terror attacks with "more democracy" and said an independent commission is being formed to investigate the massacre and to help survivors and relatives.

Norwegians will defend themselves by showing they are not afraid of violence and by participating more broadly in politics, he told reporters.

"It's absolutely possible to have an open, democratic, inclusive society, and at the same time have security measures and not be naive," he said.

Stoltenberg underlined his commitment to openness, defending freedom of thought even if includes extremist views such as those held by the 32-year-old Norwegian who confessed to Friday's bomb blast at government headquarters and to the shooting massacre at a Labor Party youth camp hours later. At least 76 people were killed.

"We have to be very clear to distinguish between extreme views, opinions — that's completely legal, legitimate to have. What is not legitimate is to try to implement those extreme views by using violence," he said.

"I think what we have seen is that there is going to be one Norway before and one Norway after July 22," he said. "But I hope and also believe that the Norway we will see after will be more open, a more tolerant society than what we had before."

He later announced the independent commission, saying "it is important to be able to clear up all questions about the attack in order to learn from what happened."

Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel's 'Expansion Over Security' at UCLA Lecture on 'Palestine in Crisis'

I experimented with video blogging, and this clip captures more of Chomsky's comments on U.S. policy than his remarks on Israeli expansionism. Here he argues that from Washington's perspective democracy and freedom in the Middle East are antithetical to American interests. The U.S. and Israel allegedly fear the Arab Spring because the revolutions threaten American hegemony in the region. Chomsky spouts a lot of disinformation, which is his trademark. He says at 40 seconds that "about 90 percent of Egyptians view the United States as the main enemy" and that "about 80 percent in the region wanted to be sure Iran had nuclear weapons":

Actually, public opinion in Egypt is much more complicated than that, and while there's obviously variation across individual polls and over time, there's no support for Chomky's claim of "80 percent" across the region supporting Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey in April 2010, "a majority of respondents in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon as well as Israel said the spread of nuclear weapons was a major threat" (the number was 41 percent in Egypt).

But these are only quick examples of the kind of propaganda one hears at a Noam Chomsky lecture. Indeed, what's even more fascinating than hearing Chomsky's America-bashing is observing the rock star status he's afforded by the huge crowd of collegiate wannabe bohemians, diehard pro-terror communists, and the campus Islamist jihadis who thronged the event. I'll post pictures later. Chomsky was swarmed by extremist acolytes upon entering the lecture hall. Upon speaking, it was as if his attacks on "American imperialism" and "corporate dominance" were like throwing bags of candy to children. I arrived at UCLA at 5:00pm, and the event was scheduled from 6:00 to 8:00pm. There was a long line out in front of the lecture hall, and while I was dressed casual with my baggy shorts and Famous Stars and Straps shirt and cap, I nevertheless hid the cover of Peter Collier and David Horowitz's, Anti Chomsky Reader with my copy Chomsky and Ilan Pappé's Gaza in Crisis. No need to get these thugs riled. That said, I haven't shaved in weeks, and the beard's getting a little scruffy, frankly, and thus I imagine that grizzled look went over well among the hordes. Honestly, some Muslim women simply do not smell good, and that's to say nothing of the countercultural radicals who look like they just awoke from a night's sleep out on the sidewalks of Westwood. Hey, I guess it's a good thing that the Muslim dude I saw in building of the Samueli School of Engineering, where I stopped off to take a leak before heading back out to the parking garage, was performing his ablutions right there at the bathroom sink!

In any case, listening to Chomsky drone on lethargically, I was reminded of this passage from David Horowitz's essay at the reader, "Noam Chomsky's Anti-American Obsession":

It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every analysis is subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky's lifework, which is to justify an idée fixe -- his pathological hatred of his own country.

The point was evident at the moment Chomsky commenced. The talk was on "Palestine and Israel in Crisis," but Chomsky was emphatic in stressing the everything Israel does "is at the direction of the United States." That claim sets the tone, of course, for Chomsky's attacks on America's imperial ambitions in the region. But despite the monotonous delivery, Chomsky was sharp intellectually and stayed on point in discussing the Middle East "crisis." And note that nothing, not a single fact surrounding the cycles of violence and bloodshed in the region, is the fault of the Palestinians. He made a big point, a number of times, to stress that the U.S. and Israel face a "crisis of legitimation" in world opinion. He argued, by that token, that this was in fact an increasing "crisis of delegitimation" that's bringing about a "tsunami" of condemnation against the United States, which Chomsky eagerly claimed to be a declining power, but which will nevertheless will remain influential of global affairs for some time to come. (Which begs the question of course of whether or not the U.S. really is the "hegemon" that's the basis for Chomsky's decades-long excoriation of his own country.)

Another term Chomsky used repeatedly was "illegal" --- as in Israel "illegally" occupying Gaza and now "illegally" occupying the West Bank with its "illegal" settlements that form the basis for its policy of "expansion over security." That theme, which was essentially the thesis of the night, was that, according to Chomsky, never has Israel been about peace in the Middle East. He cited a number times when Israel allegedly rejected accommodation with the Palestinians, and instead the Jewish state was alleged to be bent in expansion into the territories it claimed in its numerous wars of conquest. Chomsky laid out a vision of either a future two-state accommodation on the basis of peace (not likely) or Israel's complete decimation of Palestine resulting in a one-state domination. A third option was "what's happening right now." Israel will continue to expand the "illegal" settlements, and the U.S. will continue its "hegemonic" role of regional domination in the Middle East.

At the conclusion of the event, Chomsky responded to questions and went off on his familiar rant about how those who proclaim themselves pro-Israel are actually working feverishly for its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. Chomsky then returned to the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and while he admitted key differences, he argued that in one key similarity the time will come when Israel's crisis of legitimation becomes overwhelming, and forces upon it a reckoning for the survival of the Jewish state.

I note here at the end that Chomsky concluded the question and answer session by arguing that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, "murdered," so that the U.S. could avoid putting Bin Laden on trial, because "they have no evidence against him."

That final jab at the U.S. went over extremely well with the crowd of anti-Americans and Arafat-styled student-cum-terrorists.

Bree Newsome, #BlackLivesMatter Extremist, Tears Down Confederate at South Carolina Statehouse (VIDEO)

Wow.

This is just extreme. No, it's beyond extreme. It's frankly insane.

The woman, Bree Newsome, is on Twitter here. She's a radical leftist and #BlackLivesMatter activist.

At Memeorandum, "Woman removes Confederate flag in front of SC statehouse."

“We removed the flag today because we can’t wait any longer. It’s time for a new chapter where we are sincere about dismantling white supremacy and building toward true racial justice and equality.”

And at the Charleston Post & Courier, "Woman removes Confederate flag in front of South Carolina statehouse (has video)."

...the flag is intolerable only because it primarily offends black people (who racists already feel are "taking over their country").

— Bree Newsome (@BreeNewsome) June 20, 2015

The refusal to firmly acknowledge and condemn the racism only fans the flames further because it makes it seem like...

— Bree Newsome (@BreeNewsome) June 20, 2015

They're trying to displace the decision from themselves; the flag has gotta come down because "some people" don't like it...

— Bree Newsome (@BreeNewsome) June 20, 2015

White politicians calling for removal of the confederate flag because "to SOME people it's a symbol of racism and hate" is problematic...

— Bree Newsome (@BreeNewsome) June 20, 2015

The flag will come down, neo-confederates will rise up and USA will face a day of reckoning for original sin it still refuses to acknowledge

— Bree Newsome (@BreeNewsome) June 21, 2015

They allow monuments to the confederacy all throughout the southern U.S. but suppress the history of the slave rebellions. Why is that?

— Bree Newsome (@BreeNewsome) June 21, 2015

Scale of #ParisAttacks Underscores Global Threats

The free flow of people across borders is going to be a thing of the past --- or at least it should be, if Europeans wake up.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Paris Attacks’ Scale Underscores Global Threats":

The sophistication, resources and scale of Friday’s attacks in the heart of Paris underscored to officials across the globe that the challenges of containing extremist violence have reached a new level, and that the calculus of the Western effort against terrorism had fundamentally changed.

European governments in the past few months have sought various means to guard against national security threats, with some erecting barbed-wire fences to stem the flow of migrants, while others, including France, devoted hundreds of millions of euros to strengthening electronic surveillance systems.

Friday’s attacks highlight the weakness of those strategies in a world where global extremism flows across nations. It also raises questions about transnational agreements on open-border travel that have been a bedrock of modern Europe. In his first comments to the nation after the attack, French President François Hollande announced the closing of his country’s borders.

French authorities didn't immediately name a culprit, but the nature of the attacks left little doubt they were the work of a well-organized terrorist group. A French official said Friday the attacks were “unfortunately well-prepared and coordinated.” The apparent use of explosives and the likelihood that a significant number of people were involved were particularly alarming to U.S. counterterrorism officials.

At the same time, officials in several countries have voiced strong suspicions that the recent downing of a Russian passenger plane over Egypt was the work of a terrorist bomb. If Islamic State or another terrorist group is blamed for that attack, in addition to Friday’s carnage, pressure could increase to ramp up the war on such terrorist organizations to a new level.

That could include more pressure on Western countries to step up the military intervention in Syria. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn't have a formal role in strikes against Islamic State, although members of the alliance are taking part in the U.S.-led coalition...

More.

More, at Time, "ISIS Attack on Paris Suggests a Change in Strategy."

Islamic State Seizes Government Headquarters in Ramadi, Iraq

Hey, we've got the terrorists on the run!

Oh wait. They're running the wrong way. Shoot!

At WSJ, "Islamic State Militants Make Gains in Key Iraq Province":

Islamic State fighters seized the government compound in the city of Ramadi on Friday and besieged hundreds of government forces nearby, coming closer to controlling the capital of Iraq’s largest province, officials said.

The compound’s capture marks a setback to the government’s offensive against the extremist group in Anbar, the Sunni province that borders Baghdad, and complicates the Shiite-led government’s ties with the province’s Sunni tribes as they cooperate to expel the militants.

Many of Anbar’s leaders have pleaded for more help from Baghdad to stave off recent Islamic State gains in their province, Iraq’s Sunni heartland. But Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has calibrated his support, sending security forces and arms, but not the powerful Shiite militias that have in recent months helped to drive Islamic State out of central Iraq, including the city of Tikrit.

Anbar’s Sunni tribes are split on whether they need the Shiite militias, and some U.S. and Iraqi officials fear their participation would inflame sectarian tensions and undermine the government.

“The government response has been very weak,” said Rajeh Barakat, an Anbar tribal leader and member of the local provincial council.

Iraqi’s parliament speaker, Salim al-Jabouri, warned on Friday that Ramadi might fall to Islamic State, saying that its collapse “would have consequences on the national security level.”

U.S. officials played down the development, characterizing the Islamic State gains in Ramadi, as well as in the fight to control the oil refinery in Beiji, in Salahudeen province, as ephemeral victories that are likely to be reversed sooner or later. The difficult fights in both places haven’t yet sparked any high-level concern about the U.S. strategy, American military officials said on Friday...

More.

How #Democrats Created Insane 'Social Justice' Mobs

From the inimitable Robert Stacy McCain, at the Other McCain, "The TrigglyPuff Party: How Democrats Created Insane ‘Social Justice’ Mobs":

"Democrats are now held hostage by the mob mentality of the identity-politics 'social justice' coalition they’ve built. ... Democrats are now the party of TrigglyPuff, of angry college girls driven to fits of insanity ..." https://t.co/1Pjz9mHXgZ pic.twitter.com/I8oo0GxvZK

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) October 14, 2018

Commenting on the irrational female rage unleashed by the Kavanaugh confirmation circus, Stephen Green remarks: “The Democrats have worked hard to lock down the Trigglypuff vote, but at what cost of even slightly more moderate voters?” But do such voters really exist?

We are more than 25 years into a cycle of increasing polarization that arguably began with Bill Clinton’s election as president. Clinton’s radicalism — remember the so-called “assault weapons” ban? — sparked a backlash that cost Democrats the control of the House that they’d held for 40 years. Everything thereafter increased the partisan divide: The budget standoff that led to the government shutdown, the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment crisis, the Florida recount in 2000, the Iraq War, the recapture of Congress by Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats, Obama’s election in 2008, the Tea Party movement, on and on.

It is not the case that America’s politics have become more divisive because the Republican Party has moved further right. Liberal pundits, commenting from within their ideological cocoons, habitually apply labels — “far right,” “extremist,” “white nationalist,” etc. — to depict the GOP as beholden to a dangerous fringe, but this is just paranoid propaganda. The typical Republican voter in 2018 is actually no more “extreme” than his father was in 1988. Nor is the policy agenda of the GOP now any more “far right” than it was in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The cause of the increased partisan divide is not that the Republicans have moved right, but that Democrats have moved left.

What happened, when did it happen and why did it happen?

What happened?

A whole helluva lot, lol, but keep reading.

Supreme Court Upholds President Trump's Travel Ban

I'm positively giddy with today's decision out of SCOTUS.

I'm especially pleased because it's a huge defeat for the radical left.

At USA Today, "Supreme Court upholds President Trump's travel ban against majority-Muslim countries":

WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld President Trump's immigration travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries Tuesday as a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority.

The 5-4 ruling reverses a series of lower court decisions that had struck down the ban as Illegal or unconstitutional. It hands a major victory to Trump, who initiated the battle to ban travelers a week after assuming office last year. It was a defeat for Hawaii and other states that had challenged the action, as well as immigration rights groups.

Trump hailed the decision as vindicating his controversial immigration policies, after first tweeting seven simple words: "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!"

"In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country," the president said. "This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country."

The president had vowed to ban Muslims during the 2016 presidential campaign and continued his attacks on Twitter after his election. But the high court said those statements did not constitute evidence of religious discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued the opinion, supported by the court's other four conservatives — a majority that has held through a dozen 5-4 cases this term. He said the ban's restrictions are limited to countries previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks. And he noted that Trump's latest version followed a worldwide review process by several government agencies.

"The proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential authority," the chief justice said. Claims of religious bias against Muslims do not hold up, he said, against "a sufficient national security justification."

However, Roberts said, "We express no view on the soundness of the policy." And Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a brief concurring opinion, referred obliquely to the potential relevance of Trump's statements about religion.

"There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention," Kennedy wrote. "That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects."

The court's four liberal justices dissented, and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor read excerpts from the bench, a rare occurrence. Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, found "evidence of anti-religious bias" that he said was worth a second go-round at the federal district court level.

Sotomayor's dissent was lengthier and more strident, and she spoke in court for some 20 minutes. Quoting extensively Trump's words during and after the 2016 campaign, she wrote: "A reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus." She was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"What began as a policy explicitly 'calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' has since morphed into a 'proclamation' putatively based on national-security concerns," Sotomayor said. "But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: the words of the president and his advisers create the strong perception that the proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers."

Keep reading.

It turns out Sotomayor was absolutely furious, as were leftist outrage mobsters on Twitter:

Without audio of today’s announcement, there is no way to replicate Sotomayor’s fury in a 20-minute dissent from the bench re: today’s travel ban decision

— Nina Totenberg (@NinaTotenberg) June 26, 2018

Heartbroken over what is happening in our country. What are we becoming as a nation under Trump? We must all fight for our values, and for heavens sake, get everyone you know to the polls!

— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) June 26, 2018

Oh, were we having a little chat about civility? Because the Supreme Court upheld the Muslim ban with a seat that was unabashedly stolen by Republicans.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) June 26, 2018

Separating black and brown families is the policy of this administration. Whether it be stripping babies from their mothers at their border or implementing travel bans - it all hurts. It’s all despicable. #NoMuslimBanEver #StandWithMuslims #EndFamilySeparation

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) June 26, 2018

Sophisticated Bomb Design Indicates Tamerlan Tsarnaev May Have Received Weapons Training in Chechnya

Because, of course there wasn't any international planning, or some such shit like that.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Boston bombs showed some expertise: Investigators say the triggering devices used suggest the older brother received guidance on his recent trip to Russia":

Investigators say the triggering devices used suggest the older brother received guidance on his recent trip to Russia
":WASHINGTON — Investigators said the two Boston Marathon bombs were triggered by long-range remote controls for toy cars — a more sophisticated design than originally believed — bolstering a theory that the older suspect received bomb-making guidance on his six-month trip to Russia last year.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died in a shootout with police last week, "more than likely got some instruction in Dagestan," a federal law enforcement official said Wednesday.

The official said investigators continued to believe that Tsarnaev, 26, and his brother, Dzhokhar, 19, were radicalized in the U.S., and that no foreign terrorist group orchestrated the plot.

Nevertheless, the CIA revealed Wednesday that it had asked the FBI and other federal agencies to put Tamerlan Tsarnaev on the terrorism watch list in October 2011 after receiving information from Russia. His name was not placed on a no-fly list, but it was circulated to various intelligence and domestic security agencies.

The information the CIA received "was nearly identical to the information the FBI received in March 2011" from Russia, one official said — unspecific allegations that he had become an Islamic extremist.

The CIA shared all the information provided by the foreign government including two possible dates of birth, his name and a possible name variant as well, an official said.

FBI and Russian security services have been conducting interviews separately in the Dagestan area since the Tsarnaev brothers became suspects in the bombings last week, according to a federal law enforcement official. The agencies are talking to Tsarnaev family members, including the father of the brothers.

The officials asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation.

Further suggesting that Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Russia trip played a role, Secretary of State John F. Kerry told reporters Wednesday in Brussels that the elder suspect "learned something where he went, and he came back with a willingness to kill people."

A joint FBI and Department of Homeland Security intelligence bulletin sent to state and local law enforcement Tuesday night suggested that the bombs' triggering mechanism was more sophisticated than previously thought.

"The sophistication of the explosive devices is similar to what you might find on a battlefield, and I am concerned there is a person out there, either in the Chechen region or in the United States, who trained him," Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.


"For anyone to rule out a foreign connection at this time, I think is highly premature," he said.