Ain’t Love Grand … Smitten Teen Girls Stir Up #FreeJahar Mania for Terrorist Killer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
There really is a sucker born every minute and in this case, many clueless, dimwitted idiot(s). Maybe it’s time to raise the age of voting to 21.
This is what we have to look forward to from future generations … Ain’t love grand, or in this case terrifying. Thousands of ignorant, foolish teenage girls are crushing on 19 year old Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev. That is correct, swarms of misguided teens think he is innocent and tweet, #FreeJahar, about the murderous teen. Some are even getting inked with inspirational tats. GOOD GRIEF. A note to these cluless teens, Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev is not Justin Bieber, he is a killer who thought nothing to put a bomb in a public place like the Boston Marathon hoping to murder as many people as possible. Thankfully police killed one of these terrorist. As reported at TMZ, there’s a Facebook group dedicated to freeing the alleged terrorist that has more than 6,000 followers. What is wrong with you, is this what America has to look forward to? Is this how far the morals of today’s youth have fallen? Maybe if public schools actually taught what radical Islam was, some individuals might have a clue. I wonder if any of these teens actually can define jihad or caliphate?
A note to the fools of #FreeJahar Mania, maybe you would like to look into your soul, of you have one, and care more about the memories of the lives that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev took when he participated in the Boston bombing, rather than crushing on a killer. Gone are 29 year old Krystle Campbell of Arlington, Massachusetts, 8 year old Martin Richard of Dorchester, Massachusetts and 24 year old Boston University graduate student Lingzi Lu of Shenyang, China. These people are dead, does that resonate at all in your empty mush you call a brain?
Martin Richard (left), Krystle Campbell (center), Lingzi Lu (right)
Take a good look at the death, dismemberment and carnage this POS caused. This is what you are calling innocent? UNREAL. Maybe if you had actually known anyone that was killed or injured you might think differently. Then again, thinking would require a brain, which does not seem present in any of you.
This love is terrifying.
Thousands of American teen girls are crushing on Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev, 19 — and leading a social-media movement to exonerate him.
The swooning teens will not accept allegations that the bushy-haired college kid — whom they refer to by his nickname, “Jahar” — and his brother, Tamerlan, 26, killed three and maimed hundreds by setting off bombs at the April 15 race and killed an MIT police officer during the ensuing manhunt.
While some scrawl the hashtag “#FreeJahar” on their hands with markers, an 18-year-old in Topeka, Kansas, is going to the extreme — she wants the Dzhokhar’s words inked on her arm forever.
“Getting one of Jahar’s tweets tattooed on me tomorrow. Guess you could say I’m a #FreeJahar supporter,” “@keepitbluntedd” tweeted on May 7.
The tatted-up teen, Alisha, told The Post she’d soon put Tsarnaev’s April 7 tweet on her upper inside of her arm. It will read, “If you have the knowledge and the inspiration all that’s left is to take action.”
- And the alleged coverup by the Administration? Even MSNBC and CNN questioning the Obama administration.
Former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich was Asked Whether Benghazi Talking Points were Politically Scrubbed … His Response, “Of Course They Were, Are You Kidding?”
BOMBSHELL COMMENTS FROM FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO AND HARD CORE LIBERAL …
Former Democrat US Representative Dennis Kucinich and now Fox News contributor appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning and his comments regarding Benghazi were damning for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I must say that I had to check outside the window while I was 100% aggressing with Kucinich’s remarks as I thought I saw pigs flying by. When asked by Chris Wallace during the panel discussion, if he thought the Benghazi talking points were politically scrubbed, Kucinich replied, “OF COURSE THEY WERE. COME ON, ARE YOU KIDDING”? Kucinich had previously stated that the Obama administration had to call the Benghazi attack a street demonstration otherwise it brought into play on the eve of an election the fact that the entire Benghazi policy was a failure. Then there was the damning comment of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton run State Department … “So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there?”
WALLACE: Congressman Kucinich, I think it’s fair to say you’re a liberal Democrat. But I want to ask you, does it bother you that the CIA, as we now know, originally wrote about links to Al Qaeda, originally wrote about having warned the State Department for months about threats in Benghazi and that all of that was taken out and let’s put this up on the screen. State Department official Victoria Nuland wrote in pushing back against what the CIA had written, that information “could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned.” This, Congressman, from the transparent administration of Barack Obama.
FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Well, I didn’t need those memos to know that it was wrong for us to intervene in Libya. This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong. And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.
WALLACE: So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?
KUCINICH: Of course they were. Come on, are you kidding? You know, this is one of those things that you have to realize, we’re in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. They weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure that they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi with under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions that are being raised.
WALLACE: Kim, let’s assume that Congressman Kucinich is right and that the talking points were politically scrubbed to protect Hillary Clinton, to protect Barack Obama running for re-election, is that where the scandal ends? What evidence is there — there certainly were misjudgments, but what evidence is there that the administration did anything wrong, wrong, either before or during the attack?
KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, the thing is we don’t know. And this is what we found out this week, that the official record that is out there on all kinds of things, is simply not correct. OK, so, you know, apparently the White House was not involved in the talking points. That’s not true. Apparently Hillary Clinton was just a footnote in all of this. That was not true. Apparently and supposedly their requests for aid were never denied. We’ve heard this week that that was not true. And so the White House faces an issue here, which is where do we go — where do we get these answers? And that’s why you are now hearing calls for a bipartisan select committee. The Democrats keep claiming that this is partisan, this is a partisan exercise. The only way you’re going to get these answers is if you actually put a committee, put both sides on it, give them the power of deposition, give them the power of subpoena, finally get the emails, finally talk to all the witnesses in public, and if the White House really claims it has nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t fear such an exercise. But that’s the only way that you’re going to start getting any answers on this. Otherwise it’s going to drip, drip, drip on like this week after week.
WHO POLITICIZED BENGHAZI AND THE DEATH OF FOUR AMERICANS?
The Audacity of
Hope Barack Obama. The Obama Administration and their minions are some of the most vile that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has ever seen. After ABC News had exposed the Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times to the point where they did not even reflect the truth as to what happened … during their damage control, the Obama spin machine and chief Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney tried to blame it all on Mitt Romney. How pathetic are these people? Who politicized Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods? It was the Obama administration who as even MSNBC and CNN are reporting edited the talking points for political purposes during a reelection campaign. MSNBC is even going as far as discussing impeachment as a result of the Obama administrations actions. This administration lied and scrubbed the Benghazi talking points to get reelected and they have the gall to say others politicized Benghazi? Families, friend and Americans want answers to what happened and the Obama administration continues to misrepresent the truth.
But with President Obama, the buck always stops with some one else.
CNN’s Gloria Borger Acknowldges Benghazi Talking Points “Were Edited to the Point of Inaccuracy” … Chris Cuomo: “Safe to Say this Goes Beyond Partisan Picking”
Add another Left-leaning main stream media outlet to those that are questioning the Barack Obama administration and the edited Benghazi terror attack talking points.
First MSNBC and now CNN is coming out against the Obama administration for editing the Benghazi talking points, in the aftermath of the terror attack that left four Americans dead, to the point where the events that took place were untrue. In a CNN interview between Chris Cuomo and Chief political analyst Gloria Borger, neither had anything good to say about the 12 edited versions of the Benghazi talking points using such words as “cover-up” and “whitewash”. Gloria Borger said, the Obama Administration’s Benghazi talking points were “edited to the point of inaccuracy” and the question is “was it a cover-up or whitewash”. She would later say that the talking points were so edited that by the end, they did not even resemble the truth. The most amazing comment may have come from Chris Cuomo when he stated, “it’s safe to say that this goes beyond partisan picking.” Did the LEFT just hear that? One of your own is saying that the GOP is not acting in a partisan manner. CNN is basically saying that the Obama administration played partisan politics for his reelection bid when four Americans died. Are you kidding, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods were killed by terrorist and the Obama WH edited what occurred to the point it was a false narrative. We lost lives and needed to know what happened and Team Obama was more interested in talking points that fit his reelection. Cuomo called it unforgivable.
Maybe former Arkansas Governor Mike Hukabee was correct when he said during his radio show, President Obama “will not fill out his full term” because he was complicit in a “cover-up” surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
GLORIA BORGER: What we see in this process is that these talking points were edited to the point of inaccuracy. The question is, is it a cover-up? Is it a whitewash? We don’t know the answer to that.
CHRIS CUOMO: I know. And you took my question. That’s exactly what I was going to ask you. Right? Because that’s what this gets to, 12. What’s the context? It sounds like a lot, but we have to know the nature and purpose of what those changes were.
GLORIA BORGER: So here’s the context. Over at the CIA they’re looking at some of these points, which include mention of Al Qaeda. And there’s a sense from some at the CIA, you know what, we don’t want to tip anybody that we’re investigating Al Qaeda on this, so let’s take out some of the references to Al Qaeda. What the CIA left in, apparently, was this sort of broader context of Al Qaeda in Benghazi in that part of the world. Those were eventually edited out. And there is an e-mail obtained by ABC news from someone at the State Department which asks, why should we leave that in because “it could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.” So clearly from a State Department official asking the question, why are we going to give members of Congress information, don’t forget in an election year, which they could turn around and beat us up with. And that’s how you see in evolving. Everybody’s got a different reason for editing it. And they edit it down to something that’s totally, turns out to be in fact untrue.
More from MSNBC … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”.
Bad Day for Obama & Hillary Clinton: MSNBC Guest from the Daily Beast Columnist Michael Tomasky Says … Invoked “That Word That Starts With ‘I’” … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”
You know its bad for Barack Obama when the LIBS at
MSNBS MSLSD MSNBC start bringing up “Impeachment” as a result of their Benghazi cover-up and Benghazigate.
Even the LEFT is at a loss for words and defense when it comes to the way the Obama White House has handled Benghazi before, during and after the Benghazi consulate attacks. The news that Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times and scrubbed of all references of terrorism have left the LEFT in a quandary. Just when you thought you had seen it all, even the ultra-liberal MSNBC folks appear to be using the “I” word when it comes to President Barack Obama and “impeachment” over the White House’s handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens. Playing politics games to win the 2012 presidential election, could come back to bite Obama. MSNBC, that has made a living off of defending, deflecting and just not covering Barack Obama’s disastrous presidency, both foreign and domestic, has now been forced to question the Obama presidency and even use such descriptive words as impeachment and compare his handling of Benghazi to ‘Watergate”. As Maggie’s Farm states, this is beginning to look much worse than “Watergate”. In fact, it is. No US ambassadors died during Watergate. Actually, no one died during Watergate, only political careers.
Unlike Watergate, an unremarkable political dirty trick with a dumb and unnecessary White House cover-up (if a handful of people had been fired it would have been a big nothing), in this case American public servants died seemingly because of State Dept and possibly White House incompetence or indifference, and both may have been complicit in an attempted cover-up a few weeks before a national election. Possibly the CIA too. People have been intimidated about speaking out, but maybe no longer.
It is not joust Barack Obama who is in trouble, but so is former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential nominee wannbe Hillary Clinton. She comes across looking terrible, possibly even worse than Obama. As Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson said, “I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian.” Yes she does. Hillary looks like all the worst parts of the Bill Clinton years, something that will not be lost by the GOP or Democrat primary challengers in 2016. The politicization of talking points when four Americans died is beyond disgustingly sick. Before, during and after, Clinton’s State Department failed miserably and looked to cover up … is that what the US needs as a president in 2016?
“This is quite the window into what is usually the hush-hush process about how to deal with these types of attacks and the spin that irrevocably comes afterwards,” NBC reporter Luke Russert opined.
“This is not good for the White House right now,” Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. “Does it stick?”
“Well, sure,” Smith replied. “They look terrible.”
Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points.
“Does this become then an election politics thing?” Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.
The Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky said it does. He invoked “that word that starts with ‘I’” to describe the potentially significant political fallout that could result from the Benghazi scandal.
“It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House,” Tomasky added.
“I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian,” submitted Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. “It also, I think, reminds us that there is only one person that the far right-wing hates more than Obama, and that’s Hillary Clinton.”
Beghazi-Gate: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions … Scrubbed of Terror & Al-Qaeda Reference … Obama White House Initially Said Only One Word was Edited
BENGHAZIGATE = WATERGATE … File this one under better late media investigation than never. It is obvious that Benghazi was one big Obama administration lie for political convenience because of the 2012 Presidential election.
Remember when the Obama White House and their mouth piece minions like Susan Rice came out after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the death of four American including Ambassador Stevens and blamed it on a video tape? Of course any normal, common sense thinking person knew that was BS at the time and it was later proved to be complete BS. Benghazi “whistle-blower” witness Greg Hicks stated in from of Congressional hearings this week … “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.” The Obama White House said that they relied entirely on CIA talking points. NOT SO FAST … ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show that they were dramatically edited and scrubbed by the Obama Administration. The initial CIA talking point draft to the final one used by the White House and distributed to Congress was scrubbed of all references to terrorism, Al-Qaeda. The story goes on to say, in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? So Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson wanted to sanitize the talking points so the State department did not looks incompetent and derelict in their duty? Who thinks that Secretary of State was not aware of these changes? Seriously America … the 2016 wanna be Democrat frontrunner candidate knew it all.
So where would the directive come from to scrub the references to terrorism to a talking point of a terror attack just months before the 2012 Presidential election? Who was “The One” who’s narrative was Al-Qaeda was on pat to defeat and Bin Laden is dead (VIDEO)?
Click on pic to watch the ABC News VIDEO
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Hmm, this is a far cry from the “only one word was edited” from the talking points spewed by Obama White House spokesman, Jay Carney. The White House has denied accusations that they mislead the American public and did not mischaracterize the White House and State Department’s role in developing of talking points regarding the attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi. Who are you going to believe America, Obama’s chief spin-meister Jay Carney, or your lying eyes and ears?
Carney on Friday was responding to an ABC News report that the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about Benghazi underwent 12 rounds of revisions with extensive input from the State Department, seemingly contradicting Carney’s claims in November.
During a White House briefing then, Carney said that the talking points “originated from the intelligence community” and the only adjustment from the White House and State Department was “changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’”
Mitt Romney Will Regret this for the Rest of his Life … The RNC Benghazi Ad that Never Ran “Benghazi 3 AM Phone Call” (VIDEO)
ABC News has reveled the RNC Benghazi ad that never ran during the 2012 Presidential election. According to accounts, RNC leadership approved the ad but it was spiked at the last minute because of objections from the Romney campaign. Brilliant move. They thought that it would distract from their message on the economy. HUH? What, the Romney campaign could not walk and chew gum at the same time? As stated at the American Spectator, so what if it distracted from the economic message, “Are you trying to win an election or not?” Of course hindsight is 20/20, but how can a candidate seeking election not go after a sitting president for such a debacle? Being president means handling domestic and foreign policy, not just the economy. When a president gets economic policy wrong, people lose their jobs, money and their homes. When a president gets foreign policy wrong, people lose their lives.
Watch VIDEO by clicking on above picture
It was the Benghazi attack ad the Republican National Committee created but never aired.
ABC News has obtained an ad the RNC made last fall and approved to air in the final weeks of the presidential campaign. The ad begins with a replay of Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 a.m. phone call” commercial from the 2008 campaign and then cuts to video of the burning U.S. consulate in Benghazi Libya.
Over the images of the attack–in which four Americans were killed–words appear on the screen:
“The Call Came … On September 12, 2012.” As the screen goes black, the words continue: “Security Requests Denied. Four Americans Dead. And an Administration whose story is still changing. The Call Came.”
Hot Air wonders whether this VIDEO will harm Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in 2016?
How bad of a call was this by the Romney Team? The ad could be run today and still have meaning. That is how much of a screw up this was. What were these people thinking?
Benghazi Whistle-Blower Witness Greg Hicks Responds to Questions from Rep Trey Goudy (SC-R): “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed” After Susan Rice TV Appearance on 5 Sunday Talk Shows
Today during the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee on Benghazi hearings, “Whistle-Blower” witness Greg Hicks time and time again contradicted the Obama Administration’s, the Hillary Clinton State Department’s and the concocted BS that has been put forth regarding the before during and after Benghazi consulate terror attacks. During part of his testimony Greg Hicks answered questions from Rep. Trey Goudy (SC-R) and told the committee that Susan Rice never consulted State Department officials in Libya before making her five appearance on Sunday Shows shilling her lie to the American people that the Benghazi attack was a result of an anti-Islamic VIDEO. Greg Hicks was the highest ranking officer at the time on the ground in Libya, following the death of Ambassador Stevens and Susan Rice never talked to him. When Hicks was asked about Ambassador Susan Rice’s performance on the Sunday talk shows, Hicks stated … “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.”
Must see VIDEO … hours after the Benghazi Consulate attack, the President of Libya said it was an attack with possible terror links. When Hicks was asked, did the President of Libya ever mentioned a spontaneous protest over a VIDEO tape, he answered, NO. Hicks was asked, when Ambassador Stevens spoke to you just minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you? Hicks responded, “he said, Greg, we are under attack”. Rep. Goudy asked, did he [Stevens] mention one word about a protest or demonstration? Hicks responded, no, he did not.
EXIT QUESTION: So who does not think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton blew the Benghazi consulate attack response and tried to cover it up? Obama sent his minions out to cover this up. Sorry LEFT, not even Richard Nixon had anyone die as a result of Watergate.
‘This Week’ Interview: U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice blames attack on spontaneous protest
‘FOX News Sunday’ – Susan Rice blames attack on spontaneous protest from offensive video, not pre-planned and was not against US foreign policy
Hillary Clinton during earlier Benghazi Senate hearing caught in lie and unable to answer simple question, why didn’t you just ask individuals on the ground what happened? That was too difficult according to Hillary.
First Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings Attacks Whistle-Blowers in Opening Statement, Later Says the Unthinkable to the Memories of Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods … “Death Is a Part of Life”
House Oversight Committee on Benghazi:
TO WE THE PEOPLE … FOUR AMERICANS DIED AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS, OR LACK THERE OF, FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT MAKING POLITICAL EXPEDIENCE MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAVING OUR OWN.
There are vile, disgusting, Obama water-carrying shills who would do and say anything to protect and shield President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State and wanna be 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for political expedience and then there is Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings. First Elijah Cummings ripped the GOP and “whistle-blowers” for trying to politicize the events that took place in Benghazi, September 11, 2012. Cummings basic attitude was that we already heard about Benghazi and its basically a waste of time to hear from actual individuals that were on the ground. How sad that this partisan hack would not want to hear everything so that such an action would never happen again that saw four Americans, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods die. But of course if it was GWB who did such a thing, the reaction would have been much different.
“(These are) unfounded accusations to smear administration officials. I am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes.”
Then we get this vile and reprehensible comment from Cummings. This unadulterated fool tells the witnesses, the families and friends of the deceased Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods and insulting their memories that “death is a part of life”. WTF!!! Are you serious? No sir, death is a part of complete incompetence, political correctness, a foolish foreign policy, the resistance to beef up security when asked and the refusal to help fellow Americans in need at their most desperate hour. You would dare make such a comment after the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton had Susan Rice go on 5 Sunday morning talk shows and blame the attack on a VIDEO tape. I though death was a part of a VIDEO? Seeing that Obama, Hillary, et all were caught in that lie, now “death is a part of life”. This is how the ranking Democrat member of the House Oversight Committee on Benghazi rationalizes the terror murders of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods. SICK!
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, tells Benghazi witnesses that “death is a part of life.”
From Real Clear Politics:
CUMMINGS: And, as I listen to your testimony I could not help but think of something that I said very recently — two years ago now — in a eulogy for a relative. I said that death is a part of life, so often we have to find a way to make life a part of death. And, I guess the reason why I’m saying that, going back to something Mr. Nordstrom said, he wanted, I guess all of you said this, he wanted to make sure we learn from this.