According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.

Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.

For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.

In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers were declining from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.

“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.

And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation:

Bucking the trend, 51 percent of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36 percent opposed.
Forty-seven percent of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43 percent in favor.
Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29 percent willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58 percent stood opposed.

Original Link

This story is being updated. Glenn said on radio that the suspect’s prior event referenced in the cover letter was also tagged 212 3 B, but corrected when he returned from break that they are still investigating the prior event #1648067 .

Glenn spent the night tweeting that he had big news on the Saudi national story, and he delivered it this morning when he read from a copy of the event file on Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi and delivered new information on this story.

“Now, you can tear me apart all you want. Bring it on. I’ve had my fill of it. I can take it. Bring it on. But it doesn’t make the facts go away. Any reporter, any journalist that might be listening, do not take my word for it. Take the facts that I just gave and ask the Department of Homeland Security security now: ‘Excuse me, explain away this.’ And when they come to you with more lies, you come back here. Because we have more,” Glenn said.

Here is the new information that Glenn revealed on radio today:

1) The event file created on Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi indicated on page two that he is armed and dangerous.
2) He was admitted into this country under a special advisory option which is usually reserved for visiting politicians, VIPs, or journalists.
3) One of the first excuses given by law enforcement when confronted about his pending deportation was expired VISA. According to the event file his visa is good until 11-Nov-2016.
4) Event file indicates he entered the United States on 08/28/12 in Boston, MA but says subject is a student at the University of Findlay in Findlay, Ohio. He never showed up.
5) When an event file is created in the system the author(s) are notified via email when it is accessed and given the email address of the person accessing. As a result we know the following: After the file was created it first amended to remove the terrorism and deportation reference and then someone went back in and tried to destroy both the original and amended versions. They didn’t know there were copies.
6) The original event file was reviewed and approved by two high level agents – Chief Watch Commander Maimbourg and Watch Commander Mayfield.

Here is the cover page of the event file:

SUBJECT,
ALHARBI, ABDULRAHMAN ALI E
DOB 03/12/1993
COC SAUDI ARABIA

and this video

Breaking Info on Boston Bombings! Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Naked Man

So, how did he end up like this?

Caller say Tamerlan was run over by a black suv.

There were a number of individuals that should be suspects as you can see from the photos below

There were three explosions and reports of many more bombs, why is the media acting as if only two bombs and two suspects are involved?

Why do we have such a military build up for one 19 year old boy? See the photos below. What do you think is going on here?