Plots, Politics and the Weight of Page 1

Last Sunday, the new Public Editor at the New York Times tried to defend the Times' coverage of the story about the Muslims (from the Caribbean, yet), who were arrested for plotting to blow up a fuel line at JFK Airport. He was trying to answer complaints that the paper downplayed the story in order to deny credit to the Bush Administration "war on terror".

The issue of coverage on this story was not only about the Times' unwillingness to credit the Bush Administration with any positive coverage on the "war on terror". In fact the New York Times is unwilling to give prominent coverage to any story that might impugn the actions of Muslims (ANY Muslims), especially domestically.

If anyone were to dispassionately review the Times' coverage of domestic terror-related stories in the US, they would find that it is almost always buried deep in the National or Metro sections. It must pain the writers at the Times to even mention that the suspect or perpetrator is a Muslim. The masquerade is especially hard to keep up, one would imagine, since Muslims have such distinctly MUSLIM names! Whether it is conviction of the guys who conspired to blow up the subways in New York; various imams and "scholars" involved in buying weapons for the Jihadists; the killings in Seattle or the attack at the El Al terminal in LA (whatever happened in these cases, anyway?), the Times is reluctant to give the stories anything above the minimum requirement to cover "all the news that is fit to print (minimally)". It must pain their editors to cover any story that contradicts the Times mantras: "diversity" and "tolerance".

The Times very prominently displays when a Muslim is found not guilty or (more usually) some soft-headed judge over-rules the Government and releases a Muslim suspect. The Times is also happy to play up, on its front pages, the touchy feely stories about "good" and "wise" Muslim imams giving advice to young Muslims about "dating" or other American customs. Of course the Imam in Brooklyn (later in New Jersey) also said it is his duty to convert America to Islam, but that was buried in the last paragraph.

Let's Annex Mexico

All this rubbish about "regularizing" the human debris pouring in over the border would be settled if we annexed Mexico. It is the ONLY logical solution. Apparently we can't live and prosper without the hordes of Mexican workers, but at the same time we are paying very dearly for the contamination of our country, not to mention the costs for their medical, educational and general welfare expenses (they do see to have a LOT of babies). So why not annex Mexico? That way we can utilize its resources to help the Mexican biomass.

We would certainly do a more honest job of using these resources for the betterment of the Mexican people than the kleptocrats who rule that country now.

If we have to take the people, then let's get the resources too.

History Revised

The 40th anniversary of the 6 Day War has brought out all the revisionist fantasies of the Left in the US, Europe and Israel. the (Bolshevik) party line is that Israel was better off without liberating Judea, Samaria and Gaza and conquering the Sinai and the Golan. If Israel had only been willing to cower and shake before the Arab threats, they would be safer now and there would be PEACE with their Arab neighbors. The sad truth is that there is not even a drop of truth in this fantasy. It is only Liberal/Leftist wishful "thinking" and revisionist history. Before 1967, the Arabs were fully convinced, and STATED SO, that they could destroy Israel at the very next opportunity; many Israelis were convinced of that too. If Israel had not conquered Sinai, the Egyptians would never have made peace. If Israel had not conquered Golan, the Syrians would not even be contemplating any kind of accommodation (they can never accept PEACE, per se).

If Israel had not liberated the Jewish homeland, the Palestinians would not be begging for a "two-state" solution. And, if Israel had not demonstrated its prowess, NO ONE would be discussing a "lasting peace". People conveniently forget that even after the war and UN resolution 242 (the land-for-peace rubbish) the Arabs met at Khartoum and declared the three no's to Israel - no peace, no recognition and no negotiation. It was only much later that Sadat, acknowledging the sad state of the Arab world, and in order to get US aid, broke the log jam by going to Jerusalem (JEWISH Jerusalem) and offering peace for the return of the Sinai.

Let us not let the Leftist rubbish re-write history.

No question, Israel made many mistakes after 1967:
1 They should have immediately expelled the Muslim "clerics" off the Temple Mount and returned it to Jewish control ( the caterwauling would have long ago died down, by now)
2 They should have "encouraged" the Palestinian Arabs to follow the Egyptian and Jordanian armies out of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, by whatever means necessary.
3 They should NOT have fallen for the Oslo trap. At a minimum, they should have imposed their own three no's before agreeing to Oslo: No Jerusalem for the Arabs; no "right of return"; no dismantling of ANY Jewish settlements in the Jewish homeland (NO JUDEN RAUSS in the Holy Land).

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory

Article in NYT today: "Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory"

FINALLY! An American Reporter (NY Times, no less) understands about these people. Last two paragraphs tell it all: They need a dictator!

It's Not Just Arabs and Israel, Is It?

From AP: Muslims from Guyana & Trinidad plan a "chilling" attack on JFK fuel line; "seven men were arrested in what officials called the early stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and destroy FBI offices and other building"s; "authorities broke up a plot to bomb underwater New York City train tunnels to flood lower Manhattan"; "six people were arrested a month ago in an alleged plot to unleash a bloody rampage on Fort Dix in New Jersey"
ALL are Muslim (immigrant and local converts) not all are Arab. Isn't it time we woke up that the problem is Islam itself and not any particular grievance by a group of "aggrieved" people. In an article on creeping Islamism in Turkey in the times yesterday, Kadim Yildirim, a history teacher in Turkey put it correctly: Islam is not like other religions. It influences every part of your life, even your bedroom."
WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING IN THE USA? AND WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO LET MORE IN? Do we have a death wish?

For God's sake (and all our own sakes), when are we going to wake up? We never will as long as the Liberal establishment keeps feeding us the rubbish about lovely Muslims, like the article in yesterday's Times about Muslims in CA, who have an AMERICAN (Really?) Imam who discusses dating and other modern American trivia. How sweet; how "American" of them.