In light of the good news that a "homegrown" terrorist plot was foiled yesterday, I'd like to take a moment to discuss a few things that had irked me concerning the media coverage.  

There are two extremely important aspects to this story.  One is that if the plan had been carried out, it would have been extremely bad for our military, the George Bush creation of the department of Homeland Security, George Bush, the FBI, the CIA, and would be just plain bad for America in general.    The fact that it was not carried out due to a vigilant citizen's tip and the FBI's investigation makes it something to pooh-pooh by the leftist media.   This story is HUGE but the best way the media can downplay this story is to marginalize and put it on the "back page."   

Last night on "Hannity and Colms," I had already heard Alan Colms mentioned (paraphrasing) Conservatives like to say that we are fighting in Iraq so that we don't have to fight terrorists here and that because of this story, it proves that that logic is incorrect.     Colm's view misses the larger point.   Ever since 9-11, this has been thought of as a two front war - abroad AND at home.    If you can call this plot "homegrown" then you can also call the 9-11 plot homegrown since the 9-11 plotters were living here.  I don't think conservatives every thought that if we stay in Iraq then we'll be ammune on our soil.   The idea is that we are fighting the brunt of the organized terror network in Iraq.   Bush has routinely cautioned Americans to be vigilant.   Colm's argument is misleading at best.   CNN.com is also downplaying the situation buy burying the story.   A day after the arrests, there is no coverage on their homepage website.   The next thing you'll likely hear from the media is that this plot was not really that credible of a threat.  Otherwise, how could an average citizen thwart it.   Since a threat of a large magnitude was thrwarted on Bush's watch, it makes Bush look good and the media can't have that.   They also are trying to have the story both ways.   It's such a big deal that it shows that you can't prevent "homegrown" terrorism by being in Iraq or it is such an insignificant story that it does not deserve to be covered.

The second important aspect to this story is that members of this cell were illegal immigrants.   This is another reason the left will seek to downplay this story.   As Michelle Malkin points out, if these jihadists would have laid low for a while, they may have gotten amnesty if Congress is successful in pushing their "amnesty for illegals" bill.    Despite Bush's and other RINO's support, most core Conservatives are against it so, in reality, it's a liberal plan.   This story shows how it is so very important to seal our borders and account for all of the "undocumented."   This is important not just to get a headcount but to actually dig in to the history of who we are letting in.   There is a report that these jihadists may have been smuggled in our porus borders.   Three of the plotters were here illegally and two had green cards.   What would be the easiest way to smuggle in people?    It's probably a borderline just south of the Rio Grande.   Maybe these guys got in through the Mexican border or maybe the Canadian or even smuggled in a container at one of our ports.   Whichever way they got in illegally, it should reinforce the core conservative view that we need to secure our borders - all of them.  It's not as simplistic as Immigrant's "Rights" versus those whom oppose immigrants.   It is not an anti-Mexican agenda at all as the media likes to paint it.  . It is one aspect in the war on terror. 

 

In Saudi Arabia they like to cover up their women with a hijab or veil but they have Camel Beauty Pageants.   That's right.  This week Bedouin Arabs are putting on a Beauty Pageant for Camels.   Islamic laws are so strict that women cannot show skin let alone enter a beauty contest.  Earlier this year, a top Saudi cleric condemned those in favor of giving women rights.    It's a shame when their camels have more rights than their women.   

Saudi Arabia is considered the birthplace of Islam and holds the most holy of their sites and home to Wahabists and the most orthodox of Islamic beliefs.   This also is the home to rampant Anti-Americanism and Western freedoms.  It is also where the hate of Islamic Jihadists is most exported around the world.  One of the cornerstones of Western morals is the concept of women's rights.  Not so in the Islamic world.   If listening to the media long enough, one might think that only the "extremist Muslims" hold ancient views that the West considers vile.   On the contrary, Islamic domination and discrimination of women is commonplace throughout Islam. 

Most moderate Muslims are in favor of Islamic Law (Sharia) and their next step is to not only import their vile, archaic views to the West but to replace Western secular laws.   In Canada, they are already seriously considering Sharia law tribunals to settle civil disputes.   This alarming issue is being pushed harder in Europe where many countries are considering using the foreign Islamic law to be an option for international couples.  

This is unbelievable when you consider that Sharia law institutes flogging, amputation/mutilation (such as cutting off body parts), and stoning to death.  Mostly, these punishments are handed out in public.   Under Islamic law,the offenses that warrant the previously mentioned punishments could be sexual intercourse outside of marriage, consumption of alcohol, and theft.   Women have been known to be stoned to death with just a mere accusation of infidelity. 

The introduction Sharia stems from a liberal mindset that is dangerous if not downright self-destructive.   American liberals tend to take their queues from Europe.   Most American liberals usually run their views though what I like to call the "EU filter."   The left tends to base their views on how accepted they would be in Europe.    If that is indeed the case, the desire by American Muslims to live under Sharia law will soon be debated among major Democrats.   One can envision a proposal to introduce Sharia as necessary in order not "alienate" Muslims in America,  "Look at Europe and Canada.  They're ahead of us."   European liberals want to seem tolerant by introducing an intolerant set of laws.   This is clear pandering to a growing minority in order to get votes, a classic tactic used by our own liberals who specialize at it.

It is dangerous to let political correctness deter us into complacency of the views of the "moderate" Muslim.   Indeed, they are no really different from the "extremist" Muslim especially when you consider a recent pole of Muslims where most Muslims agree with Al-Qaeda’s goals and most do not blame Al-Qaeda for the 9-11 attacks.  

Americans must wake up to the fact that no matter what kind of media spin or excuses from C.A.I.R, Muslim ideals are firmly rooted in the dark ages.  The ultimate goal if Islam is to establish a global caliphate, which is the complete domination of the world under Islamic law.  It is dangerous, even reckless, to ignore the beginning attempts of Muslims to introduce Islamic law in America.   Otherwise, we may face a debate as in Europe and Canada where Sharia Law (unchanged in 1,400 years) is precariously close to becoming incorporated into theirs. 

***************

***Mosques exposed undercover in the UK. ***

 



I've never thought of Don Imus as nothing more than a ancient radio hack. I thought his comments were inappropriate but this story has spun out of control thanks in large part to the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Having done the exact same thing, Jackson just may be the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen. He's accusing Imus of peddling bigotry for profit in his Sun-Times article which is what Jesse has been specializing in for decades.   He had also lead a rally calling for Imus' ouster.  But let's take a look back at Jesse's racist comments that he tried to deny until backed into a corner.

"When asked whether he had referred to Jews as "Hymie" and to New York City as "Hymie town," Jackson said over and over, "I have no recollection." But at a Manchester synagogue two days before the New Hampshire primary, Jackson finally admitted making the offensive comments. "In private talks we sometimes let our guard down and become thoughtless," he explained. "It was not in a spirit of meanness, but an off-color remark having no bearing on religion or politics. However innocent and unintended, it was insensitive and wrong."

Soure: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,921581,00.html

Is Jackson willing to forgive Imus the way the media has forgiven him?  No. Of course not.   Jackson wouldn't stop until Imus was fired and was firmly propped up on Imus' back.  Jesse's calls for firing Imus worked because the spineless jellyfish at MSNBC and CBS  caved in to a flim-flam man and shakedown artist.  You can bet either Jesse or one of his appointees will be getting Imus' slot next. 

Let's have a little perspective.  Imus did not call all black women "nappy headed ho's."  He made the ill-advised comment specifically toward the Rutgers Women's basketball team and that's it.  The only apology Imus owes is to them.  Jesse's only involvement is to get something out if it.   Imus doesn't have to kiss Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton's ring as and act of contrition.  Ironically, Jackson and Sharpton are the real nappy-headed money ho's making this into a larger issue for his own profit.

If the "Rev" Jesse Jackson is a real Christian minister, then why isn't he calling for the black community to forgive, you know, like Jesus does. It is incredible that Jackson is still regarded by the media as credible yet Imus is the biggest racist on the planet even though they both said very similar, stupid and inappropriate comments.   Both made clumsy references to a race outside their own without fully appreciating their negative effects. 

I'm not an Imus supporter in any way but can't the media stop showing Jackson as a credible voice of the black community?  He's not the conscience of the black community.  It's the white guilt-ridden liberal media that gives him his spotlight.  The only reason Jesse has any voice at all was because he was lucky enough to be associated with Martin Luther King, Jr.   Jackon has long since worn a hole in MLK's coattails and serves only to further divide the country by racial lines.  I'm not sure MLK would be so proud of him.

And shall we talk about another hypocrite "Reverend" involved in this media lynching? How about the homicide-inciting racist Al Sharpton? 

He's another topic altogether.