Headline: Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror

Happy Independence Day from the NY Times! I hope they enjoy that freedom of the press thing that American soldiers continue to protect while they sit in their safe little cubicles publishing articles that make the war on terror more difficult for the U.S.

If only they could harness their investigative reporting energy for good instead of evil. Since they're so into discovering secrets, I say we ship a team of them over to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to find Osama bin Laden. They keep saying that he should be our focus, not Iraq. If they redirected their efforts toward helping the U.S. instead of hating this country and our president, I guaran-damn-tee that they could find Osama in two weeks or less.

Do you remember that Sesame Street song that went, "One of these things is not like the others…"? The big idea was that it would teach children to identify similarities and differences in a group of four objects. Apparently people in at the Globe & Mail, a leading Canadian news outlet, could have benefited from this advanced training.

It seems they are having trouble identifying any similarities between the suspected terrorists brought into custody in Canada. According to the G&M, the "suspected" terrorists come from a "broad strata." Different ages. Different occupations. Different marital statuses. What a diverse lot!

So, let me give you a list of the adult suspects, courtesy of Michelle Malkin, so you can try and play along. Can you find any similarities?

1. Fahim Ahmad, 21, Toronto;
2. Zakaria Amara, 20, Mississauga, Ont.;
3. Asad Ansari, 21, Mississauga;
4. Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, Mississauga;
5. Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Mississauga;
6. Mohammed Dirie, 22, Kingston, Ont.;
7. Yasim Abdi Mohamed, 24, Kingston;
8. Jahmaal James, 23, Toronto;
9. Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, Toronto;
10. Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur, 25, Toronto;
11. Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, 21, Mississauga;
12. Saad Khalid, 19, of Eclipse Avenue, Mississauga.

Give up? Here's a hint.

If you got this one right, you must be significantly more intelligent than the elites in The Media with their heads buried in the sand, but you already knew that.

I think Ann Coulter is funny. I'm going to be lazy and just tell you to read her post…

Muslim Bites Dog

Most media outlets in the U.S. have decided to not publish the offensive Danish cartoons of Muhammad out of sensitivity to the Muslim world.

They add to their hypocrisy today. An Australian television station, SBS, has obtained more photographs of prisoners at Abu Ghraib being "tortured" (their word, not mine) by U.S. guards. These images were broadcast several days ago, though they were taken in 2003.

ABC has obtained these photos and published the photos themselves, ran an article about them, and broadcast a video report about them as well.

In this video segment, David Kerley reports that Richard Meyers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time these pictures first became public, said in an affidavit that "the release of these images would endanger the lives [sic] and spark violent uprisings throughout the Arab world." The actual affidavit is available here, with the material Kerley referred to being mostly on pages 2 and 3.

In this affidavit, Meyers, as "the highest ranking uniformed officer in the United States Armed Forces," having "served in the United States Armed Forces for 40 years at various levels of command and staff" declared under oath that he believed the release of these photographs would endanger the lives and physical safety of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the U.S. Armed Forces, and the lives and physical safety of Iraqi and Afghani civilians, aid terrorists in the Muslim world, and "increase the likelihood of violence against United States interests, personnel, and citizens worldwide."

In my mind, these are pretty good reasons to avoid publishing the images, especially by media outlets in the United States, who you would hope would have the best interest of the U.S. in mind.

Yet, these pictures were released when they first became available, and ABC rushed to get the newly available pictures on their website as quickly as they could this time, even though they avoided publishing the "offensive" Muslim cartoons because Muslim imams were offended by them.

What do you call someone who betrays the interests of his own country and instead forwards the cause of an enemy who has declared war against it? Someone should Google "Benedict Arnold" for an answer to that question. These guys make that guy look like Uncle Sam's best friend.

The hypocrisy of the traitors in The Media is appalling! It seems their standard isn't just "if it bleeds, it leads." It's "if it casts the United States in a negative light, it leads, despite negative repercussions for our country. But, if it might offend the Muslim world without casting the President or the U.S. in a negative light, it doesn't get published." Again, as I've said before, The Media's bias isn't just in how stories are reported, but also in what they choose to report and what they choose to ignore.

By refusing to show the Danish cartoons, and then rushing to show Abu Ghraib images as soon as they are available, ABC has shown us yet again that they are biased hypocrites who cannot be trusted. But, you should already know that by now.

Reuters Headline: White House under fire in Cheney shooting accident

Oh, man. That darn Bush Administration is in hot water again! Looks like they're really taking some heat over this whole VP-accidentally-shoots-an-80-year-old-lawyer snafu. Why, it's in every paper and on every news website around the country.

Does anyone else see what's happening here? Let's take a step by step look at what's going on:

1. Cheney and a hunting buddy were involved in a hunting accident, the same kind that happened 44 times in 2003 and 29 times in 2004 (source).
2. Cheney and co. sought medical attention for the injured man, but didn't stop to first alert the press about what had happened.
3. The Media got its feelings hurt because it wasn't the first to know. Turns out a local news station was the first to get the scoop.
4. Because its feelings were hurt, The Media assailed White House press secretary Scott McClellan with all sorts of ferocious questions about what had happened, who was to blame, and why they hadn't been told first. In other words, a self-propelled media feeding frenzy.
5. The Media then report that the White House is "under fire" over the controversy.
6. This reporting leads The Media to ask more ferocious questions about what had happened, who was to blame, and why they hadn't been told first. In other words, the frenzy continues to escalate.
7. The Media then report the escalating frenzy and now the White House is really under fire.
8. This reporting leads to… Get the idea?

To put it in a nutshell, The Media is reporting on its own hysterics. They're the ones making a big deal out of this, and then reporting that it's a really big deal.

Accidents happen. That's life. Thankfully, nobody died.

For those of you who are historically informed (or old), you may recall that Ted Kennedy had a similar "accident" that went unreported for awhile. Liberals may want to hit the brakes (pun intended) a little before they run around damning Cheney for hunting carelessly or without the proper $7 stamp.

Here's the story, as far as most reports tell it. Kennedy got plastered at a party with five other men and six other women, jumped into his car with one of the women, who was not his wife, drove away heavily under the influence, plunged his car into eight feet of water, swam to safety while leaving his passenger in the car, walked to his hotel room, then went to sleep. The car was found the next morning with Mary Jo Kopechne's body trapped inside. Kenned never contacted the authorities, but changed multiple details of his story as several contradictions came to light. Some authorities believe the victim actually suffocated in the car hours after it sank, though nobody came to her rescue because nobody was told about the incident until the next day.

In my mind, not reporting a hunting accident to the press because you're on your way to the hospital is a little more excusable than drowning a woman and sleeping it off in your hotel room, leaving the police to find the body on their own.

I can't believe this Cartoon Controversy is still a story. In fact, I can't believe it was ever a story in the first place. Never underestimate fallen man's ability to act irrationally.

This will be the 2,443,871st blog to address the issue, so as the name of my blog implies, very little of it will by my own thoughts. I think the best thing to do here is summarize some of the lessons we can all learn from this whole fiasco.

1. Muslims aren't interested in religious toleration.

The freedoms and rights of Muslims haven't been violated, nor have Muslims been discriminated against, denied opportunities, or been made to suffer personal harm because of their religious beliefs. You can't show me a single Muslim who was forced to do or not do something that violated their religious convictions.

What they are interested in is "Islamic Imperialism," as Daniel Pipes writes in his Feb. 7 column. Pipes quotes Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who decided to publish the cartoons, as saying that "if Muslims insist 'that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos … they're asking for my submission.'"

Muslims may be offended by the cartoons, but that should not prevent the Danes from publishing them. Religious toleration does not mean being obligated to conform to the beliefs and morality of different religions. Muslims don't desire toleration. They desire dominance, as Pipes notes, saying, "Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples." Submission, not toleration, is the desire of Islamic Imperialism.

2. Islam is not a religion of peace, despite what you've been told.
Continue reading this post »