Media bias

I just have a question. Let us suppose that they are bringing immigrants over here for the purpose to create a large enough group to influence government in such a way that they can impose Sharia Law upon us. Let us suppose that they are overhauling conversion techniques to have people convert to Islam so that they will eventually have a large enough group to democratically impose Sharia Law. If they are doing it legally, and then succeed in creating a Sharia Law through a popular vote (Obviously it would take generations to do so...), how can one stop them, if they are doing it simply through creating a majority, or at least a large enough plurality to override our own fighting factions?

By the way, one of the top five newspapers in the US commissioned an op-ed from me about the document after my initial column, and set it for publication -- but spiked it at the last minute, without explanation.

One possible explanation is that you're hanging way to much hope on a single document, a single, high-level document that doesn't even advocate anything illegal or violent.

Maybe this newspaper wanted something a little more balanced, something that at least mentions Israel's occupation of Palestine. Your anti-Muslim bias is too strong for serious journalism. And charges of political correctness work both ways. The trial of the HLF is considered a sweetheart gift to Israel by most Muslims.

The press is skeptical of the government's case in the HLF trial--as they should be--and having been led astray by the government's crack-pot theories in the past, they have reason to be suspicious. In the end, it's possible that your single-minded fascination with the trial and the document may prove to be right. But I think most people believe that this is a show-trial and that the government's reliance on the Muslim Brotherhood document is as specious and confused as its prosecution of people in Gitmo and its justification for torture. The administration has zero credibility on these matters, sadly, and crack-pot theories based on questionable readings of the document don't really go far in most newsrooms.

This isn't about political correctness--which is an embarrassingly shallow allegation--but sincere skepticism about the government's approach to terrorism. Until someone with a shred of credibility and objectivity takes this seriously, the press is correct to avoid falling for more government spin on this issue.

"And it's not being ignored for lack of knowledge or evidence. It's for lack of caring. It's for reasons of political correctness." Rod

If you ever wondered how Socialists took control of Germany and Russia, and is eating away at Canada, Briton and the West, just re-read the above comments, except for Lynn's.

Lynn:

It's conservatives who have cheapened "treason," not liberals. And you don't have to go to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib to see this.

You don't even have to leave this Web site. Go to the Bnet discussion boards and see how many times even tentative support for liberal ideas is met with "treason" or "traitor" cries by conservative posters.

I believe in the early 1950s this was called McCarthyism.

Unfortunately, I think Daniel has a point. The press doesn't like Bush anyways and this adminstration has shown itself to be mind bogglingly incompetant and untrustworthy. I will be SO glad come January 2009 when someone new comes into office. I really hope it's not one of the democrats, but regardless who it is, it will do our country a world of good to get Bush out of office. The hatred people have for him and complete lack of trust people have in our government is skewing everything. It's hard to even read a paper most days because everything is filtered through hatred and lack of trust in anything the government says or does. If someone else were in office or Bush had handled anything at all competently in the last 7 years, this might be the story it ought to be. I really do take it to be a measure of how much damage this administration has done to our government and society.

"But it won’t happen because Americans cannot think critically about discrimination and are brainwashed into believing that all discrimination is irrational."

Boy, you said a mouthful there, Scott. As Burke, Kirk, and others have amply demonstrated, prejudice rightly understood is a good thing.

Will, Scott is saying that not all discrimination is bad or irrational. If a child molester moves next door, I'm going to make sure my daughter stays away from him. Would you let your kids be around him? Maybe he is reformed. Are you going to take that chance? In effect, his past behavior as a participant in a particular group, child molesters, causes me to discriminate against him, my child will have nothing to do with him and I'm going to watch him closely. Honestly, he shouldn't be allowed back in the general population due to the recidivism rate of child molesters.

Why did you call Scott a neo-McCarthyite? He hasn't attempt to suppress your views, called you names, or labeled you in some manner as you just did to him without proof.

Bush hatred is NOT an excuse for the media failing to report the facts of this story and NOTHING will change about that failure to report these facts when a new president takes up residence in the White House. Their ignoring this story is purposeful and is about the authority issues that many in the press, the legal system and in some government quarters have where they would rather trust terrorists than trust the government. It is a Sixties mindset that has refused to mature.

It was also a major card played in the defense of the HLF defendants, 'You aren't going to trust the government, are you?' mewed Nancy Hollander appealing to the authority issues of the jurors rather than their common sense about the evidence.

Thanks to Dreher for continuing to 'hold the fort' at the Dallas Morning News on these critical issues that need to see the light of day in the public domain.

Bush hatred is NOT an excuse for the media failing to report the facts of this story and NOTHING will change about that failure to report these facts when a new president takes up residence in the White House. Their ignoring this story is purposeful and is about the authority issues that many in the press, the legal system and in some government quarters have where they would rather trust terrorists than trust the government. It is a Sixties mindset that has refused to mature.

It was also a major card played in the defense of the HLF defendants, 'You aren't going to trust the government, are you?' mewed Nancy Hollander appealing to the authority issues of the jurors rather than their common sense about the evidence.

Thanks to Dreher for continuing to 'hold the fort' at the Dallas Morning News on these critical issues that need to see the light of day in the public domain.

The Bush administration bears the first-cause responsibility for its egregious secrecy in all of its dealings with the press on this and other issues. Why should a government source be trusted, if the reasonable assumption is either it is directly associated with the administration and is deliberately withholding information, or it is dependent on information from the administration and simply not getting it?

Having and keeping secrets is a critical aspect of government, I never dispute that. The Bush years show how this necessity can be abused.

"Like Rod, Scot and Rob are convinced that Muslims are to the United States what communism was in the 50s and 60s - a one size fits all boogie man for all your xenophobic needs."

As usual, Will, you have no idea what you're talking about. I won't speak for Rod and Scott, but I'm in no way xenophobic. I'm all for immigration provided it's legal (both sides of my family are from early 20th century immigrant stock). Many Muslims, however, have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, and I'd argue that they need to be screened more carefully than others when they enter the country. Call this profiling if you'd like. If men in tartan kilts started blowing things up and hijacking planes, I'd say the same thing about Scotsmen.