One of the reasons I started this blog was to recognize and comment on leftist bias in the media. The New York Times is only one mouth, albeit a big one, in the larger leftist Leviathan. What it did by disclosing SWIFT in late June 2006 was not the first outrage, and it won’t be the last.

Continued Debate over the SWIFT Disclosure by the New York Times
By Dennis Lormel
Counterterrorism Blog
July 8, 2006 04:16 PM

The reality is the Times SWIFT disclosure has been harmful. At a minimum, it has disrupted an innovative and productive investigative tool. One fact is certain…the disclosure has received intense media coverage and has caused terrorists and their supporters to sit up and take notice. This will cause terrorist operational changes and significant new challenges for the Government in identifying and countering evolving terrorist financing methodologies.

The story of the betrayal of civilization will some day be told in great detail. My guess is some think the audience will be Muslim, so they’re not too concerned about the harsh criticism of history. For us infidels who here and now recognize we are targeted by the jihadis the NYT attempts to excuse themselves come across as lame and illogical.

What would have happened if a US newspaper blabbed about the Jap Naval code being cracked before Midway, or the use of Navajo codetalkers, Bletchley Park and ULTRA, or the Manhattan Project? Would we still have won? Would anyone have blamed the media for the consequences we never could say for sure were avoidable? There are dozens of less critical things reporters could have but didn’t blab about. Including FDR’s handicap. They must have recognized it would be self-defeating.

What’s changed? What the media is disclosing now is self-defeating. A Muslim theocracy doesn’t have reporters. It frowns on entertainers. It generally shuns technology unless it advances the jihad. If Western journalists won’t take sides the least they could do is report honestly what actually happens when Islam uproots an infidel society. Unless, yes of course, that’s it, they report everything, except the things that might get them killed. Depending on the situation they can make the argument that the public doesn’t need to know about any of this but absolutely must hear about that.

Why do so many in the media spend a disproportionate amount of time covering and inflate the relative significance of wrongdoing in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Haditha? Not only rushing to judgement against the US military every time they’re accused of anything, but ignoring or at least not reporting that this is precisely the way the jihadis are trained to play the Western media. They are told to claim abuse. They recognize the media as a tool in their jihad. Meanwhile the media pride themselves in being fair, that the American people – no, the whole damn world – must know each and every unprecedented thing George Bush and his minions are doing. Is it effective? Is it legal? Has anyone (other than jihadis) been harmed? That doesn’t matter. If one rabid Bush-hater in the CIA or State Department will break his oath, they will publish.

If there is any logic here it is this: screw civilization. They must have known the disclosure of SWIFT would not hurt Bush. None of the previous “Bush is spying” stories have done anything but help him. So who were they trying to hurt? Did they care if they hurt anyone? “We’re not supposed to take sides.” But what they did clearly helped the jihadis and will hurt civilization. “We’re not supposed to take sides.” They can write that on their tombstones. The rest of us can write “Killed by an Arrogant Ignorant Self-Righteous Sellout Media.”

Of course the leakers deserve prosecution. Who do they think they’re helping or hurting? Who cares? That is a leftist/liberal pitfall. We can do whatever we want as long as the goal sounds noble. We’re being fair. We’re keeping the government honest. It doesn’t matter what actually happens. Only our intentions. And for that reason anyone who experiences a Nixon/Vietnam flashback can go to the media with any rumor or forgery they want and as long as the intention is good it can hurt civilization, that’s ok, the media will take over and broadcast it. They may even rebroadcast it when it turns out to be wrong, and the error will not necessarily be emphasized. Allah forbid some part of such a story sticks. Then we get to celebrate anniversaries.

UPDATE: For those of you who didn’t know you could click on pictures:

Last week, the mainstream media continued its policy of declassifying America’s anti-terrorism intelligence gathering tactics. You didn’t think that the editors of the New York Times had the legal authority to declassify national security secrets? Neither did I. In fact, publishing these life-or-death secrets is a crime.

Michael Barone offers a general argument in favor of cracking down on these national security leaks, while the Weekly Standard provides a specific legal justification for a criminal prosecution of the editors of the New York Times and at least one congressman has called for such a prosecution.

As Barone points out, the most recent New York Times exposure of a national security secret is particularly egregious because there is no suggestion that the intelligence program it reveals is illegal the (dubious) argument the Times used to justify its previous exposure of a wire-tapping program.

So the Times cannot claim that it has revealed this information in order to blow the whistle on an abuse of presidential power. That moves their actions into the realm of treason: the editors of the Times published information that they knew would aid the enemy and did so without being able to claim any legitimate motive.

UPDATE II: Via Power Line. Why should I continue to write when other people say it so much better?

UPDATE III:

Excuse the pause, I’ve just returned from a thirteen day long driving odyssey across seven states in the US Midwest,
including visits to a ridiculous number of national parks:

• Craters of the Moon, ID
• Yellowstone, WY
• Grand Teton, WY
• Flaming Gorge, WY/UT
• Dinosaur, UT/CO
• Mesa Verde, CO
• Arches, UT
• Canyonlands, UT
• Capitol Reef, UT
• Bryce, UT
• Zion, UT

During such a trip a person can come to appreciate a few things besides new and unfamiliar brands of jerky and beer.

You can’t look out the window on such a trip and not be struck by the distinguishing characteristics of each locale’s geology, nor their similarities. You see layers of stone everywhere – though their color, texture, and thickness are everywhere unique. Once you appreciate the eons of winters and summers trapped in each layer of rock, that whole families of life that have come and gone within those layers, you can appreciate the utter insignificance of yourself, your petty concerns, your family, your entire race and virtually everything you find familiar in the contemporary world. Written in the rock are ages of ice, greenhouse, and brimstone. Earth’s thin biosphere and geology have transformed so completely on so many occasions over the course of the their history that it boggles the mind. And Earth is but one insignificant planet in but one insignificant galaxy in but one insignificant universe amongst the uncountably infinite parallel multiverses. Beyond that the reckoning gets a bit metaphysical.

Park roads are always slow, but with everything there is to gawk at it hardly matters. On the vast regions of nothingness between waypoints however I found myself thanking Congressional Republicans at least once a day for the 65-75mph (100-120kph) speed limits. For all the Democrat demagoguery concerning the imminent Right-Wing Police State the most significant change in the last few decades police-wise is not that your phone might be tapped or your medical records made public. It’s that you can travel at a comfortably high speed on the highway without the stress of constantly looking over your shoulder for Smokey. The risk a generally law-abiding driver would be oppressed by The Man was significantly higher back when a Democrat-controlled Congress imposed an absurdly low national speed limit of 55mph. Yet another unintended consequence of an ultimately insufficient sacrifice in the name of the leftist cause to Save the Environment. I wish We the People were more capable of learning from such experience so We might see the wisdom of decriminalizing a few other victimless crimes.

On such a trip, or any driving in unfamiliar surroundings, a bleeding edge built-in navigation system really helps. Every rental car should have one. A key component is GPS. Invented and maintained by the US military, GPS’s usefulness to the global public is rarely noted or acknowledged. In fact US enemies assume the system is somehow rigged to put them at disadvantage, because that’s what they would do if they had built it. Their paranoia drives them to replace or destroy GPS. The jihadis actually embrace and exploit GPS, but they exploit our jets and ammonium nitrate too. On the upside of the asymmetric warfare equation GPS technology helps our Rods From God more effectively take out jihadis, and it helps Joe Sixpack’s vacation and commerce. Such a deal!

Travelling at high speed across the vast open areas used to mean regularly scanning the AM/FM radio for news or entertainment. Allah forbid you seek a particular show. XM mostly fixes that. As long as you have line of sight to the sky you get the same smorgesbord of music and news no matter where you are. Yes the selection is broader than it is deep, but it’s far better than even a big city’s AM/FM variety. The homogenized and proprietary nature of satellite radio scares the crap out of some people. I’m not one of them.

Theodore Roosevelt was a great and visionary president who figured prominently in the founding or expansion of many of the parks we visited. A hundred years ago he championed the conservation of these national treasures. Current and future visitors owe a great debt to TR and the others who have set these places aside for us to enjoy and appreciate. Considering the sheer entertainment value, compared to say a Disney vacation, the admission fee for US national parks is far too low. The rationale may be that the government must subsidize parks and keep fees low so that the poor won’t be excluded. It’s not working. They appear to be excluding themselves. But there are a large number of foreigners. This is delightful in the spirit of diversity but it’s not nearly as profitable for the nation as it could be. As long as people will travel far and wide to trample US parks their fees ought to cover all upkeep. In fact it should produce a tidy profit. Not only would this boost government revenues, it would make it harder to shut down parks the next time there’s a budget standoff. Maybe.

Wonderful July 4th fireworks at Bryce topped off the trip. God bless America. Of thee I sing.

A reader (who doesn’t post) sent this:

I took the trouble to translate for you a commentary that appeared yesterday in the German ”DIE ZEIT”. Once again, I am happy to observe that the Europeans are waking up to the sobering truth that Terrorism is not only an American problem.

NO PROTECTION, NOWHERE

First in Canada and the UK, now even in Sweden a number of terror suspects were apprehended.

The latest wave of arrests of young Muslims in Canada, the UK and now also in Sweden is eye-opening in several respects. Islamic terror, whether originating internally or agitated from abroad, is directed against all western countries, regardless of their foreign policy, – a lesson the Canadians have been slow to learn. The cell that was arrested there was about to blow up national landmarks, commit mass murder, behead the premier and kidnap members of the government, i. e., a spectacular series of crimes that would have been comparable to the terror acts of 9/11.

Why us?, is the incredulous and shocked question asked in Canadian headlines; aren’t we Canadians, the nice guys that everyone likes, who act as peace makers, who sharply distanced themselves from the mighty neighbor, the US? Who would want to visit such terrible harm upon us?

Canada believed that, because of its hypersensitive multiculturalism, it was insulated against the murderous Jihadists. Now it is dawning on the nice Canadians that a multi-cultural shmoozing course does not protect from Islamic terror. They now have to come to terms with the realization that multiculturalism, which does not impose on minorities any sort of integration requirements, actually promotes radicalization in the Islamic diaspora to a considerable extend. It permitted the creation of ethnic and religious ghettos and, therefore, the separation from the majority population and its customs and values. Multiculturalism, often infiltrated by Marxism, cultural relativism and romantic glorification of totalitarian ideologies, led to the growth of a victim mentality amongst Islamic minorities.

One can add to that the senseless debate over whether the culprit is a centrally, Al Qaeda led terror organization or only one of independent local cells. Islamic extremism knows no boundaries, it is ideologically connected and global in its direction and its goal: the establishment of a world-wide caliphate under the Sharia. It has been shown that from Madrid and London to New York, even though terrorist cells in western countries have acted mostly autonomously, a web of Islamic religious schools, traveling preachers and experts in the construction of bombs, are also a part of the infrastructure of Islamic terrorism. Evidently there were also Muslims from Great Britain and Sweden involved in the preparation of the planned massacre in Canada.

Whenever there is an arrest of suspected terrorists, there is a familiar ritual: Police and secret services point, as in the UK, to pressing reasons for suspicion or, as in the case of the Canadians, to hard evidence that made the arrests necessary. Muslemic “community leaders” react as if it is another hostile attack by the majority against the long-suffering, Islamic minority. Liberal media love to pick up the subject and warn against generalization in condemning the young Muslims. In any event, they frequently raise the claim that the danger of terrorism is intentionally exaggerated. Which does not prevent them from vociferously accusing the authorities after every attack of insufficient foresight and lack of preventive measures.

British terror investigators so far have not apologized for last weekends massive operation, even though, so far, they have no solid results to register. They were right to do so. Police must investigate specific leads to a chemical bomb factory.

About 20 attempts similar to those in July of 2005, were thwarted in Great Britain in the last four years. It happens to be a fact that terrorist attacks originate from the Islamic minority. It is lamentable but it cannot be denied. And it renders ad absurdum the accusation of “Islamophobia”, which Islamic circles like to hide behind. One needs to reverse this accusation: When Police and secret services prevent acts of terror they serve all the people in a democratic society, regardless of skin color or religion, – even the Muslim minority.

Responsible community leaders and preachers should remind the believers of this even though it may be difficult to convince the young firebrands of that truth. (Translator’s note: Fat chance!)

Could a proponent of multiculuralism explain why it isn’t working out so well in Germany, or France?

Pearls Before Swine hits a nerve. Very funny. In fact this blog has thousands of readers. Here’s a breakdown:

27% – Leftists too apoplectic to post.
22% – Jihadis too busy planning next attack.
15% – Illegal aliens afraid posting will alert INS.
12% – Severe lexdysia.
10% – No internet connection.
7% – No computer.
4% – Illiterate.
2% – Deaf-mute.

And 1% who just don’t care.

Faced with the House Bill or the Senate Bill or something in between open border advocates prefer the status quo. Anything short of total amnesty, no wall, and less border security would from their point of view be a step backward and set a bad precedent. They know demographic trends are in their favor. They can afford to wait.

Left out of the discussion is any option for those who want the border secured and no amnesty. Isn’t that the obvious compromise position? On the one extreme are Nazi/KKK types who would gather illegals and gas them, and on the other are open borders types who want to give it all away. A wall and free repatriation sounds like reasonable middle ground. Senate bill supporters get their fence and enforcement, but not amnesty or guest workers. Open border advocates don’t get an open border but do get compassionate (and speedy) extradition. This is not a joke. They don’t like the suffering at the border, or the stigma of being undocumented, or the fear of being deported. We can fix all of that by stopping illegal traffic across the border.

As for free repatriation, we can figure out what the average illegal immigrant costs our economy per year and offer them that much money to leave. It’s win-win. We save in the long run, assuming the border is secured. We need to know the full economic impact of illegal immigration, not just how great a deal it is for the illegal alien, the business that exploits him, or the US government that taxes them, but also how much it costs everybody else who pays for health care when the alien or his dependents make their free trips to the emergency room. Who pays for their education? Who entertains the English speaking native students when the teachers are catering to non-English speaking students? Who pays for their 6.4% of our prison space? Who pays when parts of the US start to look more and more like Tijuana?

When we get an honest assessment of these costs then we can discuss how much it will cost to build a wall and weigh it fairly against the cost of not building one. Until then we should err on the side of caution and start building.

CA-50 was a referrendum on immigration, and the president’s low poll numbers have as much to do with immigration as they do with Iraq. For years elected officials of both parties have looked the other way while US immigration law was violated. Now they openly tell us they will send the National Guard to the border, but only temporarily. They can’t track over-stayed visas, how can anyone believe they’ll do better tracking Guest Workers?

Arguments for a “comprehensive” law are disingenuous. It makes no sense to discuss unclogging the drain, mopping the floor, and getting a new sink with bigger pipes hooked up when water is overflowing out of the sink you have right now all over the floor. The only reasonable answer to the dominant opinion on illegal immigration is to turn off the faucet. But that’s the last thing anyone arguing “comprehensive” wants. They mouth support for “enforcement” but only as a small part of the whole “comprehensive” thing. They know they can do what they want if they can just bore the public into moving on. So like the open borders advocates the “comprehensives” will be happy to negotiate us into Nothing for now, and they’ll just try another less scrutinized swing at All next year.