Two days after the psychoneurotic cultural marxists at the New York Times published front-page photos of the skinny east-african kid from Oregon (huh?) who wanted to blow up the nice white liberals of Portland at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony, the apologists at the Grey Lady have come out in force to offer preliminary legal arguments for why Muhamud Muhamud should go free.
In not one but two articles published in today's national edition, the self-loathing leftist losers at the Times make the case for why it is immoral to use creative law enforcement tactics to preemptively take down foreign-born third world scum who want to bite the Western hand the feeds them - who want to bite off the hand that feeds them, we should say... and the arm, and the head, and the body parts of anyone unlucky enough to be in the vicinity of the hatred radius of these practitioners of the religion of peace.
Now, we at COTT fully agree that the FBI used entrapment all the way to arrest this Allah-Akbar screaming mutation of nature. And we say: Good! A little entrapment never killed anybody! (Of course if it happened to a native born american we might have objections). What's wrong with a little profiling we ask? The Israelis do it, and they haven't had a plane hijacked in decades.
If the TSA has to strip search children and 96 year olds in wheelchairs, then at least let the FBI turn the tables on this insanity by doing a little entrapping here, a little entrapping there.
But we digress...
The Times printed Mud Mud's photo on the front page the other day because they knew that if they didn't they would be called out for it.
But like the good latte leftists they are, forever faithful to their crazy cause of "comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable," the Times predictably made up for their sin of putting the mug shot of a poor oppressed east african muslim terrorist on their front page, by publishing five crypto-communistic propaganda puff pieces in quick succession in the National and Op-Ed sections of today's edition.
These pieces are entitled and published as follows:
(1) "Entrapment Is Argued in Defense of Suspect" (p. A19)
(2) "In U.S. Sting Operations, Questions of Entrapment" (p. A22)
(3) "US Judge Blocks a Ban on Islamic Law" (p. A21)
(4) "Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt" (op-ed p. 27)
(5) "Broken Beyond Repair" (op-ed p. 27)The first two seek to trivialize the danger posed by wanna-be jihadists lured into criminal acts by government law enforcement.
Fair enough, we say. Entrapment is not cool. If you bought tickets from a scrapper outside of Madison Square Garden, and were quickly slapped in handcuffs because the "scrapper" turned out to be an undercover cop, you'd be pissed, and rightly so. Because entrapment is not cool.
However, if from that same scrapper you purchased by your own free will a suitcase full of Soviet-era mustard gas canisters, and then you got busted, you'd be pissed, but you would understand that you deserved it.
In the case of Mud Mud the Portland wanna-be jihadi from far-away Somalia, the Times wants you to believe that the kid was lured into a cheap prank by evil racist FBI agents. He'll get off, the Times seems to imply, because not only is he a "confused teenager," but also these jihadists are all pretty harmless anyway: after all, Richard Reid the show bomber, the Nigerian Christmas Day crotch bomber, all these poor dumb muslim kids were too oppressed (by the West) to get the kind of formal education that would have made them smart enough to figure out how to successfully detonate their bombs. It's our fault, really. No threat here folks. Nothing to see, move along...
Once again, the New York Times is committing a major crime of omission here, by failing to mention a few important background facts about our friends from Somalia, that fine equatorial tourist destination best known to Americans for "Black Hawk Down" and the ever-so-quaint Pirates of the Indian Ocean, the noble oppressed savages who are at this instant holding more than two dozen foreign ships and over 500 crew members hostage. (Amazingly, many of these ships are carrying Western food aid to Africa, as was the case of the famous Maersk Alabama hijacking, when three of Mud Mud's cousins were made good by Navy snipers, while a fourth one now has cable tv and three halal meals a day somewhere in a comfy federal pen in the North East).
|Postcard From Somolia|
The answer to this question that the Times willfully fails to answer or even address is chilling and incredibly relevant to this story, and because they won't tell you, we will: starting in 1993, the United States Office of Refugee Resettlement began to import into the US large numbers of asylum seekers from the 3rd world. The peak years were in the early 1990s, when in 1992 alone over 130,000 refugees were brought in.
Today, there are about 200,000 muslim Somalis living in the United States. About half of these live in Minneapolis; the rest are spread about in such historically snowy white enclaves as Maine, Vermont, and ... Oregon.
But the United States is not the only nation to benefit from the presence of massive numbers of imported Somalis: there are over a quarter of a million in the UK (70% of which live in London); about 70,000 in Sweden; Norway has 4o thousand, the Netherlands 35, Denmark 30, etc and so on. Ho hum, as Kurt Vonnegut probably would not say.
|Figures from the US Office of Refugee Settlement -|
Powered by the State Department
In a sane country, the national newspaper of record would have reported not only on these important migratory trends, but also on the political elites who enable these demographic mutations to happen.
But as we have seen, the New York Times does not speak to sanity.
Later in the week, we will comment on the other three articles that the Times published today to atone for their sin of publishing poor Mud Mud's mug shot on the front page. These articles include: (3) a pro-Islam piece; (4) an anti free-speech op ed column; and (5) another anti- capital punishment piece from the always hilarious Times opinion columnist Bob Herbert.