Aug. 1, 2006: A history of mental illness ...

MSM and The Investigation of Domestic Terrorists
hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/9bb66bfd-2ea8-4d71-94ad-6e20f22e7300

[....] So in less than two months we have 25 arrests of terrorists intent on killing in the US, only one of whom succeeded, but the successful one is described by the home town paper as "having a history of mental illness" and the others have dropped off the list of MSM-approved topics for coverage.

Can we agree that all terrorists have some degree of mental illness? Can we also agree that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the victims of their crimes?

What we need to know --and what the American MSM seems profoundly uninteretsed in-- is where did they come from? What made them terrorists?

Let me also raise the possibility that there are many, many more where the 25 came from, but that we don't know where or how to look for them. Instead of thinking through how such a search can be accomplished without infringement on civil liberties, elite media --the New York Times and Los Angeles Times to be very specific-- are busy hobbling our few non-intrusive investigative techniques. [....]

There is a similar situation in Canada. Pretend that the alleged terrorists are an aberration, if not mentally disturbed; that ends investigation ... which is the point. The other way Canada deals with the alleged terrorists is to describe them as young, influenced by others, led astray ... that they are really good young boys or men who attend the mosque regularly and pray ... and the court grants them bail ... To the citizenry, there can't be much wrong with them, then, if they're allowed to get out on bail and attend school, et cetera. So the populace is lulled into complacency and the story leaves the news; little investigation takes place ... especially when the big issue is the PM. Actually, it is the media's efforts--fanatical need--to blacken our Prime Minister through his support of Israel's existence. If the mainstream media can get the leftists re-elected, then Canada won't have to stand up for right ... It will simply ape the UN. Hence, the parade on television of leftists / Liberals / NDP'ers such as Alexa MacDonough who claim Canada's role has always been neutral, multilateral. No, that is not correct. Canada has not always followed the UN but no-one seems to notice the bilge, not want to report on it. Canada took a stand for right and democracy in previous World Wars.