I have found that liberals have come to really believe in the fantasies they profess. They were confidently predicting the DC sniper would certainly be one of those “gun crazy white males.”

Back in 1995, I did not think Timothy McVeigh typified the angry white male (And I was one). In this case, I think that the reporting will be coy, but I am not quite sure what it is liberals are meant to get their minds around.

Regards,

What is it that liberals will have trouble getting their minds around? The very things that they’re being coy about.

A reader of VFR said in a shared e-mail discussion, “I think Larry meant to say “Politically Correct,” not “Politically Incorrect.” Politically Incorrect would have been some honest armed citizen coming across these two while they were in the act of shooting one of their victims and killing the two of them.”

I saw there was some ambiguity in my use of the term politically incorrect terrorists but I hoped people would understand. Insofar as blacks, immigrants, illegal aliens, homosexuals, and now Muslims, are all designated outsiders/oppressed/victims, they are politically correct and no wrong can be attributed to them. Insofar as whites are oppressors, they are politically incorrect and all evil can be attributed to them. So a white would be a politically CORRECT serial killer or terrorist, because that fulfulls the demands of political correctness for white evil, while a black/gay/Muslim etc. would be a politically INCORRECT serial killer or terrorist, because he is violating the expectations and requirements of political correctness.

In short, a black or gay AS a black or gay is politically correct. A black or gay as a TERRORIST is politically incorrect.

Larry, don’t forget that the pair seem to have been homeless as well! Another victim category.

Further developments in Friday’s papers make the homosexual theory less likely. Muhammad after the breakup of his second marriage had absconded with the three children for some months before they were finally returned to their mother. She moved elsewhere with the children and hid from him out of fear of his threats of violence. Then he had a relationship with Malvo’s mother. Given his attachment to his own children who had been taken completely out of his life, it seems more likely than not that he did view Malvo as a substitute son.

Quite a laundry list of victimhoods. The media will come to terms, eventually, with all except the one most important to Americans’ security. Malvo, as Mr. Auster notes, is an illegal alien; worse, an illegal alien in an automatic, no-appeal deportation category: stowaway; worst, the INS had him, knew he was a stowaway, and released him. This the media (except for Michelle Malkin, God bless her) will barely touch.

The administration will not come to terms with it either, as President Bush and Karl Rove evidently believe the future of the Republican party will be secured by acquiescing in the repopulation of the United States by illegal aliens from Mexico. Just this weekend, Bush was huddled at Cabo San Lucas - in matching guayabera shirts - with his amigo primero President Fox of Mexico. They mean not to enhance the security of our mutual border but to eliminate it, reviving the suicidal (for America) policy of illegal alien amnesties and “guest worker” programs Fox and Bush were preparing to spring on the United States in the week before 11 September 2001.

For his immigration malfeasance alone, GW Bush should be impeached, a suggestion I don’t throw out lightly. Compared to the threat mass non-white immigation poses to the national integrity of the United States, any threat to America Saddam Hussein plausibly poses is a conveniently diverting fantasy. Our government needs to address American problems, not insert itself into those of Arab countries that are not our concern. The case for Iraq as a lethal threat to America is not yet made; the demographic threat from Mexico and elsewhere is patent (certainly to anyone who lives in New York, as Mr. Auster does, or works in the great wen, as I do). HRS