Monthly Archives: January 2008

England Equates Anti-Islamic Activity with Terrorism

Posted on by

England’s been on my mind recently, mainly due to the plight of much maligned blogger Lionheart who will become the first Christian martyr to the Islamic kingdom that surely will take the place of our stoic allies within a few years.

Lionheart’s crime is to be one of the few Englishmen to stand up for his country, a country where radical Muslims control entire neighborhoods; where the authorities are allowing sexual exploitation of children to flourish; where the standard of living has fallen so far below what one should expect from a civilized country that only those willing to lie can make the case that England is anywhere near America in quality of life.

Lionheart has recently done a wonderful interview that explains his plight and debunks the myth of his neo-Nazism quite nicely, but there is a new development in England that casts doubt on his ability to receive any type of fair trial in that benighted country.

The Daily Mail is reporting that England will replace the term “terrorism” with “anti-Islamic activity” in a move designed to appease Muslims and no doubt accelerate the Islamization of the United Kingdom:

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing “anti-Islamic activity”.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

In her first major speech on radicalization, Miss Smith repeatedly used the phrase “anti-Islamic”.

In one passage she said: “As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.

“Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic’.

Another section referred to enlisting the Muslim community against “anti-Islamic activity”.

Her words were chosen to reflect new Government strategy on labelling the terrorists and their recruiting agents.

The shift follows a decision taken last year to stop using the phrase “war on terror”, first adopted by U.S. President Bush.

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between the values of Islam and the West.

The strategy emerging across Government is to portray terrorists as nothing more than cold-blooded murderers who are not fighting for any religious cause.

The problem is that such a policy will eventually be used to conflate the “un-Islamic activity” of non-Muslims into terrorism. If it becomes accepted parlance to call Al-Qaeda an un-Islamic or anti-Islamic organization, then counter-jihadists, Muslim apostates and anti-Sharia activists become, by virtue of their anti-Islamic activity, as bad as Al-Qaeda.

This is more than a dangerous word game, but an attempt for a floundering leftist government to realign itself with Islamic Imperialists in England who will gladly disavow Al-Qaeda for a chance to make un-Islamic activities (like Homosexuality, Women’s rights and religious freedom) prosecutable, at least in the court of public opinion. This is Orwellian social engineering at it’s worst, and bloggers like Lionheart will be the first to fall prey to a new set of legal standards where being “anti-Islamic” will literally be treated as the same as crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center.

While I believe in freedom of religion, I’m not a Muslim and am not a big fan of Islam. I express often my disagreement with Islamic values and faith. Am I a terrorist? Is it terrorism to leave Islam, which is considered anti-Islamic? Is eating pork terrorism?

Philosophically, the English are well on their way to saying those things are.

Ohio Prosecutor lets Two Child Rapists Walk

Posted on by

If you’re a particularly vicious child rapist Ohio will apparently reward you for any extra trauma you inflict on your victims. In this outrageous story I first saw covered over at Lost in Lima, Ohio two career pedophiles will go free because prosecutors have determined that the children are too terrified of their abusers to confront them in court. The court, despite a wealth of forensic evidence set the monsters free.

From WhioTV:

DAYTON, Ohio — Two men accused of raping children walked free without a trial.

Prosecutors said the victims are young and too emotionally traumatized to testify against the men. The charges will dropped against Ronald Pruiett, 31, and 47-year-old Larry Joe Smith on Friday.

Both suspects in the case have previously been convicted of sex crimes. The men were neighbors of the children’s grandmother.

The mother of the children said one of them contracted a sexually transmitted disease from the men.

Officials said charges could be brought against the men in the future when the children are stable enough to testify.

Prosecutors said the case remains open, and the children are undergoing counseling.

With their abusers free these children will never be “stable enough” to testify. These two monsters raped and tortured those children until the victims were so traumatized that they were terrified of the men even with police around. These men no doubt threatened to kill them, no doubt told them they’d never be punished for their vile crimes. Now the system sets them free and we should expect that the children will at some point feel safe enough to testify.

And frankly men this evil will gladly kill those children if given the chance. Their cases are still open, and will be until the statute of limitations runs out. Does anyone really think it’s rational to take the chance that these to fiends will simply wait out the statute fingers crossed hoping the children will never testify?

One of the men has given a victim an STD, is that not evidence? I’ve heard of trials where victims this young were allowed to testify on video tape, why isn’t that good enough for Ohio? I’ve seen criminals prosecuted with less evidence than this, what the hell’s going on in Ohio?

At Dreamin’ Demon a couple of good points about this travesty were raised:

The children’s mother states that she feels the men should have been held in jail until her children could testify, and I wish that was possible. I think there’s got to be a better answer than “if you can’t testify, they walk.” If the little girl has herpes, for example, some labs are able to get DNA on the strain of the virus. That could be compared to the accused men to see who transmitted the disease. Granted, it may not be enough for a conviction, but it’s something. Combined with therapist testimony, it might get the job done.

This is a case where the abuse was horrific, the children have been terrorized, and now Ohio is telling these kids that they will not be safe or protected. This kind of system failure is why vigilante crimes happen. Someone’s gonna take care of these guys before they hurt another child (or go back for the same kids). And that person will do jail time for doing what the state of Ohio should have already done.

One-strike child sexual abuse legislation would have kept these children safe in the first place. Now they have to go to sleep every night afraid that these monsters will come back and hurt or kill them, as they probably threatened to do during the abuse. And you know what? Now Pruiett and Smith are out walking around free, with nothing stopping them from doing just that.

I would think a forensic case would hold up pretty well on top of some testimony from the parents on how terrified the children are of these two. They could have at least tried, and by not doing so they are exposing the children and their families to an inordinate amount of danger. As long as the threat of this case hangs over these two degenerates heads, they have motive to murder these kids and their families.

And the above author is right, this sort of situation breeds vigilantism. The sad part will be that someone acting to protect (or avenge) these children will be locked up whether their are victims to testify or not.

So is this a case of a bad prosecutor or a broken system?

Tyler Cowan on the Real Reason for the Sub Prime Meltdown

Posted on by

From the highly reputable New York Times:

IT’S NOT JUST THE LENDERS There has been plenty of talk about “predatory lending,” but “predatory borrowing” may have been the bigger problem. As much as 70 percent of recent early payment defaults had fraudulent misrepresentations on their original loan applications, according to one recent study. The research was done by BasePoint Analytics, which helps banks and lenders identify fraudulent transactions; the study looked at more than three million loans from 1997 to 2006, with a majority from 2005 to 2006. Applications with misrepresentations were also five times as likely to go into default.

Many of the frauds were simple rather than ingenious. In some cases, borrowers who were asked to state their incomes just lied, sometimes reporting five times actual income; other borrowers falsified income documents by using computers. Too often, mortgage originators and middlemen looked the other way rather than slowing down the process or insisting on adequate documentation of income and assets. As long as housing prices kept rising, it didn’t seem to matter.

In other words, many of the people now losing their homes committed fraud. And when a mortgage goes into default in its first year, the chance is high that there was fraud in the initial application, especially because unemployment in general has been low during the last two years.

Wow. A fair and thoughtful analysis of the American economy by a leftist rag? Maybe the Grey Lady is changing for the better. Just kidding.

The article has some interesting tidbits on China’s supposedly booming economy so it’s worth a read, although his contention that no one knows why there is “income inequality” is disingenuous at best.

The middle class is becoming rich (thus why the middle class I shrinking even though the lower class is stable in size) and more money is being thrown around than ever. An honest economist could tell you income inequality in America is a bogus measurement of our economic health, it’s purchasing power, which even the poor have more of than the average European, that really tells the story.

But who’d support Marxism then?

h/t Hispanic Pundit

The Senseless Horror of the Nixzmary Brown Case

Posted on by

As the step-father of Nixzmary Brown, (a girl betrayed by all of New York) stands trial for her brutal death, new details of the horrific torments he and the girl’s own mother perpetrated on the defenseless child are emerging and raising more questions as to how city child service workers could have missed the obvious signs of abuse. Fox News exposes the living Hell this innocent girl suffered through:

NEW YORK — There had been warning signs for years before 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown died from a vicious blow to the head.

School employees had reported that she had been absent for weeks the previous year. Neighbors noticed unexplained injuries and noted the child appeared underfed and small for her age. Child welfare workers had been alerted twice but said they found no conclusive evidence of abuse.

Two years after the girl’s death shocked the city, hastened child welfare reforms and made her name synonymous with child abuse, opening statements were expected to begin Wednesday in her stepfather’s murder trial.

Nixzmary’s personal hell was likely to be exposed through symbols of her horrific demise: the rope used to tether her to a chair, the cat-litter box she used as a toilet, the bathtub used to dunk her under cold water.

Authorities say evidence against her stepfather, Cesar Rodriguez, includes crime-scene photos inside the family’s three-bedroom apartment and a videotape of the defendant casting blame on the malnourished victim, who weighed 45 pounds at the time of her death.

“Sometimes she used to get me real angry and I used to just throw her,” Rodriguez said during a post-arrest interview made public during a family court hearing.

Prosecutor Ama Dwimoh has called it a case of torture.

Nixzmary “was beaten repeatedly,” Dwimoh said. “She was bound like an animal.”

There were unexplained bruises all over her body but child welfare workers could find no evidence of abuse? The girl appeared underfed to untrained observers (and it turned out they were right) yet child welfare workers could find no evidence of abuse? The girl was bound to chairs and made to use a litter box, but neither of these things left any evidence of abuse?

I dare say that the kind of people who make a 7 year old use a litter box are probably the kind of people living in filth and squalor. I doubt they cleaned up after the poor girl nor did they treat the rope burns that surely result from being tied to a chair frequently.

There was plenty of evidence of abuse here but no properly trained, and I’ll put forward motivated, adult to handle the situation. My mother became a child welfare worker for NYC decades ago, when all you needed was a college degree and some common sense. Not one to avoid laying a heavy hand on a child herself, my mother never the less set out like some child welfare Elliot Ness, removing children from homes in the middle of the night with no more than a handful of patrolmen and the dismissive attitude of a city employee as soon as she got the slightest whiff of abuse.

Then in the 90s the city switched from hiring competent ,caring individuals to demanding people have Master’s degrees in Social Work.

An MSW program distills the worst aspects of Sociology and and other Marxist disciplines into one useless two year period where candidates learn that American standards of decency and morality are wrong. It is less a graduate program and more a leftist pretension, the perpetuation of Marxist theories on family relations under the cover of higher learning

Thus the new breed of child welfare worker is slow to act in the best interest of the child at hand in their zeal to not oppress the poor. They are willing to accept barbaric behavior from parents, especially parents from another culture, in the name of multiculturalism.

But the worst idea coming from this horde of MSWs is “family reunification” as the ideal outcome of their attentions. The dirty little secret about the family reunification theory is that it’s based in the racist idea that a child like Nixzmary is better off left in an abusive household with her “family” than end up in a caring foster home with White, Black or Asian caregivers. Children are routinely given to family members of abusive parents because it’s considered better for a Black child, for example, to be with Black people, even though time and again it turns out that apples don’t fall far from the tree. I doubt Nixzmary’s mother had relatives who would have been kinder to the child than the man she brought into her home and allowed to kill her daughter.

I can’t say exactly why social workers didn’t remove the child, but my theory is their own miseducation and a system run by people more interested in leftist theorizing than Nixzmary Brown was the reason for their inaction. What I know from experience is that non-profits like the YMCA (including the NYC YMCA) have stricter standards for what constitutes abuse than the NYC child welfare workers, and that’s something that shouldn’t be.

Nixzmary Brown could have been saved by two different city employees but she wasn’t. No overhaul of the child welfare system that doesn’t include retraining the workers will prevent another tragedy like this from happening.

Did Wishful Thinking Kill Benazir Bhutto?

Posted on by

And by wishful thinking author Clifford D. May means the fairy tale like liberal mythology of free and fair elections defeating Islamic Imperialism in some esoteric way, thus relieving free peoples everywhere from the terrible burden of actually fighting for the rights of others to enjoy the liberty we do in our own country. From the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies:

Osama bin Laden probably does not get home delivery of Parade but more than 30 million Americans do. And on the magazine’s cover last Sunday was the not-quite-smiling face of Benazir Bhutto, along with this confident quote: “I am what the terrorists most fear.”

By the time Bhutto’s image and words reached America’s breakfast tables, she was, of course, dead. The January 6 issue of the magazine had gone to press before Bhutto was assassinated on Dec. 27 during a campaign stop in northern Pakistan.

Not far from where she was killed are the “tribal areas” of Pakistan — a swath of wild, mountainous territory along the Afghanistan border where al-Qaeda and its allies hold sway. Bin Laden is believed to enjoy sanctuary there. If he and other terrorists did fear Bhutto, they evidently found an effective way to deal with their fear. To slightly paraphrase Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator and mass murderer: No woman, no problem.

Did Bhutto really believe she was more of a threat to the militant Islamists than they were to her? Perhaps what she intended to signal was that, should she take power, she’d lead an all-out military offensive against al-Qaeda in Pakistan. But it’s also possible that she was expressing the too-common illusion – implied by Parade magazine — that election campaigns are tantamount to democracy and an antidote for Islamist terrorism.

In November, Bhutto also said: “I don’t believe that a true Muslim will attack me. I believe Islam forbids suicide bombings.” Again, maybe she meant only to assert her interpretation of Koranic law. Surely she knew that wealthy, powerful and influential voices in the Muslim world argue that suicide bombings against infidels and apostates – including Muslim women who dare seek political power – are not merely permissible; they are a theological obligation.

He goes on to recount the brief but bloody history of Pakistan’s evolution from a state designed to protect the rights of all it’s citizens to a soon to be theocracy armed with Nuclear weapons. It’s a good read.

It seems to me though that Bhutto fell victim to the left’s naive vision of democracy as protector of rights. In it’s pure form democracy is simply a tyranny wherein a minority of people are always out voted by the majority and suffer under a tyranny of the masses. Democracy is useless without a dedication to personal liberty, with out a Republican structure where your rights and freedoms are guaranteed by law and cannot be overturned by a vote.

This is why we in America enjoy more freedom than our European cousins, because the “American Way” is to understand that individuals should not be subject to the whims of the masses. There are those in American that wish to change that of course, Mike Huckabee has recently proven Ron Paul’s fear of evangelical fascism correct with his talk of amending the constitution to bring it into line with “God’ Standards” and California is floating an proposal that peoples thermostats be controlled by the local government in an effort to fight global warming.

Both these things will be struck down by courts, because they break the law. If not the letter of it than the spirit of the law which disallows theocratic rule or government quarting themselves virtually in private houses. In Europe and many other democracies these types of bizarre measures are passed all the time, because European culture doesn’t respect the concept of individual freedom.

Islamist culture, collectivist, nihilistic and obsessed with stripping away mankind’s liberty, puts even less value of personal freedom, and a democratic election in radical Muslim areas will only enshrine Islamic imperialism. The world was shocked by Hamas winning elections in the Palestinian territories, but didn’t learn the lesson it should have taught.

Once Pakistan has a “free and fair” election, the world will see how wishful thinking about the power of pure democracy killed Bhutto, and eventually all of us.