Category Archives: Crime

Devout ‘Gentle Giant’ Felled By Deviant Gangster

Crime, Multiculturalism, Race, Racism, The West

Young Jimmy Mizen confronted a born bully in an almost archaic manner: “Some manners would not go amiss,” said this English, Catholic, alter boy to his killer. A member of a large, traditional family, Mizen was, in manners and mien, an embodiment of a goodness that goons of a different culture and world seek instinctively to destroy. There is more than a bad temper to this wicked, unprovoked murder; there’s racial hatred—the same rage that made the ugly inside-and-out Curtis Lavelle Vance extinguish the beautiful Anne Pressly.

Larry Auster tells a story we’ve grown accustomed to hearing:

“In a suburban London baker’s shop last May, 16 year old Jimmy Mizen was murdered by 19 year old Jake Fahri who smashed a heavy glass bakery dish into Jimmy’s face with such force it severed his jugular vein and his carotid artery and he bled to death.

An excellent thing about the Mail that puts it above any U.S. paper and probably any British paper is the detail with which it recounts violent crimes, as it does here, giving a full picture not only of Jimmy’s murder but of the history of the killer’s interactions with the Mizen family preceding the murder and the effect of the murder on the family. The Mail takes murder seriously, as it ought to be taken. A notable and disturbing exception was the Mail’s vague, minimal coverage of the beheading of Patrick McGee last December in Manchester. Also, while the Mail and other British media have given a lot of coverage to the Jimmy Mizen murder, they have been completely silent about the racial aspect of the murder, a white killed by a mixed-race thug.”

Updated: Blame Local Yokels

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Drug War, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security

Republican loyalists protesting Hillary Clinton’s latest antics should spare us their righteous indignation. Bush would have said and done exactly as Madam Secretary of State has—he too would have blamed American tokers and dopers for the fact that Mexican murderers are killing one another, and, while at it, are throwing into the mix an American or two.

It’s business as usual:

An “insatiable” appetite in the United States for illegal drugs is to blame for much of the violence ripping through Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday.

Clinton acknowledged the U.S. role in Mexico’s drug cartel problem as she arrived in Mexico for a two-day visit where she will discuss U.S. plans to ramp up border security with President Felipe Calderon. …

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians,” Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City.

“I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility.”

We’d expect nothing else from Clinton–blaming peaceful members of society for the savagery of criminals. Ever ask yourself, Madam, why Mexicans are more likely to run drugs, while Americans are more inclined to consume them?

Update: And could it be, Madam, that these societies–Mexican and American–are fundamentally different in some real and material way worth investigating and perhaps even preserving? Perish the thought!

Torturing The ‘Torture’ Issue (I)

Bush, Crime, Democrats, Iraq, War, WMD

Ever wonder why the Democrats and their media lapdogs never shut-up about the issue of torture, when Bush’s decision to wage an unjust, illegal war ought to be the focus of their Ire? The matter of torture is, after all, subsumed within the broader category of an unjust war. Moreover, one can make the case for torture in desperate, dire situations. (I’m not making the case, I’m saying that one can attempt to justify incidents of torture: you were not thinking clearly, you were desperate to avert another disaster, you wanted to save hostages; you worried you’d be blamed if you didn’t extract crucial information.) But how on earth do you justify lugging an army across the ocean to occupy a third-world country that is no danger to you and has not threatened you? You don’t, you can’t.

Democrats are nearly as culpable as Republicans on the matter of the war on Iraq. So they stick with their limited, safe mandate of torture. MSNBC’s Maddow and Olbermann, and their constitutional scholar, are thus careful to skirt the need to prosecute Bush and his bandits for invading Iraq. Instead, they stick to waterboarding.

CNN confirms that “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has called for a commission on torture allegations”:

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman called Wednesday for the establishment of a nonpartisan “commission of inquiry” to investigate allegations of wrongdoing against former Bush administration officials in their prosecution of the war on terrorism.

Nothing “did more to damage America’s place in the world than the revelation that our great nation stretched the law and the bounds of executive power to authorize torture and cruel treatment,” Sen. Patrick Leahy said at the start of a committee hearing.

American “detention policies and practices from Guantanamo Bay [Cuba] and Abu Ghraib [Iraq] have seriously eroded fundamental American principles of the rule of law,” he added.

Leahy, D-Vermont, called for the “truth commission” to have a “targeted mandate” focusing on issues of national security and executive power. He said it should look specifically at allegations of “questionable interrogation techniques,” “extraordinary rendition” and the “executive override of laws.”

He added that the commission should have the power to issue subpoenas and offer immunity to witnesses “in order to get to the whole truth.”

Leahy refused to rule out of the possibility of prosecutions for perjury committed during the commission’s hearings.

Torturing The 'Torture' Issue

Bush, Crime, Democrats, Iraq, War, WMD

Ever wonder why the Democrats and their media lapdogs never shut-up about the issue of torture, when Bush’s decision to wage an unjust, illegal war ought to be the focus of their Ire? The matter of torture is, after all, subsumed within the broader category of an unjust war. Moreover, one can make the case for torture in desperate, dire situations. (I’m not making the case, I’m saying that one can attempt to justify incidents of torture: you were not thinking clearly, you were desperate to avert another disaster, you wanted to save hostages; you worried you’d be blamed if you didn’t extract crucial information.) But how on earth do you justify lugging an army across the ocean to occupy a third-world country that is no danger to you and has not threatened you? You don’t, you can’t.

Democrats are nearly as culpable as Republicans on the matter of the war on Iraq. So they stick with their limited, safe mandate of torture. MSNBC’s Maddow and Olbermann, and their constitutional scholar, are thus careful to skirt the need to prosecute Bush and his bandits for invading Iraq. Instead, they stick to waterboarding.

CNN confirms that “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has called for a commission on torture allegations”:

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman called Wednesday for the establishment of a nonpartisan “commission of inquiry” to investigate allegations of wrongdoing against former Bush administration officials in their prosecution of the war on terrorism.

Nothing “did more to damage America’s place in the world than the revelation that our great nation stretched the law and the bounds of executive power to authorize torture and cruel treatment,” Sen. Patrick Leahy said at the start of a committee hearing.

American “detention policies and practices from Guantanamo Bay [Cuba] and Abu Ghraib [Iraq] have seriously eroded fundamental American principles of the rule of law,” he added.

Leahy, D-Vermont, called for the “truth commission” to have a “targeted mandate” focusing on issues of national security and executive power. He said it should look specifically at allegations of “questionable interrogation techniques,” “extraordinary rendition” and the “executive override of laws.”

He added that the commission should have the power to issue subpoenas and offer immunity to witnesses “in order to get to the whole truth.”

Leahy refused to rule out of the possibility of prosecutions for perjury committed during the commission’s hearings.