Thursday, May 17, 2007

Trial Dates Set in Case Mainstream Media Refuses to Cover

Trial dates have been set for the three men and one woman charged in the horrific rape, torture, disfigurement and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, Vanessa Coleman, and George Thomas are charged in a 46 count indictment with the January kidnapping, assault, rape, and murders of Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23.

The suspects appeared in a Knoxville criminal courtroom Thursday, where it was decided that the four trials will begin in May of 2008 and conclude in August.

State prosecutors say Davidson has also been indicted in a separate robbery that took place after the murders.

A decision has not yet been made as to whether the state will seek the death penalty against any of the defendants.

The details of the couple's murder are so shocking as to be almost unimaginable. Yet the national media continue a deafening silence regarding the case. Given the readiness of the alphabet networks and big city newspapers to provide full coverage of the murder of Matthew Shepard and the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas, not to mention the false accusations against the three Duke Lacrosse players, one might expect reporters to descend by the truck load on Knoxville, Tennessee to cover this atrocity. But they haven't. And they likely won't. Why? Because Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were white and their alleged attackes were black.

Hence the thunderous silence.


The White House has apparently succeeded in browbeating Senate Republicans into agreeing to a mind-bendingly horrendous amesty bill, which essentially abrogates American law and territorial sovereignty. This bill will represent the culmination of the Bush presidency; having destroyed America's reputation and standing around the world, the President now moves to destroy the United States itself.

WASHINGTON — Key senators and the White House reached agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.

The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.

The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

That Senator Kennedy, who also pushed the disastrous 1965 immigration reform bill, stands front and center as the spokesperson heralding this "breakthrough," should tell conservatives everything they need to know about just how bad this bill is for America. That President Bush would work so closely with Senator Kennedy to create this bill should tell conservates just how toxic President Bush is to conservatism.

What remains of the Republican party in Congress had better scramble to kill this bill; otherwise the GOP will have condemneed itself to perpetual minority party status.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

A Curiosity in Nebraska

In Nebraska - part of the American heartland - a labor dispute is (or should be) raising eyebrows and provoking serious questions:

Grand Island, Neb. - Nearly 100 Muslim workers have quit their jobs at a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant because their prayer times weren't accommodated.

"They kind of issued the company an ultimatum," said Dan Hoppes, president of Local 22 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

"They went in before the shift started (Monday) and said that they'd go unless they could pray when they needed to," Hoppes said today.

Sean McHugh, a spokesman for Swift at its Greeley headquarters, said breaks are governed by a labor contract and that all employees are told about them during orientation for all new workers.

"The company has a history of making reasonable accommodations for legitimate religious practices," he said Monday. "Swift has experienced no issues related to religious accommodations in recent years.

Hoppes said he believes the workers, who he said were Somali immigrants, had been offered jobs at a Kansas plant that would give them time off for prayer and make other accommodations for their religion. He didn't know the name of the company.

The pertinent question about this news item is not whether Swift & Co. should have given the workers time off for their prayers or not, nor is it whether the union should have written provisions for such things into its contract. The most important question is: what are 100 Somali-born Muslims doing in Grand Island, Nebraska? How did they get there? If they are in the U.S. illegally, it demonstrates the absolute failure of the Bush administration (and its predecessors) to enforce immigration laws and defend the nation's borders. If they were admitted to the U.S. legally, it demonstrates the insanity of Congress and the immigration laws it passes.

Were the American people ever asked if they wanted to admit immigrants from Somalia? Were they asked if they wanted to radically alter the nation's demographic breakdown? Were they asked, post 9/11, if they wanted more Muslims to immigrate to America? Of course not. Because the liars and frauds that comprise the elite in Washington - and occupy the White House and Congress - know that the American people want no such thing and would issue a resounding "NO!" were they every explicitly consulted. That is why all immigration legislation is negotiated in "closed door" sessions and with "backroom wrangling" - to keep the facts and the consequences from the American people. All of which brings up the even more pertinent question: if the American people don't want their country radically altered by mass immigration, why does the Washington elite want it so very badly?

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

You Can't Go Home Again - When Muslims Immigrate

In an interesting piece in Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens revisits the Finlay Park section of North London and finds his childhood neighborhood not quite as he remembered:

Returning to the old place after a long absence, I found that it was the scent of Algeria that now predominated along the main thoroughfare of Blackstock Road. This had had a good effect on the quality of the coffee and the spiciness of the grocery stores. But it felt odd, under the gray skies of London, to see women wearing the veil, and even swathed in the chador or the all-enveloping burka. Many of these Algerians, Bangladeshis, and others are also refugees from conflict in their own country. Indeed, they have often been the losers in battles against Middle Eastern and Asian regimes which they regard as insufficiently Islamic. Quite unlike the Irish and the Cypriots, they bring these far-off quarrels along with them. And they also bring a religion which is not ashamed to speak of conquest and violence.

Until he was jailed last year on charges of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, a man known to the police of several countries as Abu Hamza al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. He was a conspicuous figure because, having lost the use of an eye and both hands in an exchange of views in Afghanistan, he sported an opaque eye plus a hook to theatrical effect. Not as nice as he looked, Abu Hamza was nonetheless unfailingly generous with his hospitality. Overnight guests at his mosque's sleeping quarters have included Richard Reid, the man in whose honor we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the missing team member of September 11, 2001. Other visitors included Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up LAX for the millennium, and Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who planned to don an explosive vest and penetrate the American Embassy in Paris. On July 7, 2005 ("7/7," as the British call it), a clutch of bombs exploded in London's transport system. It emerged that one of the suicide murderers had been influenced by the preachings of Abu Hamza, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later.

In fact, the British jihadist is becoming quite a feature on the international scene. In 1998, six British citizens of Pakistani and North African descent along with two other British residents were arrested by the government of Yemen and convicted of planning to kidnap a group of tourists and attack British targets in the port of Aden (scene of the near-sinking of the U.S.S. Cole two years later). One of the youths was the son of the tireless Abu Hamza, and another was his stepson. In December 2001, Richard Reid made his bid on the Paris–Miami flight. By then, two or three Britons had been killed in Afghanistan—fighting on the side of the Taliban. The following year came the video butchering of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, whose abduction and murder were organized by another Briton—a former student at the London School of Economics—named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. And the year after that, two British-passport holders, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, took part in a suicide attack on Mike's Place, a Tel Aviv bar.

The British have always been proud of their tradition of hospitality and asylum, which has benefited Huguenots escaping persecution, European Jewry, and many political dissidents from Marx to Mazzini. But the appellation "Londonistan," which apparently originated with a sarcastic remark by a French intelligence officer, has come to describe a city which became home to people wanted for terrorist crimes as far afield as Cairo and Karachi. The capital of the United Kingdom is, in the words of Steven Simon, a former White House counterterrorism official, "the Star Wars bar scene," catering promiscuously to all manner of Islamist recruiters and fund-raisers for, and actual practitioners of, holy war.

In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, which killed 52 civilians (including a young Afghan, Atique Sharifi, who had fled to London to escape the Taliban) and injured hundreds more, I found that American television interviewers were all asking me the same question: How can this be? Britain is the country of warm beer and cricket and rain-lashed seaside resorts, not a place of arms for exotic and morbid cults. British press coverage struck the same plaintive note. One of the murderers, Shehzad Tanweer, was a cricket enthusiast from Leeds, in Yorkshire, whose family ran a fish-and-chips shop. You can't get much more assimilated than that. Yet Britain's former head of domestic intelligence, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller (and you can't get much more British than that, either), said last year that there are more than "1,600 identified individuals" within the borders of the kingdom who are ready to follow Tanweer's example (including those in whose honor we now all have to part with our liquids and gels at the airport). And, according to Manningham-Buller, "over 100,000 of our citizens consider the July 2005 attacks in London justified."

This is the consequence of permitting mass immigration from cultures totally alien to the West. A significant percentage of Muslims immigrating to the West do not want to become Western. They despise Western culture and seek to destroy it - to Islamify the West. They are open and explicit about their goals; and they are open about using violence and intimidation against fellow Muslim immigrants who do not toe their Islamist line. The curious thing is how the British intellectual elite turns its eyes away from the growing destruction of British culture all around them. It is a perfect example of how a people can be intellectually disarmed and then easily destroyed. Ideas have consequences.

For the British mainstream, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group has become the equivalent of profanity. And Islamic extremists have long understood that they need only suggest a racial bias—or a hint of the newly invented and meaningless term "Islamophobia"—in order to make the British cough and shuffle with embarrassment. Prince Charles himself, the heir to the throne and thus the heir to the headship of the Church of England, has announced his sympathy for Islam and his wish to be the head of all faiths and not just one. This may sound good, if absurd (a chinless prince who becomes head of a church because his mother dies?), but only if you forget that it was Prince Charles who encouraged the late King Fahd, of Saudi Arabia, to contribute more than a million pounds to build … the Finsbury Park Mosque! If you want my opinion, our old district was a lot better off when the crowned heads of the world were busy neglecting it.

Anyway, you can't be multicultural and preach murderous loathing of Jews, Britain's oldest and most successful (and most consistently anti-racist) minority. And you can't be multicultural and preach equally homicidal hatred of India, Britain's most important ally and friend after the United States. My colleague Henry Porter sat me down in his West London home and made me watch a documentary that he thought had received far too little attention when shown on Britain's Channel 4. It is entitled Undercover Mosque, and it shows film shot in quite mainstream Islamic centers in Birmingham and London (you can now find it easily on the Internet). And there it all is: foaming, bearded preachers calling for crucifixion of unbelievers, for homosexuals to be thrown off mountaintops, for disobedient and "deficient" women to be beaten into submission, and for Jewish and Indian property and life to be destroyed. "You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews, you kill them physically," as one sermonizer, calling himself Sheikh al-Faisal, so prettily puts it. This stuff is being inculcated in small children—who are also informed that the age of consent should be nine years old, in honor of the prophet Muhammad's youngest spouse. Again, these were not tin-roof storefront mosques but well-appointed and well-attended places of worship, often the beneficiaries of Saudi Arabian largesse. It's not just the mosques, either. In West London there is a school named for Prince Charles's friend King Fahd, with 650 pupils, funded and run by the government of Saudi Arabia. According to Colin Cook, a British convert to Islam (initially inspired by the former crooner Cat Stevens) who taught there for 19 years, teaching materials said that Jews "engage in witchcraft and sorcery and obey Satan," and incited pupils to list the defects of worthless heresies such as Judaism and Christianity.

The passivity of British officials in the face of Islamic demands and threats on British soil has only emboldened Muslims seeking to radically alter British society. But they would have no ability to affect Britain if Muslims weree not there in great numbers. It is Muslim immigration that is changing Finlay Park and all of Britain beyond recognition. It is Muslim immigration that is driving the radicalization of British Muslims, causing them to feel they have the power and the right not to assimilate, fostering their belief that they can turn Britain into a Muslim nation. The more Muslims in Britain, the worse the situation will become. The near capitulation by Tony Blair to British Muslims has only exacerbated the problem, and demonstrated why he may be one of the worst prime minister ever - and not a real friend of America, either.

It's impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. Even at the time of the Satanic Verses affair, as long ago as 1989, Muslim demonstrations may have demanded Rushdie's death, but they did so, if you like, peacefully. And they confined their lurid rhetorical attacks to Muslims who had become apostate. But at least since the time of the Danish-cartoon furor, threats have been made against non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims (see photograph), the killing of Shiite Muslim heretics has been applauded and justified, and the general resort to indiscriminate violence has been rationalized in the name of god. Traditional Islamic law says that Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies must obey the law of the majority. But this does not restrain those who now believe that they can proselytize Islam by force, and need not obey kuffar law in the meantime. I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as "magnificent" and proclaimed that "Britain belongs to Allah." When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari'a, he replied: "Who says you own Britain anyway?" A question that will have to be answered one way or another.

Britain is owned by those willing to fight to keep her in their control - the same is true for any nation. If the native celtic/anglo/saxon people who live in Britain are unwilling to fight to defend their territory and prevent influxes of alien peoples, then control of their realm will pass to the aliens who outbreed them and become dominant. Understanding the threat will require throwing off the lies and deceptions of multiculturalism and political correctness and recognizing the realities or race and culture. Whether Britain - or America - can do this before it is too late remains to be seen.

For his part, Hitchens sees clearly the results of Muslim immigration, but no where does he call for an end to Muslim immigration or even acknowledge this as the source of the problem. Until that critical connection is made, the problem will only worsen.