A movie about Barack Obama’s childhood opened today in Indonesia. It features the future president defending himself against bullies, but also shows how he eventually develops his skills for negotiation and compromise. A 12-year-old mixed-race actor plays the Child Barry. In unrelated news, President Obama is pledging to spend $160 million to aid education in Indonesia, and says he will work to help Indonesia fight climate change.

In other news, Chechen police have been using paintball guns to target unveiled women when they show themselves on the streets. Official posters notify offenders that this is just a warning, and more severe punishment will ensue if women do not conform with recently imposed sharia rules.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, CSP, Fjordman, Gaia, Henrik, heroyalwhyness, JD, JP2, Mary Abdelmassih, TB, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

Here’s some good news: the Department of Homeland Security has dropped its deportation case against Mosab Hassan Yousef. Mr. Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader, converted to Christianity and went to work for Israeli intelligence before coming to the United States. DHS had previously recommended his deportation due to his “connections with terrorism” — that is, because his daddy is a Hamas leader.

The Iconoclast has the report:

We just received the following blast email from Sarah Stern of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). At hearings before a US immigration Judge in San Diego, today, the US Department of Homeland Security announced that it was dropping its deportation case against former Shin Bet agent, Mosab Hassan Yousef, author of Son of Hamas. According to the San Diego Tribune, the presiding judge granted Yousef, asylum. The efforts of many, including his former Shin Bet handler, have been rewarded with this decision of the DHS. We had been an early advocate for Congressional investigation of this misinformed deportation matter. Sweet reason and moral suasion has prevailed.

Read more at The New English Review.

[Post ends here]

Last month we reported on the progress Anjem Choudary, the firebrand radical Islamic leader from the UK, has made in establishing a Belgian version of his Muslim supremacist organization, Sharia4UK.

Now we learn that Mr. Choudary finds Belgium so congenial to his tastes that he is planning to move there. As unlikely as it sounds, he considers Britain to be more restrictive of Muslims than Belgium:

“Belgium is a promising country. In the cities, one third of the population consists of Muslims: that’s unique in Europe!”

During an interview with the Flemish magazine Humo, Anjem Choudary, the leader of the fundamentalist organisation Sharia4UK, announced that he would soon move to Belgium, because “Belgium is better than Great Britain.” “The laws there are less severe. In Belgium, I can say what I believe and do what I want.” According to Choudary, “Belgium is a promising country. If I’m not mistaken, one third of the population in cities as Antwerp and Brussels consists of Muslims, and their number is constantly growing. That’s fabulous! That’s unique in Europe. Those people will no longer tolerate oppression.”

- – - - – - – - -

“I’ve been to neighbourhoods that are exclusively Islamic. It’s looking really good”, Choudary says. His intentions are clear as well: “We want the European people to understand that Islam is not just about spirituality, but it is a complete model of society, just like capitalism or communism […] Islam is not a foreign invader: for centuries, we have controlled large parts of Europe. Spain, Portugal, the Balkan, parts of Switzerland and Austria,… That time will return.” Even more stunning is what Choudary thinks of terrorism: “There are two kinds of terrorists. The ones that kill innocent civilians, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are against life. And then there are the terrorists that fight against the enemies of God, the enemies of Allah. They are pro life. Those terrorists are no terrorists.”

It is clear for Vlaams Belang that Anjem Choudary cannot be welcome in Belgium. Choudary, whose organisation is prohibited in Great Britain, is an enemy of our European Society and has to be regarded as an undesirable person. Who calls for violence and who supports, praises and minimizes terrorism has to be refused entrance to our country.

The Dutch version of this article is available here.

Hat tip: Cities Against Islamisation

I just got back from the Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy, a.k.a. Northern Virginia (Alexandria District). On Monday and Tuesday t was my pleasure and privilege to attend the ACT! For America National Conference and Legislative Briefing, and I’ll be reporting on the event in due course.

By the way, I think it’s hilarious that I wrote Harry Byrd instead of Robert Byrd in my earlier post. It shows that even in my senile dementia I’m a Virginia boy to the core. What other Byrd is there, after all?

Now I have to tackle the email that accumulated while I was gone. Gulp.

See you in a while.

[Nothing more here]

Caroline Glick has a new one and it’s amusing. Heads are exploding in al-Jazeera’s little world. Nor will this one be removed due to some spurious copyright infringement. Her satire is sans sappy music this time.

Instead, she has devised the conceit of a Grand Jihad strategy meeting, one that could have come straight out of the pages of Reliance of the Traveller.

The odd thing is, while I was up in the Baron’s office (re-establishing our connection to the internet satellite after a thunderstorm) I picked up Reliance just to have something to read while waiting for the reboot. The page opened randomly to some advice about when it is permissible for the caliph to use the tactic of a so-called “truce” in order to gain the upper hand in an emergency move. According to the book, this can only be done as a stop-gap measure until the time is right to conquer the infidel.

The verse closes with an admonishment from the Koran that Allah wants Islam to reign supreme. So much for good faith negotiations, hmmm? [No, I don’t have it in front of me, but tomorrow when I have to go upstairs again, I’ll attempt to find the exact quotation. No promises as it’s a very large tome. One no house should be without.]

Besides Caroline Glick’s video in the mail, there was a serendipitous link to Frank Gaffney’s Big Government post from last week, in which he discusses the Supreme Court’s June 22nd ruling on the spurious idea that support may be given to terrorist organizations if maybe they also hand out candy to orphans when they’re not blowing things up.

Hold it right there, said the Supremes…
- – - - – - – - -
Mr. Gaffney relies on The Investigative Project on Terrorism for the details regarding their decision. He prefaces IPT’s details on the ruling this way:

Bad news today [June 22nd] for President Obama, his Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, and other proponents of the idea that the United States can safely reach out to “moderate” elements within terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban. In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that no distinction can be made between violent and non-violent wings of such groups and that the former will be beneficiaries of whatever “material support” is given them.

Notice the lopsided 6-3 ruling. This was not a narrow vote. However, I doubt it will stop Mr. Obama for long. He violates our laws with impunity. Why? Because he won – just ask him. In Chicago the winner makes the rules, not the useless legislature. While you’re at it, ask him how often he was around during his brief tenure in the Senate. No, he didn’t respect it then, either. At least he’s consistent.

The Investigative Project lays out the ruling for us:

Under U.S. law, it is a crime for any person to provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. Known as the “material support” law, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B has become a cornerstone in U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. Since 2001, the U.S. has charged approximately 150 defendants with violations of the statute, and to date approximately 75 people have been convicted.

The statute defines “material support or resources” as:

“any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials” (emphasis added in the original).

The Court began by rejecting the argument which claimed that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment, then it went on discard First Amendment (free speech) notion:

…The Court found that not only was there no distinction between the violent and non-violent wings of terrorist groups, but that terrorist groups benefit from any support given to them.

Here is the Court’s wording:

“Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further…terrorist activities…: ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.’”

Amen, brothers.

So Islamists in the U. S. will have to break American law in order to perform zakat by giving material support to terrorists. Well, at least they can’t claim injured innocence anymore.

They don’t have to do it this way…except that the Koran tells them to. Zakat is for jihad. Period. If they belonged to a peaceable group rather than “The ‘Religion’ of ‘Peace’” they’d be supporting some of the underfunded NGOs that try to help the endless numbers of sexually abused women and children suffering in Sharia-burdened hellholes.

But don’t hold your breath. As Mr. Gaffney pointed out:

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision on material support suggests that it would be illegal to provide $400 million via the so-called “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority to the designated terrorist organization (DTO) Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip – something President Obama has announced he intends to do. It should also preclude the sort of “outreach” to the so-called “moderates” of another DTO, Hezbollah, as presidential advisor Brennan has twice indicated he thinks is in order. Ditto negotiations with “moderate” members of the Taliban, at least to the extent such a process entails what amounts to material support to that terrorist organization in the form of financial or other substantial inducements to their cooperation.

Let’s see how long it takes our President to ignore the ruling of our Supreme Court.

Is the Supreme Court ruling on individual gun ownership “dramatic“? Indeed it is, given the route the majority chose.

Here, on page five of the document,

S MCDONALD, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 28, 2010]

we get to the heart of the ruling. It is not the 2nd Amendment itself, but the 14th Amendment, Article 1, which provides the legal buttress for the right to keep and bear arms:

JUSTICE THOMAS agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that was recognized inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller…fully applicable to the States.

However, he asserted, there is a path to this conclusion that is more straightforward and more faithful to the Second Amendment’s text and history. The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721.

But the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which speaks only to “process,” cannot impose the type of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts. Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’..

The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean…

A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

The opinions broke along predictable lines – i.e., John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented, calling the “historical evidence…ambiguous”…
- – - - – - – - -
The majority – Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, led by Chief Justice Roberts, were not individually named by the CNN blog report linked above. I don’t understand this omission, given that the dissenters were individually checked off. Is the omission a small but telling point about CNN?

This decision is not the end of it. Perhaps, though, it is the beginning of the end.

Chicago’s strict gun control laws are typical of left wing thinking about the dangers to the public purportedly arising from gun ownership. Chicago persists in this thinking even as illegal gun ownership has made parts of the city prime killing fields for criminals.

The Chicago laws are cynical in the extreme. Note this report, dated in May:

The city’s troubles are so extreme that a pair of state lawmakers are calling on a fellow Democrat, Gov. Pat Quinn, to deploy the National Guard to help restore calm. The latest figures show that Chicago had racked up 122 homicides for the year, exceeding the 116 killings over the comparable period in 2009, a very bad year. Among the top 10 U.S. cities, Chicago is within shooting distance of advancing from second place to win the dubious distinction of being the U.S. murder capital. It’s no coincidence that the Windy City is already the U.S. gun-control capital.

Since 1982, Chicago has banned the private ownership of handguns and rifles by requiring a convoluted registration process designed to be impossible to complete. Exceptions to the rules enable politicians and their personal friends to own and even carry handguns – but nobody else. This unconstitutional scheme has been a colossal failure.

Just as the Left is blind to the laws of economics, it is equally resistant to learning from experience when it comes to gun ownership. Not so resistant that it prevents those in power from owning weapons, however. Another example of “laws for thee but not for me” so favored by those in control.

Glenn Reynolds notes:

Very interesting to see both the majority and Justice Thomas reference the racist roots of gun control so strongly…

His observation reminded me of the Deacons for Defense and Justice, a group of blacks in the South who believed in armed self-defense against an entrenched hatred that often led to killings of innocent black people, particularly black men.

The myth of Martin Luther King’s touted “non-violence” as a way to bring about justice steadfastly ignores the reality of King’s armed body guards and the arsenal of weapons kept in his home – kept there illegally, by the way. Dr. King couldn’t get a gun permit.

Given the times, King’s public image as the American Gandhi was probably good strategy; it reassured the fearful white majority and no doubt prevented much bloodshed. However, the armed “Deacons of Defense” were as vital and necessary a part of the struggle as was Dr. King’s approach.

An isolated farm surrounded by the sudden arrival of truckloads of hatred in the middle of the night could change the equation instantly with the judicious application of one shot over the heads of those hate-mongers. It didn’t solve the problem instantly, but it allowed enough time for the troublemakers to sober up. One armed black farmer lived to plow another day.

This part of black history has been neglected; I hope that the coming generations will pay the respect of close attention due these men.

Here’s a reader’s review from that page:

This is truly a lost history of the civil rights movement that author Lance Hill has found under the layers upon layers of mainstream narratives which conveniently dictate false truths that – when repeated enough – become larger than life.

Following the organized self-defense philosophy espoused by Robert F. Williams in Monroe, N.C., a small group of men in Jonesboro, Louisiana, founded an organization that had great influence in the civil rights movement of the mid-1960s. The success the Deacons had in defeating the KKK and other haters on the streets by standing up, moving forward and staring them down with guns loaded brought a new sense of empowerment in demanding that justice truly be served today.

When Chicago’s unconstitutional gun control law is finally swept aside, perhaps part of the hoked-up Leftist narrative about Dr. King will go with it.

One can hope. Let’s wait and see what Mark Steyn has to say about it.

I have to go away again for a couple of days, so posting will be light.

This time, thank goodness, my journey will involve no airports — just driving through rural Virginia. I won’t have to sort my toiletries or take my shoes off to get where I want to go.

The news feed will be suspended for the duration, but if Dymphna is well enough, she’ll be posting while I’m away.

In the meantime, everyone can discuss the ramifications of the death of Senator Harry Byrd. Will West Virginia be renamed “Harry Byrdia” in his honor? In his absence, who will keep the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan alive in the Democratic Party? How will West Virginians obtain their federal slush funds without him?

Later, y’all.

[Post ends here]

Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan beheaded a headmaster and burned down two schools. Meanwhile, Islamic schools for women in Pakistan are thriving.

In other news, shoppers in Britain may no longer buy a dozen eggs. In order to comply with EU rules, all food products, even eggs and oranges, must be sold by weight and not by the number in a package.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, Fjordman, heroyalwhyness, JD, KGS, Nilk, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

Kent Ekeroth is the International Secretary for Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats), and will almost certainly become a member of the Swedish parliament after the elections that will be held this coming September. The most recent polls put his party at 5.6%, well above the 4% threshold needed for representation in Parliament.

The Swedish establishment — the major political parties, the media, and academics — is engaged in a blatant no-holds-barred effort to suppress the Sweden Democrats, due to SD’s anti-immigration platform and their uncompromising stance against the Islamization of Sweden. The elites’ goal is to keep SD out of Parliament, but at this point it seems unlikely that they will succeed.

Kent Ekeroth was recently interviewed by Jamie Glazov for Front Page Magazine. Below are some high points from their discussion.

On Multiculturalism in Sweden:

Well, a friend of mine once described Sweden as a “politically correct dictatorship,” which is a rather good description on how far things have gone in Sweden. I can give you a few examples of exactly how far we are talking about. Our prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, said the following soon after he was elected in 2006:

“The core Swedish is only barbarism. The rest of the development has come from outside.”

Mona Sahlin, now the party leader of the Social Democrats, which is the largest party in Sweden with about 35% of the votes, said in 2002:

“I think that what makes so many Swedes envious of immigrant groups is, you have a culture, an identity, a history, something that binds you. And what do we have? Mid-summers’ eve and such ridiculous things.”

The party leader of the Center Party, who is in the current government coalition, said the following:

“It is really not the Swedes that built Sweden. It was people that came from abroad.”

These three quotes are a pretty clear indicator that things have gone very wrong in Sweden. The Swedish media is censoring the fact that the perpetrators of violent crimes are foreigners…

Our courts have even started taking the cultures of perpetrators into account when sentencing. Recently a father got a lower sentence for beating his child with the motivation from the court that “the use of corporal punishment of children is accepted and allowed” in the home country of the father.

On the attempts to silence and censor Sverigedemokraterna:
- – - - – - – - -

First, the media tried silencing us before the 2006 elections. That didn’t work. Then they tried stigmatizing us by calling us racist and the like. That hasn’t really worked. Then they tried to convince people that we were incompetent or unreliable — and that still hasn’t worked. Now they are back to the strategy of trying to silence us. For instance, despite that we are in the polls above the threshold for getting into parliament, we are not invited to the TV-debates before the election. As a comparison, the Green Party, before their entry into the Swedish parliament, were allowed into the debates. But they treat us differently.

Furthermore, they try attacking the funding for our party, much like what happened to Vlaams Belang in Belgium, even though their situation is even worse…

Schools invite the other political parties to present their opinions but often stop us from coming, despite recent decision from the highest judicial office in Sweden that we cannot be left out.

On the lack of fairness in Swedish elections:

FP: Can there be free and fair elections in Sweden?

Ekeroth: We have good reason to think that they might be free but not so fair… The problem is that the people in the different voting stations around the country in many cases have “forgotten” to display my party’s election notes, or they are out them, or have them in a different room, or they put them in the back of the other ballot papers, thus trying to prevent people from actually being able to vote for us. This has been, and continues to be, a serious problem for us.

It is only our party that faces this kind of treatment…

On the Islamization of Sweden:

We have gotten the usual problems with crime rates skyrocketing, especially violent crimes, but in addition Swedish society has adapted to Muslims’ demands. Pork meat has been withdrawn from some schools in Sweden, the Muslim holiday Ramadan has been introduced in a school north of Stockholm, separate bath times for men and women are in effect in the southern city of Malmö due to Muslim demands.

Also in Malmö, the Social-Democratic mayor, issued a boycott against a tennis game between Sweden and Israel, to cater to his Muslim constituency — a clear indicator of an Islamized territory.

[…]

But of course, the worst part so far is the violence we see from the Muslim group; they are grossly over represented when it comes to violent crimes such as rape, assault and the like. People from the Middle East and Africa are, for instance, five times more likely to commit rape or assault than the rest of the population.

Read the rest at Front Page.

The Dutch writer Michiel Mans is an occasional contributor here at Gates of Vienna. His latest essay concerns the parlous relationship between Europe and its Muslim immigrant population.

“Till Death Do Us Part”
by Michiel Mans

Some relationships work; some don’t. If they don’t, things can grow nasty. Love doesn’t always “feed the needs” till sixty-four. In forced marriages there is not even love to begin with. Postpone the divorce too long and one might kill the other, forcing the “till death do us part” vow.

Here in Europe we have many such forced marriages. Native Brits, Belgians, Danes, Dutch, French, Germans, Italians and others were not asked whether they wanted all these millions of Muslims to come and settle in their countries. It must be said however, some Muslims were actually invited. Like thousands of Spaniards and Italians, the first Moroccans* and Turks came on invitation. As “guest workers” on contracts (from about 1960). At least that is how the lock on the floodgate was opened in Holland.

In Holland most of these Moroccan and Turkish guests stayed. And we let them. What’s a few thousand immigrants anyway? Then the Muslim guests had their families come over — and their families — and many more (family) as brides and grooms, often in arranged marriages. The thousands became millions in Europe.

Neighborhoods could absorb some newcomers, particularly if their culture was somewhat similar and they were willing to fit in, adapt, adjust, if not assimilate. The newcomers from, for example, Italy and Spain did. Muslims as a group didn’t. That is the perception. At least from the outside. With among other things their silly dress codes. Because some Prophet or God wants them to dress like that. Or so they and we have been told. Something to do with lust and seduction. Apparently even girls as young as four, five years old can instill lust or beg to be jumped if not properly wrapped up.

And it doesn’t really matter whether most of them actually do try to fit in, adept and adjust, or even assimilate. Human reason is unfortunately mostly based on perception. Not on facts. “We” and “they” are all biased, prejudiced, and arrogant creatures. Perhaps even somewhat racist by nature. A proper education and decent upbringing cannot change that. Not a lot anyway. When emotions start to run high, reason is the first to run away. Between husband and wife, between families and clans, between races and nations.

Of course God doesn’t help either. Because he’s always on our side. Not their side. Unfortunately, their God, whom many of them take extremely seriously, makes them tell or yell at least five times a day that he is indeed the greatest. The one and only true God. And always right. Their book says so, too. Repeatedly. Actually, on every page. Nothing happens or gets done without their God’s consent. In ša Allah. Their God also hates non-believers. And it doesn’t take much to be one. We have just stopped fighting for our God. They still go straight to heaven, dying while doing so.
- – - - – - – - -
Where there is a heaven, there often is a hell as well. The road towards it is always paved with good intentions. Like: “We — our races, cultures, religions and beliefs — are all equal”. Or wishful thinking like: “We can, shall and must all live together in peace and harmony”. Alas, we never have. Or we first kicked someone else out and then we lived happily ever after. Wishes for peace and harmony — which the wishers over time changed into commands- are often immediately followed by wishes of good fortune for all. We all deserve to be rich and if you’re not it’s because some other bastard doesn’t play by the rules. In the case of our well-wishing road-paving friends, these bastards are invariably Westerners. In other words, they themselves. Or their forefathers. They had slaves you know. They stole land. Bastards.

This “Westerners did it” isn’t considered a biased, prejudiced or racist opinion by our well-wishing friends. Oddly enough, “the Muslims did it” — or even “we all did it” — is. Odd, no? Neither Westerners nor Muslims are a race. Or do these non-racist well wishers consider a black, yellow or brownish Westerner something else? Something different? But we are all equal? In good and bad. For better or worse. Till death do us part.

Or we get a divorce. We seem to have reached a point where staying together doesn’t work. We irritate the hell out of each other. We have done so for years (if not centuries). We want to make them like us and they want to make us like them. Neither of us wants to give in. Apart from those who pave the road to hell, that is. Most well-wishers are nice, educated and civilized people. Really. At least that is what they consider themselves. They will eat anything. They are very open-minded. So open-minded that their brains have fallen out.

And even the blind can see we can’t live together in peace. Yes, even the blind can see it. The blind have dogs to see for them. However, take the dog on the bus (or cab) and you might have to leave these eyes behind. Or wait for another bus. Why? Because the religious beliefs of an equal are offended by the presence of the dog. A dog is a filthy animal. Or so the Muslim bus driver tells you. Or one of these well-wishers has an open mind for such bollocks.

As in marriage, sometimes a small incident becomes the fuse to blow it apart. Usually “the bucket was already full”. And the buckets are full in Europe. We must get a divorce. Or the “till death do us part” will be bloody. For everybody. Including those who paved the road to hell.

Notes:

*

In 1965 there were 4,500 Moroccans in Holland. In 1971 their number had grown to 22,000. In 1973 the practice of guest worker recruitment stopped. Yet by 1980 there were 72,000 Moroccans in Holland. Their number grew to 168,000 in 1990 and 349,270 in 2010. Source: Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute at the Research Institute Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (NIDI-KNAW) and the Official Dutch Statistics Office (CBS).

References:

• The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (pdf, Dutch)
• Central Bureau of Statistics (Dutch)
• The Telegraph
• The Daily Mail
• The Daily Mail

Anarchist anti-globalist demonstrators — looking much like their Antifa comrades in Europe, clad in black and wearing masks — went on a rampage yesterday in downtown Toronto during the G-20 meeting. They smashed windows, torched a police cruiser, and caused general mayhem, although they were unable to get anywhere near Barack Obama and all the other heads of state at the summit.

You’ll notice that the anarchists did not consider the videotaping of their antics by citizen-journalists to be free expression and thus worthy of protection. Watch them try to shut down the cameraman in this video:

According to the AP, more than five hundred people have been arrested so far, most of them home-grown Canadian anarchists. A sizeable contingent was arrested during a raid on the campus of the University of Toronto.

This photo was borrowed from the Greater Fool:
- – - - – - – - -

Click here for more.

Ghost of a flea has a series of videos taken on Yonge Street after the demonstrators had passed through. The riot police were concentrated in the financial district protecting the G-20 meeting and the banks, leaving the demonstrators the opportunity to wreak havoc with impunity on the commercial streets.

As the cameraman notes, the targeted businesses were almost all American franchises such as Starbucks, McDonalds, American Apparel, Burger King, etc. After the worst was over, the streets filled with ordinary Torontonians who came out to rubberneck and photograph the wreckage.

With the glass all over the sidewalks in front of the business establishments, it looked like Toronto’s version of Kristallnacht.

Hat tip: NP.

The news feed has been rather thin for the last few days because the Italians are on vacation. It means we’re short on Mediterranean news for the time being.

The G20 protest in Toronto has turned violent, and a man was caught not far from the event with an astonishing array of weapons in the back of his car. Meanwhile, KFC in Britain gave up its halal-only menu because it proved surprisingly unpopular with its customer base.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, Fjordman, Gaia, JD, KGS, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]