This essay appeared in The Aspen Times “Soapbox” last Sunday. The author, Doug Mytty, has framed his argument regarding illegal immigration by comparing it to the nefarious activities of Enron. His analogy works quite well:

Illegal Immigration: Republicans want cheap workers, Democrats want poor voters.

America once faced a problem with systematic fraud in the financial markets which lead to scandals such as Enron. The premise is simple, by misreporting their performance, these companies gained an illegal and unfair advantage over competitors. By misreporting their numbers, their cost of borrowing money was far lower, and they didn’t have to work to actually make a “profit.” Ultimately, society – that’s you – paid $50 billion when this fraud was uncovered.

Illegal immigrant employment is fraud by another name – and costs far more. Both the illegal immigrant, and the individuals employing them, attempt to gain an unfair advantage by creating an illegal advantage over competitors. Ultimately you pay, as more wealth is unfairly transferred to the illegal employer and more bills are given to you by the illegal immigrant. An extrapolation of the Rice University Huddle Study of 1996 to 2006 yields a net economic impact of minus $70 billion, nearly all of that borne by low-income households. Mexico alone receives nearly $20 Billion per year in remittances – that’s cash leaving the U.S. economy. For those who question the net impact of illegal’s work – after all they are working – one might also ask whether Enron was a net positive, for was it not also working? The reality is that white collar fraud and illegal employment are not victimless crimes, and also further affect business and employment by creating illegal competition.

In the case of the illegal immigrant, he/she is here in America, working and enjoying the relatively good life, while a would-be legal immigrant is spending years in their home country filing paperwork, educating themselves, learning English, and earning money to show Uncle Sam that they can and will take care of themselves in America. Is it easy for someone in a third world country to raise the funds? No. However, adapting to America won’t be easy either, so this hard work in the home country effectively becomes part of the selection process.

– – – – – – – – –

Illegal immigration also unfairly competes against another part of the selection process: sponsoring. If the legal immigrant is sponsored (and many are), a relative in America with at least two years of full residency is working hard to show that they have approximately $12,000 for short term support costs, and the stability to cover any and all welfare given to the immigrant for a period of 10 years. Ten years? That’s right, Uncle Sam bills the sponsor for any unpaid hospital bills, welfare, public defender costs, and any “public aid” given to the immigrant for 10 years. Sponsoring offers a far more effective screening and assimilation process than government could ever provide. Think of immigration sponsoring as having a co-signer on a loan, and you are the bank.

The employer of illegal immigrants has a similar illegal advantage over his/her competitors in that the illegal immigrant has none of the above immigration costs and therefore can work for lower wages – no sponsor, no co-signer. The employer of illegal immigrants has not had to work for his/her money by finding good workers to manage, being innovative on products or services, or worked hard to find good customers. Rather he/she has only had to violate the law to ensure personal profits, just like Enron. The employer of illegal immigrants is no different than a factory that fires all American workers and sends it work overseas. However, as construction and mowing a lawn can’t really be “offshored,” the only “solution” is to bring the low wage of a third world country here. At least the offshoring T-shirt factory doesn’t stick you with the inflated hospital bills of the workers.

So is there a solution that’s immediate and relatively painless? Sure. In the wake of Enron, the Sarbanes-Oxley act required all financial reports to be signed by the CEO or CFO of the company. If there was a fraud, the person signing the report was criminally liable. As white collar guys don’t like to be lead away in handcuffs, the companies cleaned themselves up.

It would be simple to make similar change in illegal immigrant employment. Currently, there exists a Federal Pilot system for checking social security numbers. We need only enforce the provision that if social security numbers aren’t cleared by an employer using the Federal Pilot system, the ICE team arrests the owner of the company. While an illegal immigrant might not be too put out by spending a few days in the clink and appearing before a judge, I’m willing to bet that more than a few owners might not like the social stigma and discomfort of shuffling around in chains. Of course, any owners that wouldn’t mind the stigma are probably unscrupulous in other ways, so people would soon rightly identify the employer of illegal immigrants as an unsound business partner.

Currently, this is unlikely to happen. In the last 12 months, ICE reports only 91 arrests in the “employer supervisor chain.”

Illegal immigration is not a human rights issue. It’s not victimless. It is simply fraud. The debate only exists because both parties really want class warfare: Republicans want cheap workers that will work for them, while Democrats want poor workers that will vote for them. While politicians exploit this, the workers of America pay the bill.

[Editor’s note: Soapbox runs weekly on the Sunday opinion page. This spot is a forum for valley residents to comment on local topics. If you’d like to contribute, contact Naomi Havlen at The Aspen Times at 925-3414, ext. 17624, or e-mail nhavlen@aspentimes.com]

Hat tip: The Opinionator

We’ve posted previously about the kerfuffle in the Netherlands over a hate-email sent by the local politician Bouchra Ismaili, and her subsequent signing of a Hizb ut-Tahrir petition.

Ms. Ismaili is a city councilor from the Labor Party (Partij van de Arbeid, PvdA) representing the district or Charlois in Rotterdam.

Yesterday our Flemish correspondent VH sent us some additional material on Ms. Ismaili’s predicament, drawn from an article and video found via Het Vrije Volk.

VH has translated the article’s text, and has transcribed and translated portions of the video itself:

PvdA representative’s double mistake

By Denis van Vliet; Video by Eric Borsje and Ali Haselhoeff

ROTTERDAM — The Rotterdam city councilor Bouchra Ismaili seems to have signed her name to a petition of the muslim organization Hizb ut-Tahrir.

This movement rejects democracy and advocates bombings. Nevertheless Ismaili is allowed by her party [the PvdA, Social Democrats] to stay on as city council member in Charlois [a Rotterdam neighborhood], as was revealed last night during an special debate on her conduct.

With exception of Leefbaar Rotterdam [“Livable Rotterdam”, the party with which Pim Fortuyn had a major local victory with in 2002, a few months before his assassination], all other parties accepted the excuses Ismaili offered for her misconduct. “Because of my behaviour, the Dutch Muslim community has been embarrassed and that should not have happened,” says Ismaili, who still has not offered apologies to the man whom she told in an email that she wished to die.

Ismaili signed the petition of Hizb ut-Tahrir with the phrases “It is about time to discharge a culture that damages our Islam and to proclaim the true beauty of Islam. Only in this way will we grow in our Islam.”

Peter Diepenhorst, chairman of the local CDA [Christian Democrats], finds the fuss these last few days about Ismaili so much exaggerated that he said to be ashamed of being a Dutchman.

The video contains the speech by Bouchra Ismaili, and confrontation with the Hizb ut-Tahrir documents from 01:24.

It’s from the journalist Denis van Vliet for Algemeen Dagblad the second largest newspaper in the Netherlands:

– – – – – – – – –

00:38

Ronald Sorensen, Leefbaar Rotterdam: “This is a disgrace, but we support freedom of speech, so this lady certainly is allowed to express her anti-democratic feelings, but I find it weird that her party, the PvdA, offers her a platform to do so.”

00:53

Ronald Tol, Leefbaar Rotterdam: “Look here, it is not just anything she says, she threatens somebody who sent her a few quotes, nothing more than that. If she herself is being told to … well … you can fill this in yourselves, I won’t repeat that … but that is not what this man does, he just sends her two quotes, and that makes her mad, and that is not done.”

01:16 [subtitle: “Ismaili reading an explanation …”]

Ismaili: I hereby distance myself from the email that I sent in answer to the repeated provocations. I feel sorry for the damage that I caused with this. The tone and content of my mail don’t connect at all with the principles I advocate. Those are: freedom, equality, and justice.

01:42 [subtitle (in the background excerpts of the Hizb ut-Tahrir petition): “suddenly a controversial petition pops up”]

Voice: To us [PvdA] there is no petition, and also to Bouchra there is no petition known that she is supposed to have signed …

01:48 [Ronald Tol, standing at the microphone, is handed a set of documents]

Voice in the background continues: … and we would like to see it

Ronald Tol: I have it here though.

Voice in the background, PvdA: Well then it would be nice if we all could be able to see it

02:02

Denis van Vliet: The debate about the Ismaili case has recently ended. The reason is a petition showed up that Miss Ismaili signed the evening when she supported the controversial Muslim organization. Leefbaar Rotterdam wants a response now from Miss Ismaili of the PvdA for why she did this after sending the hate mail, which is new information, therefore the debate has taken a surprising turn.

02:29

Ronald Tol, Leefbaar Rotterdam: … Then just distance yourself form this organisation, simple as that.

M. van Dijck, PvdA: What did I just tell you?! What have I been telling you here? And that is not only the view, again, I like to repeat that because I think my party is powerful, the PvdA will at all times distance itself from extremist and terrorist organisations. How can I say this more clearly?

02:53 [subtitle: “a response from the audience”]

Well, I don’t know a lot about politics, but what I understand of the organisation mentioned, and that she was there denying with a straight face that she signed that petition. Now it seems there are documents proving she did sign it, so this little miss is sitting there lying and lying and lying, as far as I understand, and the chief of her organisation [PvdA], I don’t know his name, but he holds a hand over her head [meaning “protects her”].

03:17

Interviewer: What do you think of the situation?

Ismaili: I have no comment on this, I gave my statement, I distanced myself, that must be clear.

Interviewer: Yeah, that’s absolutely clear, but what do you think of the petition, that they came up with it?

Ismaili: I distanced myself from my mail and from the content and from everything that happened that evening, And there… I’m totally done with it. Thank you.

Interviewer: And you just continue on working.

Ismaili: I just continue working.

[Comment by Denis van Vliet]

The outcome of this debate is very unusual; mail showed up with documents that prove that Miss Ismaili the same evening signed a petition of an extremist Muslim organization. The PvdA says we reject the views of that organisation and then the debate is finished without further consequences. Miss Ismaili didn’t answer herself but my feeling tells me this might get a follow up. Because, well, this is really weird, I myself still have to try figure out of how we have to interpret all this.

The following report was just sent in by our expatriate Dutch correspondent, H. Numan.

A few days a minor stir troubled the multicultural correctness of the Netherlands. Ms. Bouchra Ismaili replied as if stung by a wasp to perfectly reasonable questions from Mr. Jos Parbleu. I reported on this, and so did others. Here’s the latest:

Ms. Ismaili is now in serious political trouble. At first the faction chairman said this reply was merely stupid. However, he’d like to give Ms. Ismaili the benefit of doubt. As we all know, foxes may be able to loose their hair, but not their tricks. So right after being towed away from the cliffs, Ms. Ismaili reversed course, and went full steam ahead to crash on the rocks.

She posted the following remark on the Hizb ut-Tahrir website. On Sunday, after she was rebuked by here party for stupidity.

Translation:

It’s high time to get rid of a culture which damages our Islam and for us to spread the true beauty of Islam. Only that way we can grow in our Islam. We should not waste energy in changing others but let us change ourselves.

Which culture is damaging Islam? The Greenland culture? Perhaps the culture of the Papuans? Or maybe the culture of the Dutch? Can a councilwoman representing a constituency say something like that? Right after being lightly slapped on the (covered) wrist?
– – – – – – – – –
Obviously not. Even some multicultural correctness goes to far, even for the supreme beings of multiculturalism. Ms. Ismaili has been asked, officially, by her entire PvdA faction to resign forthwith. Waiting for the political debate next Tuesday was a waste of time, according to her fellow faction members.

It all depends now on Ms. Ismaili, if she will gracefully resign. Which, in all likelihood will not happen. More than likely she will remain councilwoman, but operating now as an independent. (This is legal under Dutch law. A politician can be thrown out of the party, but unless criminal charges are filed, will keep his or her seat in the council or parliament. In fact, this happened to Wilders, and more recently Mrs. Verdonk.)

It seems to me Hizb ut-Tahrir will have their personal political representation in the city council of Charlois very soon. Since Ms. Ismaili can’t control her feelings, I assume she will do so dressed as offensively as possible. Exactly how is difficult to say, as a law is in progress to forbid wearing a burqa in political meetings and in schools. Nice for all those not-so-bright Dutchmen who voted her in.

This post is the latest in a series from our Bangkok correspondent, H. Numan.

From The Bangkok Post:

Aid from bin Laden?

A government spokesman said on Friday that southern militants are receiving aid and money from Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda group, but Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said the official was mistaken.

For the first time, government spokesman Chaiya Yimvilai told a media briefing on Friday that southern gangs were receiving military help and money from al-Qaeda, as well as drug gangs.

“The situation has intensified recently because they received money from overseas,” said [? — sic]

The money is “from the international terror organisation Al Qaeda. There are also local drug traffickers involved in both financial support and buying arms for militants.” He also cited local corruption, particularly by southern politicians.

Prime Minister Surayud said there was no evidence of such aid from the international terrorist group.

“Al-Qaeda isn’t an organisation which can offer a lot of assistance,” a Thai News Agency reported quoted him as saying.

Gen Surayud said that although the government did not have definitive information, he did not believe the group was providing financial support to fund anti-government operations in the southern provinces, reported TNA.

But the premier left open the possibility that international groups were involved in the ongoing unrest. It is possible, he said, as militant networks could be seen to be linked, especially in countries where conflicts erupt.

The government and knowledgeable sources have long agreed that international terrorists have been kept out of the South — with the occasional exception of claims that aid from Malaysian sympathisers has been funneled to some of the violent groups in the South.

Both the government and the known militant gangs have framed the violent southern conflict as a battle between the central government and minority groups of ethnic Malays seeking independence and separation.

– – – – – – – – –

There are known Islamist groups in the South, however, and operatives of the Indonesia-based al-Qaeda subsidiary Jemaah Islamiyah have been captured in the three southern border provinces where the bloody Thai rebellion is under way.

The core guerrillas in the violence, which has killed more than 2,800 people in four years, have taken instruction from the Internet and elsewhere on paramilitary and terrorist tactics, especially from the Iraq conflict.

One of the motivations for the revolt has been the rise of hard-core Salafist groups, some of whom trained in Afghanistan with the bin Laden gang before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US.

Mr Chaiya provided no proof of support directly from al-Qaeda to the Thai rebels. He said the militants have stepped up their attacks in a show of force, and to exploit security gaps resulting from a recent troop rotation.

“Violence will continue because there are many factors, including corrupt local officials in uniform, with both local and national politicians involved,” he said.

This was Bangkok reporting,
H. Numan.

Over the weekend I posted an article by El Inglés about the need for a worldwide network of people interested in guns, in order that people who live in countries with firearms restrictions might easily make contact with people in other countries who could give them instructions and training in the use of guns, all done in a completely legal manner.

El Inglés has now started his international firearms blog, The European Shooter. Readers are advised to drop by his site and see what he has to offer.

Here’s what he says by way of introduction:

As promised, here is the URL for the new blog I have put together to try and help shooters from around the world coordinate their efforts. I will be updating it sporadically with my own thoughts on the topic, for what they are worth. Those who think I’m talking rubbish are invited to correct me by submitting essays, articles, or anything else for publishing. I hope that we will also be able to share contacts, experiences, opinions, and insights. E-mail me at euroshooter@gmail.com if you feel the urge.

— El Inglés

Below the jump are some of the people and organizations that expressed an interest in El Inglés’ idea in the comments on last weekend’s post:
– – – – – – – – –

• Boundary Pistol Club in Grand Forks, BC. — email frank@homeinvasion.ca
• Glock Talk
• The High Road —a firearms and RKBA forum
• The Knob Creek Kentucky Machine Gun Shoot — April or October of each year
• Western Rifle Shooters

Remember the optimistic people of the Netherlands? Dymphna noted yesterday that “optimism” in the Netherlands means that only two-thirds of survey respondents are afraid of Islam or view it negatively.

But based on this article from yesterday’s Copenhagen Post, the Danes are real scaredy-cats when it comes to Islam:

Study: Danes most fearful of Islam

A new report warns against a lack of dialogue and a widening gap between Islam and the West

Danes are among the most critical of Islam, according to a report by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Some 79 percent of Danes responded in a poll that they considered more interaction with the Muslim world as a threat.

The worry was shared by a large majority in other European countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain, where up to 67 percent of the population feared more Western interaction with Muslim communities.

The message of the report was clear: there was a widening gap between the West and Islam.

‘There is an alarmingly low optimism regarding dialogue between the two worlds,’ said Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF, to Berlingske Tidende newspaper.

– – – – – – – – –

The WEF had conducted surveys in 21 countries (half of which were Muslim) throughout 2007. And the general picture was one of distrust.

The Danes’ and other Europeans’ views on interaction with the Islamic world as a threat was, according to the report, due to a ‘growing fear’ of the ‘Islamic threat’ against their European identities.

This assumption was based on ‘increased immigration from predominantly Muslim regions’ the report said.

Notice that this report was derived from the same survey data mentioned yesterday, and draws the opposite conclusion about the Netherlands: “The worry was shared by a large majority in other European countries such as […] the Netherlands.”

I suppose optimism must be in the eye of the beholder.

Is the fearful attitude in Denmark related to the coverage of Islam in the Danish media? It seems like it could be. According to today’s Avisen:

Danske medier er mest islam-kritiske

Danske medier er fulde af negativ omtale af muslimske lande, islam og muslimer.

My translation:

Danish media are the most critical of Islam

Danish media are full of negative reports about Muslim countries, Islam, and Muslims.

Those nasty Islamophobic Danes — stirring up fears in the populace with media reports of bombs, conspiracies, honor killings, rape, and murder!

Don’t they know that Islam is a religion of peace?

Hat tip: TB.

A belated translation sent by a Polish reader has put Lionheart’s text into its eighteenth language in addition to English. Go to the original Rosetta Stone post and scroll to the bottom to read an excerpt from “The Sword of Truth” in Polish.

This translation project has been a great success. Every single one of the translators is a volunteer. None has been paid for his or her work. It’s an example of what people can do when they get together to work towards a common purpose.

It’s also an example of what a real European union means, as a opposed to the stateless monstrosity known as the EU.

Co-operation across national borders does not require any nation to give up its identity, sovereignty, and culture while submitting to a higher authority. Coercion and tyranny are not necessary to achieve it. All it takes is a shared civilization, a common goal, and the liberty to form voluntary associations.

All of these traits are European traditions. They’ve just been lying in the shadows gathering dust these past few decades.

[Post ends here]

Something to ponder from the NIS Bulletin:

The Netherlands is the Western country scoring highest on the Muslim-West Dialogue Index. Overall, the Dutch came third after Bangladesh and Saudi-Arabia.

Gallup conducted the survey at the World Economic Forum, but the results are just being published now, with 37 as the average score.

Here are the top three:

• Bangladesh scored 50
• Saudi Arabia 46
• and the Netherlands 44.

These optimists were followed by Canada, Singapore, Iran, Israel, Belgium, Indonesia, the US, the Palestinian Territories, Egypt, Malaysia, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Turkey, Spain, Pakistan, Brazil and Russia.

There are some surprises here. Israel, for instance. They think it is possible to have a Muslim-West “dialogue”? Maybe they weren’t thinking of Israel as part of the West?

But look at the reality of these statistics:

“Roughly 1 in 3 residents of the Netherlands believe the relationship between Muslim and Western communities is getting better, second only to Bangladesh,” the researchers commented. “The Dutch are the most likely to believe the Western world is committed to improved relations with Muslim societies (72%) and among the most likely to say they are personally concerned with this issue, though less than half (46%) believes the West respects the Muslim world.”

“Like Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands is the most likely Western country to trust in the other community’s good will; 2 in 5 say the Muslim world is committed to better relations and 1 in 3 say it respects the West. Like the other European countries surveyed, the majority of the Dutch see greater interaction between Western and Muslim worlds as a threat, but their relative optimism in other dimensions pushed them into third place.”

By the way, that’s an interesting spin they quoted: One third of those responding say Islam respects the West. Which means that 66 percent don’t think so. Same stats for those who believe things are getting better Western and Muslim communities: two thirds don’t buy that line, either.

Here’s what Gallup says in summation:

“Unlike Bangladesh, some might expect Saudi Arabia and the Netherlands to be among the most pessimistic about Muslim-West dialogue”, as “they were both directly affected either by military or cultural conflicts between between Muslim and Western communities.”

This survey was done at the Davos Conference where people are usually in a good mood. I wonder what results they’d have gotten from a regular man-in-the-street survey? Would they be proclaiming the good news of a ten per cent positive view of the current bloody mess?

Am I missing something here? A two thirds majority says no, and Gallup thinks they’re not “pessimistic”?

What part of “NO” don’t they understand?

Hat tip: Fjordman

[spinning ends here]

The political situation in Israel has been less than encouraging ever since the accession of Ehud Olmert as prime minister and the end of the 1986 war with Hizbullah. Despite the fact that the majority of Israeli citizens see clearly the danger of Hamas and the PA, the government of Israel seems to be infected by the same dhimmi virus that afflicts the rest of the West.

The current state of affairs in “Palestine” serves to highlight the convergence of several pathological trends that have become more and more common within Western culture:

1.		The classification of terrorist violence solely as a law enforcement issue;
2.		The refusal to hold governments responsible for terrorism committed from within their borders and/or by their citizens;
3.		Portraying as victims passive members of the cultures which raise up and celebrate terrorists;
4.		A refusal to look realistically at the nature of fourth-generation warfare;
5.		A racist and paternalistic attitude towards non-Western cultures;
6.		White guilt; and
7.		That old standard: Jew-hatred.

The advanced stages of this cultural syndrome are exemplified by the recent events in Gaza. The daily rocket attacks launched by Hamas against Sderot and other areas adjacent to the Gaza strip would not have been borne by any other Western nation without severe reprisal.

But any mild response by Israel is always considered cruel overkill, and invariably condemned by the UN:

Collective punishment for Gaza is wrong — U.N.

Israel has a right to respond to security threats but should not collectively punish the Gaza population for rocket attacks from the Palestinian territory, the U.N. humanitarian affairs chief said on Friday.

The United Nations also criticized Israel’s decision to close all border crossings with Gaza, preventing delivery of a U.N. aid shipment to the territory’s 1.5 million people, most of whom depend on foreign aid.

“We all understand the security problems and the need to respond to that but collective punishment of the people of Gaza is not, we believe, the appropriate way to do that,” said John Holmes, undersecretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs.

The deputy head of Israel’s mission to the United Nations, Daniel Carmon, told Reuters Israel’s actions were “what any responsible government would do when it is confronted as we are with this surge of violence and terrorism.”

[…]

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called “for an immediate cessation of Palestinian sniper and rocket attacks into Israel, and for maximum restraint on the part of the Israel Defence Forces,” spokeswoman Michel Montas said in a statement.

[…]

Holmes also urged the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which seized control of Gaza last June, to use its authority to put an end to the attacks against Israel.

“I’m calling on the Hamas leaders … to do whatever they can to stop these attacks because they claim to be in control of Gaza there,” Holmes said. “Therefore they have a responsibility to stop the attacks.”

It’s not just the inevitable moral equivalence — “both sides”, “the peace process”, etc. — at work here. Israel’s response, mild by any standards except those of the UN and the EU, is viewed as “collective punishment”.

Was the bombing of Hamburg by the Allies in WW2 a collective punishment? Or the firebombing of Tokyo? Obviously, by today’s criteria, they were. But to those who actually fought the war, mass reprisal was a necessary and appropriate strategic decision.

Times have changed, and so has the nature of warfare. Now even non-violent responses to violent aggression are considered inhumane and unfair. The first thing our Western media discover is the harm done to the wee bairns of Palestine:
– – – – – – – – –

Electricity Plant Shut Down, Gaza City Plunged Into Darkness After Israeli Fuel Cutoff

Gaza’s only electrical plant shut down Sunday after Israel blocked the shipment of fuel that powers them, plunging Gaza City into darkness and sending already beleaguered Gazans to stock up on food and batteries in anticipation of long, dark, cold days ahead.

Israel blockaded Gaza Thursday as a pressure tactic against militants who have been firing rockets at Israel every day. The stricken power plant generates about one third of Gaza’s electricity. The rest, which comes from Israel, was not affected by the blockade, Israeli officials said.

A U.N. agency and human rights groups condemned Israel, but Israel said they should direct their criticism at Palestinian militant groups that fire rockets at southern Israel every day.

Notice that Israel is magnanimous, and shows great restraint in its “collective punishment”:

In addition to the fuel it receives from Israel to power its electrical plant, Gaza gets about two-thirds of its electricity directly from Israel. Israeli officials said that supply would not be affected.

But the media-savvy guys at Hamas know how to exploit these events for their full propaganda value:

Hamas officials shut down the plant and plunged Gaza City into total darkness, Gaza Energy Authority head Kanan Obeid said. TV crews and reporters were invited to witness the shutdown just before 8 p.m. (1800 GMT). A candlelight protest march was planned for later Sunday.

Hamas leaders, of course, are only concerned about the welfare of the children:

Health Ministry official Dr. Moaiya Hassanain warned that the fuel cutoff would cause a health catastrophe. “We have the choice to either cut electricity on babies in the maternity ward or heart surgery patients or stop operating rooms,” he said.

I don’t have to point out that the babies in these maternity wards will soon grow up and go to school to be indoctrinated in the ubiquitous Palestinian death cult. Not long after that they will be encouraged by their parents, their peers, and the leaders of Hamas to strap on a bomb belt and blow themselves up.

Dr. Hassanain’s official concern for the babies is thus to ensure they live long enough to become suicide bombers.

The entire crisis is a hoax perpetrated on the world media by Hamas:

Shlomo Dror, spokesman for Israel’s Defense Ministry, said Gaza has enough fuel and accused Palestinian officials of trying to create the impression of a crisis that did not exist.

And the usual suspects from the UN and the quangos are saying the appropriate lines from their scripts:

“The logic of this defies basic humanitarian standards,” said Christopher Gunness, spokesman for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency.

Human rights groups also condemned the fuel cutoff. The British group Oxfam called it “ineffective as well as unlawful.” Gisha, an Israeli group that has fought the fuel cutbacks in Israel’s Supreme Court, said “punishing Gaza’s 1.5 million civilians does not stop the rocket fire; it only creates an impossible ‘balance’ of human suffering on both sides of the border.”

To make matters worse, there is an ample supply of self-loathing ready to be deployed within the elites of Israel’s liberal media:

Alon Ben-David, military analyst for Israel’s Channel 10 TV, said Israel could not maintain the blockade for more than a few days. “Israel understands that a humanitarian crisis is developing here,” he said.

Hamas, of course, is not required to cease its violent activities:

A defiant Hamas said its attacks on Israel would not cease because of the sanctions.

“We will not raise the white flag, and we will not surrender, “ Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Sunday.

After several days of this kind of coverage, the Israeli authorities were unable to tolerate any more, and withdrew the blockade:

Israel Agrees to Ease Blockade on Gaza as Bakeries, Gas Stations Close

Israel agreed Monday to move diesel fuel and medicine into Gaza on a one-time basis, easing the blockade imposed because of a surge in Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel. The shift came after the Israeli prime minister said Gaza’s residents can “walk, without gas for their cars.”

Israel and Gaza’s Hamas government were locked in a public relations battle over the depth of the hardship, and the U.N. warned that international food aid could be suspended by the end of the week. An angry Hamas TV announcer shouted that “we are being killed, we are starving!” and Palestinian leaders issued emotional pleas for national unity, while Israel accused Hamas of fabricating a crisis to gain world sympathy.

That’s exactly what they have been doing, and it worked, didn’t it?

Late Monday, Israel decided to allow some diesel fuel and medicine into Gaza on Tuesday.

“We think Hamas got the message. As we have seen in the past couple of days, when they want to stop the rockets, they can,” said the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Arye Mekel, confirming the decision.

Oh yes, Hamas got the message, all right. The message is: “You may act against us with virtual impunity, because our responses will be mild and limited, and even those will be withdrawn at the first hint of condemnation in the world’s media.”

Hamas has perfected the art of fourth-generation warfare:

• Limited but continuous violence, to terrorize the enemy and wear down his will to resist.
• Skillful manipulation of the gullible Western media, using falsehood, selective information, staged atrocities, and all the other time-hallowed methods of the unscrupulous propagandist.
• The preservation of deniability at the official level of the state or pseudo-state.

If, for example, the Egyptian army were to mass in the Sinai on the border of Israel and attempt a conventional invasion, few outside the Arab world would condemn a vigorous military response on the part of the Israelis.

But when the attacking force is a ragtag mob of terrorist militias armed with homemade rockets, any response by the Israeli authorities is routinely condemned.

Back in the 19th century, before the onset of white guilt and Multiculturalism, the attitudes towards such irregular warfare were far more sane.

If pirates launched attacks on shipping from within a country’s territorial waters, it was considered an act of war.

An armed incursion by a terrorist militia would provoke a severe military response against the state that harbored the terrorists.

But nowadays the legitimate government of a country is no longer considered responsible for organized violence by its citizens directed at another country. Add to this the fact that “Palestine” is not even a functioning state, and the terrorists can act with almost complete impunity.

If the Palestinian Authority truly cannot control the actions of its citizens, then it is a joke, not a government, and should be granted no effective recognition by the world’s real governments. If it does have control of its citizens, then it is guilty of international aggression, and should be dealt with accordingly.

But since the Palestinians are “brown” people, and Israelis are “white”, the former must never be held responsible for their behavior, and the latter must always show restraint.

Include in this toxic mix the anti-Semitism that has become all but universal in the last decade, and Israel doesn’t stand a chance against a handful of keffiyeh-clad thugs with their Qassam rockets.

Hat tip: Zenster.

While his wife must be having a nightmare.

Hat tip: Per

[ends here…you don’t get to see him fall off the chair]

I sure missed this story while it was going on. Thanks to Chalons for bringing it to our attention in the comments on “Guns, Babes and Denmark”.

Miss Utah is competing in the Miss America contest (can’t remember the last time I saw one of those programs…maybe 1979, before the TV went to the dump and Bert Parks was still among us?).

Chalons directed us to Jim at Gateway Pundit, who has a number of posts on this young woman, G.I. Jill Stevens. She’s a for-real soldier who spent six years with the Utah National Guard ane was deployed with them in Afghanistan. Now she will compete in the pageant/contest 2008. While serving in Afghanistan, she was awarded the Combat Medical Badge for her work. The requirements are listed here:

The CMB was created as a “companion” badge to the CIB [Combat Infantry Badge] with criteria for its award intended to parallel that of the CIB. It was designed to provide recognition to the field medic who accompanies the infantryman into battle and shares with him the experiences unique to the infantry in combat….

…the infantry unit to which the medical personnel are assigned or attached must engage the enemy in active ground combat [and] …[M]edical personnel must be personally present and under fire in order to be eligible for the awarding of the badge…

Jim says there is something we can do to help her make it to #1 in the coming pageant:
– – – – – – – – –
Vote for her. This notion of having a popular vote is evidently a new part of the Miss America Contest, and the internet makes it easy. This link takes you to the voting page, which has a rolly bar that features the name of the state you’re on.

NB: the voting page doesn’t seem to operate if you have a pop-up blocker in place. I had to click mine off to vote. And you can vote once a day, though time is short: only till the 26th.

For our European readers (and geographically-challenged Americans), the state of Utah is located on the US map image right at the southern-most star. You can vote once a day.

It would be very cool if the internet got a surge going for a real heroine. She’s gotten her nursing degree and plans to return to the Army as a commissioned officer.

While you’re over there read this post of Jim’s. A few sour grapes in attendance. Among the left a cramped and sour soul afflicted by a lack of generosity seems to be a prerequisite.

I have written previously about the Albanian Kosovar criminal networks that control most of the heroin trade in Western Europe. Discussing this undisputed fact is actually against the law in Sweden, as Dahn Pettersson, a local politician in Skåne, discovered last year.

Now we find out that along with the skag, the Kosovars are importing automatic weapons into Sweden. Here’s the latest from The Local:

Four indicted after major weapons seizure

Four people have been indicted in Malmö on gun-running charges following the seizure last autumn of a major consignment of weapons.

Customs officials in Malmö found 40 semi-automatic weapons concealed in the seats of a car on October 10th last year.

The driver of the vehicle was pulled over after customs officials noticed him behaving in a nervous manner when crossing the border from Denmark to Sweden.

One of the driver’s two passengers was also arrested. A woman travelling in the car was released almost immediately.

A criminal investigation conducted by the customs authorities also led to the identification of two further suspects.

“Cooperation on the international and national levels has worked extremely well,” said Rolf Bårdskär, head of Swedish Customs’ investigative division.

The customs authority has described the haul as one of the largest weapons seizures ever made in Europe.

– – – – – – – – –

The four suspects, each with addresses in southern Sweden, have been indicted on arms trafficking charges.

Both men arrested at the Lernacken border station in Malmö admit to smuggling Beretta and Zastava weapons from Kosovo to Sweden. The two suspects arrested later deny committing an offence.

The terrorists and criminals who import these weapons aren’t concerned about Swedish restrictions on firearms. We don’t need no stinkin’ permit!

But the average Swede is obliged to go about unarmed and without effective protection against the thugs and criminals brought into his country by unlimited immigration.

He’s learning that possession of firearms is nine-tenths of the law.

Hat tip: TB.

Ever since Gordon Brown reiterated his predecessor’s refusal to hold a referendum, it seemed as though the British were ready to bend over and let the EU have its way with them.

But the latest news from Albion indicates that the Lisbon Treaty may not face the smooth sailing that Mr. Brown and the rest of the Euro-enthusiasts had hoped for.

From today’s EU Observer:

Brown faces backbench revolt over EU treaty

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is facing a significant backbench revolt as the bill ratifying the EU’s Lisbon Treaty begins its House of Commons second reading today (21 January).

At this legislative stage — the first parliamentary vote on the treaty — it is unlikely that the bill will be voted down.

While most Conservatives are set to vote with the Labour rebels, the leader of the centrist Liberal Democrats, although supporting a referendum on the treaty, has said his party will abstain.

Nonetheless, the leader of the Labour rebels, Ian Davidson, warned that opposition is expected to grow as the bill progresses through parliament.

[…]

The eurosceptic Mr Davidson said that frustration has grown within the governing Labour Party since it became clear that former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who negotiated the treaty shortly before leaving office, has ambitions to be appointed EU president, a new post created by the treaty.

The vote may also feature an amendment, backed by 18 of the rebels, calling for a referendum.

An interesting aspect to this story is that an official organ of the government has recognized what everybody already knows: the “treaty” is the just the same old EU Constitution tied up in a new pink bow:
– – – – – – – – –

The development comes a day after the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee issued its opinion on the matter, concluding that the was “no material difference” between the EU treaty and foreign policy elements of the original EU constitution.

The EU constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005 prompting a rethink by the European Union eventually resulting in the Lisbon Treaty, which contains most of the constitution’s elements.

The Labour government under Mr Blair had indicated it would have a referendum on constitution but Mr Brown has said there is no need for public poll on the new treaty as Britain’s ‘red lines’ have been defended.

I’m not sure what “red lines” are left to defend. Britain’s national sovereignty seems to have all but vanished, and the relentless erosion caused by PC and Multiculturalism has reduced traditional British institutions to a haunted ruin.

Despite everything, the fight hasn’t gone out of all Britain’s subjects. The prime minister has denied them a full referendum, but the treaty’s opponents are working on a scheme to stage the vote piecemeal:

Meanwhile, the UK government’s Europe minister, Jim Murphy, is facing an extra-parliamentary ‘mini-referendum’ in his own East Renfrewshire constituency organised by the cross-party eurosceptic group I Want A Referendum (IWR).

The group is set to hold the poll, which will cost IWR £30,000 (c. €40,000) to stage, some time in February.

It has commissioned Electoral Reform Services to run referenda in East Renfrewshire and nine other UK marginal constituencies as part of a rolling campaign aiming to embarrass the government into holding a full nationwide referendum on the treaty.

Labour MP Gisela Stuart said: “We made a very clear promise of a referendum at the last election. No one really believes for a second that this is a ‘fundamentally different document’. We must keep our promise.

“These referenda will give people the chance to have the vote that the Government is trying to take away from them. Gordon Brown must listen.”

Mind you: this is the Labour Party that is defying its own leaders and staging a revolt.

These are significant events. Stay tuned.

Hat tip: Henrik of Europe News.

Saturday’s post about firearms instructors and shooting enthusiasts drew a lot of attention. A Danish reader was prompted to email me about Crown Prince Mary, a native of Tasmania who is now married to Prince Frederik, the heir to the throne of Denmark.

Mary, it seems, is no stranger to firearms:

Hey!

You had a post about learning to use guns, well, Mary has learned.

See the Crown Princess in the Danish home guard, and also some additional photos.

You should post this story (or at least the pictures) about crown princess Mary of Denmark on your blog.

She’s so cool in these pictures, and a good role model.

Sincerely,
TSJ

The articles are in Danish, and I don’t have time to try to translate them. But the pictures give you the gist.

[Nothing follows]