New York City Aviation talks about the very un-green, carbon-spewing plans of America’s leadership for Earth Day:

On a day when many Americans will be reflecting upon how they can reduce their impact on the environment, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will board separate jets in Washington on Earth Day morning to fly 250 miles up the east coast to New York, where they will land at separate airports to attend separate events within a few miles of each other.

The parallel visits of Air Force One (a 747/VC-25 aircraft) and Air Force Two (a 757/C-32A aircraft) will delay dozens, if not hundreds of commercial flights at Kennedy and LaGuardia and other nearby airports as no-fly zones are implemented. Jets will be forced to circle and burn more fuel as they wait for the VIPs to come and go. Their security contingents consisting of dozens of cars, SUVs and helicopters will burn even more. Throw in thousands of commuters’ cars and delivery trucks sitting idle in traffic as law enforcement closes large swaths of the city and you have yourself a very Earth-unfriendly day.

He has a disclaimer about his complaint:
– – – – – – – – –

This is a non-partisan post which I would be writing no matter who were in office. I’ve been known to complain when ANY president makes frivolous trips to New York, simply because it disrupts so many people and it is extraordinarily expensive. For both men to visit on the same day, especially a day of supposed environmental friendliness, is extraordinarily thoughtless, to put it mildly.

And what, you ask, will the Dauphin be doing in New York City? A worthy question, which NYC Aviation answers, bitterly:

Obama will be making a speech about new banking and finance regulations, a worthy subject, to be sure. Federal Hall on Wall Street, the site of George Washington’s first inauguration which stares directly at the doors of the New York Stock Exchange, would be the ideal location for this speech, but Obama will deliver it from…an art and engineering school? Any symbolism of delivering the speech in NYC is lost. He may as well save everyone the effort and talk to the nation from the Oval Office.

I’m not sure, but Obama may be the most clueless president since Ulysses Grant:

• He goes off to play golf on the day of Poland’s mourning. No televised speech of condolence.
• He has the president of Goldman Sachs repeatedly visiting the White House while GS is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
• He promises transparency in his administration but continues to maintain his opaque, dismissive attitude.

Long after the fumes of his Earth Day fuel wastage have faded, his obduracy regarding Goldman Sachs (from whose PAC Obama received almost a million dollars that he has no intention of returning) will still be waiting for answers:

Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that “almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.

Heck, the White House — i.e., the Dauphin — will continue to do as he damn well pleases because there is no one to reign him in. Our national media are limp and impotent.

AIVD, the Dutch intelligence service, has issued a report warning the government that it underestimates the danger of foreign infiltration, espionage, and influence in the Netherlands. In what may or may not be a coincidence, an Islamic conference is being held next month in Amsterdam which will include groups representing the Muslim Brotherhood. One of the organizations sponsoring the conference is headed by the notorious Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

In other news, Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to promise that the United States would not shoot down Israeli warplanes if they overfly Iraq on the way to attack Iran’s nuclear sites.

Thanks to 4symbols, C. Cantoni, Fausta, Fjordman, Gaia, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, JD, KGS, Nilk, Steen, TB, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

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

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!]

Tonight’s version of Geert Wilders’ speech at the House of Lords is in Romanian.

Romania stands in an unusual position with respect to the Counterjihad. The country is currently under very little threat from Islamization, yet it lived under the boot heel of the Ottomans for centuries. After a half-century of independence, it traded the domination of the Turks for the iron fist of Communism as a Soviet satellite state, and endured vassal status once more until 1989.

As a result, Romanians today have good reason to cherish free speech and forego political correctness in their public discussions. Rebellious Vanilla, who translated Mr. Wilders’ speech for Gates of Vienna, is a case in point. Her refreshing and well-informed opinions can be found on her blog, or in the comments on virtually any thread in this blog.

Here’s another quote from Mr. Wilders’ speech on March 5th:

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

There are three languages remaining which have not yet been posted. Previous translations may be found by clicking the live links in the list below:

Albanian	German †	Romanian
Bulgarian †	Hebrew	Russian
Danish	Hungarian	Spanish
Dutch	Italian	Swedish †
Finnish	Polish	Welsh
French	Portuguese

(* = assigned but not yet received; † = received but not yet posted)

Diana West has the full speech at her website.

Many thanks to Rebellious Vanilla for the translation into Romanian:

05.03.2010

Mulţumesc. Este minunat să fiu din nou în Londra. Şi este minunat că de această dată am putut vedea mai mult din acest oraş splendid, nu doar centrul de detenţie al aeroportului Heathrow.

Astăzi sunt în faţa voastră, în acest loc extraordinar. Într-adevăr, acest loc este sacru. Este, aşa cum spune Malcolm, mama tuturor parlamentelor şi sunt cuviincios faţă de oportunitatea de a vorbi în faţa voastră.

Le mulţumesc Lordului Pearson şi Doamnei Cox pentru invitaţie şi pentru difuzarea filmului meu „Fitna”. Vă mulţumesc prieteni pentru invitaţie.

Pentru început, am veşti magnifice. Miercurea trecută în Olanda au avut loc alegeri pentru consiliile orăşeneşti şi pentru prima dată partidul meu, Partidul Libertăţii, a luat parte la aceste alegeri. Am participat în două oraşe. În Almere, unul dintre cele mai mari oraşe din Olanda şi în Haga, al treilea oraş ca mărime, oraşul de rezidenţă al guvernului, parlamentului şi reginei. Şi am avut rezultate fantastice! Dintr-o singură lovitură partidul meu a devenit cel mai mare partid din Alemre şi al doilea partid ca mărime din Haga. Veşti fabuloase pentru Partidul Libertăţii şi veşti şi mai bune pentru cei ce locuiesc îm aceste două frumoase oraşe.

– – – – – – – – –

Şi mai am veşti bune. Acum două săptămâni, guvernul Olandei s-a prăbuşit, iar în iunie vom avea alegeri parlamentare. Şi viitorul Partidului Libertăţii arată bine. Conform unor sondaje, vom fi cel mai mare partid din Olanda. Vreau să fiu modest, dar cine ştie, poate voi deveni prim-ministru în câteva luni!

Doamnelor şi domnilor, nu departe de acest loc este statuia celui mai mare prim-ministru pe care l-a avut ţara voastră şi aş vrea să îl citez: „Mahomedanismul este o religie militantă care încurajează prozelitismul. Nu există o forţă mai retrogradă în lume. Deja s-a întins până în centrul Africii, ridicând luptători neînfricaţi la fiecare pas (…) civilizaţia Europei moderne s-ar putea să se prăbuşească la fel ca cea romană.” Aceste vorbe nu sunt ale nimeni altele decât cele scrise de Winston Churchill în cartea sa ”Râul războiului” în anul 1899.

Churchill avea dreptate.

Doamnelor şi domnilor, nu am nici o problemă şi partidul meu nu are nici o problemă cu musulmanii. Există musulmani moderaţi. Majoritatea musulmanilor sunt cetăţeni cu respect fată de lege şi doresc să trăiască în pace, la fel ca mine sau ca dumneavoastră. Ştiu acest lucru. Acesta este motivul pentru care fac o distincţie între musulmani ca oameni şi ideologia, între musulmani şi islam. Sunt mulţi musulmani moderaţi, însă nu există un islam moderat.

Islamul doreşte dominaţie mondială. Coranul le cere musulmanilor să întreprindă jihad. Coranul le cere musulmanilor să implementeze legea sharia. Coranul le cere musulmanilor să impună islamul asupra tuturor.

După cum a spus prim-ministrul Turciei Erbakan: „Toată Europa va fi islamică. Vom cuceri Roma”. Sfârşitul citatului.

Dictatorul libian Gaddafi a spus:„Sunt zeci de milioane de musulmani în Europa şi numărul lor este în creştere. Aceasta este o indicaţie clară că Europa va fi convertită la islam. Europa va fi într-o bună zi un continent musulman”. Sfârşitul citatului. Într-adevăr, o dată în viaţa sa, Gaddafi a spus adevărul. Fiindcă, aduceţi-vă aminte: imigrarea în masă şi demografia reprezintă destinul.

Islamul nu este doar o religie, este în principal o ideologie totalitară. Islamul doreşte să domine toate aspectele vieţii, din momentul naşterii până la moarte. Legea sharia este o lege care controlează toate detaliile vieţii într-o societate musulmană. De la partea civila şi legea familiei până la partea penală. Ea determină cum cineva poate mânca, se poate îmbrăca, până la modul cum acesta foloseşte toaleta. Asuprirea femeilor este bună, consumul de alcool este rău.

Cred că islamul nu este compatibil cu modul de viaţă occidental. Islamul este o ameninţare pentru valorile occidentale. Egalitatea dintre bărbaţi şi femei, a homosexualilor şi a heterosexualilor, separarea dintre biserică şi stat, libertatea la exprimare, toate sunt sub presiune din cauza islamizării. Doamnelor şi domnilor: islamul şi libertatea, islamul şi democraţia nu sunt compatibile, ci sunt valori opuse.

Nu este de mirare că Winston Churchill a numit cartea lui Adolf Hilter „Mein Kampf ”noul Coran al credinţei şi războiului, bombastic, prolix, fără formă, dar însărcinat cu propriul mesaj”. După cum ştiţi acum, Churchill a făcut această comparaţie, între Coran şi Mein Kampf în cartea sa „Al doilea război mondial”, o operă pentru care a primit premiul Nobel în literatură. Comparaţia lui Churchill dintre Coran şi Mein Kampf este perfectă. Coranul este centrat pe jihad. Jihadul poate însemna o multitudine de lucruri şi este cuvântul pentru luptă în arabică. Kampf este cuvântul german pentru luptă. Jihad şi kampf sunt unul şi acelaşi lucru. Islam înseamnă supunere şi nu poate exista nici o greseală legată de scopul său. Acesta este un fapt. Întrebarea este dacă Europa şi dumneavoastră în Marea Britanie, cu trecutul vostru glorios, vă veţi supune sau veţi sta fermi pentru moştenirea voastră.

Vedem islamul decolând în vest cu o viteză incredibilă. Europa este islamizată rapid. Multe oraşe europene au devenit enorme concentrări islamice. Paris, Amsterdam, Bruxelles şi Berlin sunt doar câteva exemple. În unele părţi ale acestor oraşe, reglementările islamice sunt deja lege. Drepturile femeilor sunt distruse. Vălurile, poligamia, mutilarea genitala a femeilor, omorurile în numele onoarei. Femeile trebuie să meargă la lecţii de înot separate de băieţi sau nu li se dă mâna. În multe oraşe europene deja există un apartheid. Evreii, în numere crescânde, părăsesc Europa.

Cum deja sigur ştiţi, mai bine decât mine, şi în ţara voastră există imigrare în masă şi islamizarea s-a dezvoltat repede. Acest lucru a pus o presiune enormă asupra societăţii britanice. Uitaţi-vă ce se întămplă, de exemplu, în Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford şi aici, în Londra. Politicienii britanici, care au uitat de Winston Churchill au ales calea cea mai facilă. Au renunţat. Au cedat.

Anul trecut, partidul meu a cerut guvernului olandez să facă o analiză cost-beneficiu al imigrării de masă, dar guvernul a refuzat să ne dea un răspuns. De ce? Pentru că îi este frică de adevăr. Semnele nu sunt bune. O revistă olandeză – Elsevier – a calculat costuri care depăşesc 200 de miliarde de euro. Doar pentru anul trecut au venit cu o cifră de 13 miliarde de euro. Mai multe calcule au fost făcute în Europa: conform băncii naţionale a Danemarcei, fiecare imigrant dintr-o ţară islamică costă statul danez mai mult de 300 de mii de euro. Acelaşi lucru este întâlnit în Norvegia şi Franţa. Concluzia care poate fi trasă este că Europa devine mai săracă pe zi ce trece. Mai săracă din cauza demografiei. Şi cei de stânga sunt extaziaţi.

Nu ştiu dacă este adevărat, dar am citit în mai multe ziare britanice că laburiştii au deschis uşiile pentru imigrarea în masă cu inteţia de a schimba structura societăţii in Marea Britanie. Andrew Neather, un fost consilier al guvernului si redactorul discursurilor lui Tony Blair şi Jack Straw a zis că scopul politicii de imigrare a laburiştilor a fost, şi citez, „să îi oftice pe cei de dreapta şi să le facă argumentele expirate”. Dacă ăsta este adevărul, este un lucru simptomatic pentru stânga.

Doamnelor şi domnilor, nu faceţi nici o greşeală: stănga facilitează islamizarea. Stângiştii, liberalii încurajează fiecare nouă bancă sharia creată, fiecare nouă ipotecă sharia, fiecare nouă şcoală islamică, fiecare curte de justiţie sharia. Stângiştii consideră islamul ca egal culturii noastre. Legea sharia sau democraţia? Islam sau libertate? Nu contează pentru ei. Dar contează pentru noi. Întreaga elită de stânga este vinovată de practicarea relativismului cultural. Universităţile, bisericile, sindicatele, mass-media, politicienii. Toţi trădează libertăţile noastre câştigate cu atâta dificultate.

De ce, mă întreb, de ce stânga şi liberalii au renunţat la lupta pentru ele? Cândva stânga a luptat pe baricade pentru drepturile femeilor. Dar unde sunt astăzi? Unde sunt ei în 2010? Ei închid ochii deoarece sunt dependenţi de relativismul cultural şi de votul musulmanilor. Sunt dependenţi de imigrarea în masă.

Mulţumim lui Dumnezeu că Jacqui smith nu mai are o funcţie publică. A fost o victorie pentru libertatea de exprimare că un judecător britanic a anulat decizia ei să îmi refuze intrarea în ţara voastră anul trecut. Sper că judecătorii în ţara mea sunt la fel de întelepţi şi mă vor achita de toate acuzaţiile anul acesta. Din păcate, până acum nu s-au descurcat aşa de bine fiindcă nu doresc să audă adevărul despte islam şi nici nu sunt interesaţi să asculte opinia unor experţi judiciari de la cel mai înalt nivel legată de libertatea de exprimare. Luna trecută, într-o sesiune preliminară, curtea a refuzat cincisprezece din cei optsprezece martori-expert pe care i-am cerut.

Doar trei martori-expert au fost lăsaţi să fie audiaţi. Din fericire, prietenul meu drag şi eroicul psihiatru american dr. Wafa Sultan este unul dintre ei. Însă mărturia lor se va face cu uşile închise. Aparent adevărul despre islam nu se poate spune public, adevărul despre islam trebuie să rămână un secret.

Doamnelor şi domnilor, sunt anchetat pentru părerile mele politice. Ştim că există anchetări politice în tările din orientul mijlociu, cum ar fi Iran sau Arabia Saudită, dar nu în Europa, nu în Olanda. Sunt anchetat pentru comparaţia mea a Coranului cu Mein Kampf. Este ridicol. Mă întreb dacă Marea Britanie va supune vreodată opiniile politice ale lui Winston Churchill unei anchete. Doamnelor şi domnilor, procesul politic care are loc împotriva mea trebuie să ajungă la un sfârşit.

Dar nu este doar depre mine, despre Geert Wilders. Libertatea la exprimare este sub atac. Lăsaţi-mă să vă mai dau câteva exemple. După cum ştiţi, unul din idolii mei, autorul italian Oriana Fallaci a trebuit să trăiască cu frica de a fi extrădată în Elveţia din cauza cărţii sale ”Furia şi mândria”. Caricaturistul olandex Nekschot a fost arestat în propria casă din Amsterdam de zece agenţi ai poliţiei pentru desenele sale anti-islam. Aici, în Marea Britanie, autorul american Rachel Ehrenfeld a fost dată în judecată de un afacerist saudit pentru defăimare. În Olanda, Ayaan Hirsi Ali şi în Australia doi preoţi creştini au fost daţi în judecată. Aş putea să continui. Doamnelor şi domnilor, în tot vestul, oamenii iubitori de libertate suferă din cauza acestui ”jihad legal”. Aceasta este „Islamic lawfare”. Şi, doamnelor şi domnilor, nu cu mult timp în urmă, caricaturistul Westergaard aproape că a fost asasinat pentru desenele sale.

Doamnelor şi domnilor, noi ar trebui să luptăm pentru libertatea la exprimare cu toată puterea. Libertatea de exprimare este cea mai importantă dintre libertăţile noastre şi este piatra de temelie a societăţilor moderne, respiraţia democraţiei. Fără libertatea la exprimare stilul nostru de viaţă şi libertatea noastră vor dispărea.

Cred că este obligaţia noastră să păstrăm moştenirea acelor viteji tineri care au luat cu asalt plaja din Normandia şi au eliberat Europa de sub tiranie. Aceşti eroi nu au murit degeaba. Este obligaţia noastră să apărăm libertatea la exprimare. După cum a spus George Orwell:„dacă libertatea înseamnă ceva, înseamnă dreptul de a spune oamenilor ceea ce nu vor să audă”.

Doamnelor şi domnilor, eu cred într-o nouă politică, este timpul pentru o schimbare şi trebuie să ne grăbim. Nu mai putem aştepta. Timpul se scurge. Dacă îmi permiteţi să îl citez pe unul dintre preşedinţii mei favoriţi ai Statelor Unite – Ronald Reagan a spus: „trebuie să luăm măsuri azi, pentru a proteja ziua de mâine”. De aceea eu propun următoarele măsuri, şi voi numi doar câteva, pentru a ne păstra libertatea:

În primul rând, va trebui să apărăm libertatea la exprimare. Este cea mai importantă dintre libertăţi. În Europa, şi în mod sigur în Olanda, avem nevoie de ceva similar primului amendament al constituţiei americane.

În al doilea rând, va trebui să punem sfârşit relativismului cultural. Proponenţilor relativismului cultural sau socialiştilor sharia le spun cu mândrie: cultura noastră occidentală este cu mult superioară culturii islamice. Nu vă fie frică să spuneţi asta. Nu sunteţi rasist dacă spuneţi că propria cultură este mai bună.

În al treilea rând, trebuie să stopăm imigrarea în masă din tările islamice pentru că mai mult islam înseamnă mai puţină libertate.

În al patrulea rând, va trebui să deportăm imigranţii criminali şi după denaturalizare, va trebui să deportăm imigranţii cu dublă cetăţenie. Şi sunt o mulţime în ţara mea.

În al cincilea rând, va trebui să oprim construcţia de noi moschei. Este destul islam deja in Europa şi mai ales fiindcă în Turcia, Irak, Iran, Pakistan şi Indonezia creştinii sunt trataţi prost, construcţia de moschei în Europa trebuie să ajungă la un final.

Şi va trebui să scăpăm de toţi aşa zişii lideri. Am mai spus în trecut: mai puţini Chamberlaini, mai mulţi Churchilli. Hai să alegem lideri adevăraţi.

Doamnelor şi domnilor. Generaţiei trecute, cea a părinţilor mei, cuvântul Londra era sinonim cu speranţă şi libertate. Când ţara mea a fost ocupată de nazişti, BBC-ul a oferit o doză zilnică de speranţă ţării mele în întunericul tiraniei naziste. Milioane de concentăţeni au ascultat BBC-ul, din buncăre. Cuvintele „aici este Londra” erau un simbol pentru lumea mai bună ce va veni în curând.

Ce va fi difuzat patruzeci de ani de acum încolo? Va fi „aici este Londra” sau ”aici este Londonistan”? Ne va aduce speranţă sau va difuza valorile Meccăi şi Medinei? Va oferi Marea Britanie supunere sau perseverenţă? Libertate sau sclavie? Alegerea este a dumneavoastră. Şi în Olanda alegerea este a noastră.

Doamnelor şi domnilor, să nu vă cereţi niciodată scuze pentru că sunteţi liberi. Nu vom, şi nu ar trebui să renunţăm. Şi, într-adevăr, după cum unul dintre marii voştri foşti lideri: nu ne vom da niciodată bătuţi.

Libertatea trebuie să triumfe. Libertatea trebuie să triumfe. Vă mulţumesc foarte mult.

Remember CAIR’s successful effort last week to force the removal of “Islamophobic” ads from Miami municipal buses? Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, working through the Freedom Defense Initiative, placed the ads on the buses to inform Muslims (and any other Americans) that they have the right of religious freedom in this country. The ads included a URL for a Muslim apostates’ site.

It looked like CAIR had chalked up another victory, intimidating anyone who attempts to criticize Islam in public. But David Yerushalmi has turned the tables: his law firm, working with the Thomas More Law Center, forced Miami-Dade County to back down and reinstate the ads.

This is a significant victory for sharia opponents over the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood front group in the United States — which, incidentally, was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. As David Yerushalmi says, “CAIR is a criminal organization with ties to Hamas and other jihadists. This is not my opinion but the considered view of the U.S. Attorney’s office, the FBI, and the federal courts, all based on evidence CAIR has never refuted.”

According to his law firm’s website:

Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. Win Victory for the First Amendment

Case Demonstrates that CAIR is a Fraudulent Civil Rights Organization Lobbying on behalf of the OIC

April 21, 2010—Miami, Florida: When the South Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) pressured the Miami-Dade Country Transit Authority to yank bus panel ads contracted and paid for by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of the Freedom Defense Initiative because the ads were “offensive to Muslims”, the two activists turned to the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. for help. Mr. Yerushalmi joined forces with the Thomas More Law Center and the two law firms began preparing a federal complaint alleging breach of contract and violation of Ms. Geller’s and Mr. Spencer’s First Amendment Rights.

The bus ad, which appears above, began running on Tuesday, April 13th. Just two days later, on Thursday, after pressure from CAIR, the bus ads had already been pulled down and Mr. Yerushalmi’s clients received notice of the ad contract termination through media reports on Friday.

CAIR, as it typically does, issued nationwide press releases and blasted emails to tens of thousands of outlets on Friday crowing over its “victory” of suppressing free speech on the grounds that the ads promoted “bigotry”. Newspaper and other media stories in the Miami Herald, the Orlando Sentinel, Fox Business News, and NBC ran blindly with the CAIR-generated story on Friday with headlines like: “Miami-Dade Transit Throws Islamic Ad Under the Bus.”

Ironically, CAIR, which has been named by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror fund raising trial—a trial which culminated in guilty verdicts for all of the Muslim Brotherhood defendants—claims it is “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization.”

– – – – – – – – –

“It is ironic,” Mr. Yerushalmi noted, “that the media allows CAIR to claim the mantle of a civil rights organization when it embraces censorship by the government all in the service of the ‘anti-blasphemy’ platform of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), which calls for international legislation providing for criminal penalties against anyone who ‘insults Islam and its prophet Mohammed.’ Free speech is apparently not one of the freedoms in CAIR’s version of the U.S. Constitution—at least not for critics of Islam.”

Mr. Yerushalmi added that the Center for Security Policy, a leading Washington D.C. national security think tank run by former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney, has documented that CAIR is an illegal, unregistered foreign agent of the OIC, receiving millions of dollars from Islamic countries in order to pursue their political goals in the U.S. (See the CAIR Observatory) Mr. Yerushalmi is General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy.

By Friday, the day after the bus ads had been pulled, Mr. Yerushalmi and his co-counsel Robert Muise were prepared to go into federal court early the next week armed with a complaint and motion for temporary restraining order.

A teleconference was arranged first with the Miami-Dade County Attorney’s office, which took place Monday afternoon. After listening to Mr. Yerushalmi’s brief, the county attorneys conceded the ads should not have been pulled. By Tuesday, Mr. Yerushalmi had negotiated a full and complete retraction of the contract termination with a NY-based attorney for CBS Outdoor. Not only would the original 10 king-sized ads go back up on the Transit Authority buses, but CBS would run an additional 20 king-sized bus ads for no additional charge.

The new agreement was inked and signed by Wednesday, April 21. The ads are expected to go back up by early next week.

“This is not just an important day for the First Amendment. It is a ‘teaching moment’ for the media and for others in various government agencies who come across CAIR,” Mr. Yerushalmi added. “CAIR is a criminal organization with ties to Hamas and other jihadists. This is not my opinion but the considered view of the U.S. Attorney’s office, the FBI, and the federal courts, all based on evidence CAIR has never refuted. If you find yourself on the same side of an issue with CAIR, you’d better examine the facts a bit more closely. You’re likely in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, even if only unwittingly.”

Mr. Yerushalmi is currently prosecuting two separate fraud cases against CAIR on behalf of five former CAIR clients, three of whom are Muslim Americans, who were defrauded by CAIR.

I wrote several years ago about the widespread practice of pederasty among Muslims, especially in South Asia. The custom in which older men groom young boys for sex and keep them as catamites has been practiced for centuries in Afghanistan and parts of Iran and Pakistan. It is not for nothing that Kandahar is known as “the homosexual capital of South Asia”.

Like many other “macho” cultures, most Islamic societies do not view men who have sex with young boys as homosexuals, provided that the practitioner acts as the active partner in the encounter. The seclusion of women and the practice of polygamy limit the access of young men to normal heterosexual outlets for their urges, so Islamic societies, particularly in the less developed areas, have come to resemble prison culture with their sexual predators and “nancy boys”.

Our regular tipster JD sent us an email about a PBS program on this topic that aired last night:

A disturbing episode of the documentary show Frontline was on TV last night (9pm 20 April 2010) entitled “The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan”.

“In the midst of war and endemic poverty, an ancient tradition has re-emerged across Afghanistan: Hundreds of boys are being lured off the streets with promises of a new life, many unaware their fate is to be used for entertainment and sex.”

The show may be watched online here.

Below are some excerpts from PBS’ synopsis of the program:

In The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi (Behind Taliban Lines) returns to his native land to expose an ancient practice that has been brought back by powerful warlords, former military commanders and wealthy businessmen. Known as “bacha bazi” (literal translation: “boy play”), this illegal practice exploits street orphans and poor boys, some as young as 11, whose parents are paid to give over their sons to their new “masters.” The men dress the boys in women’s clothes and train them to sing and dance for the entertainment of themselves and their friends. According to experts, the dancing boys are used sexually by these powerful men.

In detailed conversations with several bacha bazi masters in northern Afghanistan and with the dancing boys they own, reporter Quraishi reveals a culture where wealthy Afghan men openly exploit some of the poorest, most vulnerable members of their society.

“What was so unnerving about the men I had met was not just their lack of concern for the damage their abuse was doing to the boys,” Quraishi says. “It was also their casualness with which they operated and the pride with which they showed me their boys, their friends, their world. They clearly believed that nothing they were doing was wrong.”

– – – – – – – – –

[…]

“I had a boy because every commander had a partner,” says Mestary, a former senior commander who is well connected with major Afghan warlords. “Among the commanders there is competition, and if I didn’t have one, then I could not compete with them.”

“I go to every province to have happiness and pleasure with boys,” says an Afghan man known as “The German,” who acts as a bacha bazi pimp, supplying boys to the men. “Some boys are not good for dancing, and they will be used for other purposes…. I mean for sodomy and other sexual activities.”

[…]

In the documentary, Quraishi interviews local police officials who insist that men who participate in bacha bazi will be arrested and punished regardless of their wealth or powerful connections. Later that day, however, Quraishi’s cameras catch two officers from the same police department attending an illegal bacha bazi party.

“Many of the people who do this work for the government,” says Nazer Alimi, who compiled a report on bacha bazi for UNICEF. “They speak out against it but are abusers themselves…. I personally cannot mention any names because I am scared.”

Quraishi speaks with some dancing boys who fear they will be beaten or killed. “If they stray, they get killed,” says a 13-year-old dancing boy. “Sometimes fighting happens among the men who own the boys. If you don’t please them, they beat you, and people get killed.”

[…]

The program will conclude with a detailed update of attempts to arrange the rescue of one of the dancing boys profiled in the film, an 11-year-old boy bought by Dastager from an impoverished rural family. It is a dramatic final chapter, full of new shocks and surprises, and, in the end, provides a measure of justice for the boy and his master.

Phyllis Chesler has a post today on this topic.

A snip from her essay:

…Human Rights Watch, cited by Amnesty International, first broke this story in 1997. They cited it as a Taliban-abuse. I write about this in my book The Death of Feminism. Now UNICEF says that this practice “has to be eradicated.” The documentary narrative admits that, although such sex slavery is illegal, the police will not make arrests, and that the rare jail sentence is quickly commuted. The police themselves often comprise the all-male audiences who enjoy the dancing boy performances.

And the people are so very poor and have so few options.

Bacha bazi (dancing boys) are taken and trained in singing and dancing when they are as young as six years old, more often when they are nine or ten…

As they say, read the whole thing, here. There are some cogent comments, also, including one which explains Islam as a Crime Syndicate.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, have been threatened by a U.S.-based Islamic terrorist website called Revolutionmuslim.com for their spoof of Mohammed that showed the prophet wearing a bear costume. The voice-over of the group’s threatening video features Anwar al-Awlaki explaining why people who insult the prophet must be killed. Photos of Messrs. Stone and Parker are shown along with those of Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks, and Salman Rushdie. The implications are obvious.

In other news, Mehmet Ali Agca — the Turk who shot Pope John Paul II and did almost thirty years of prison time for the deed — wants to be granted an audience with Pope Benedict XVI when both men are in Portugal on May 13.

Meanwhile, a dead man has been elected mayor of Tracy City, Tennessee. The winning candidate — who was elected in a landslide — died of a heart attack two months ago, but voters elected him anyway in preference to the incumbent mayor.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Diana West, DK, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, JD, KGS, Nilk, TB, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

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

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!]

In August of last year, a Saudi law firm brought legal action against all the Danish newspapers that published the Mohammed cartoons. It was a blatant probe of the infidel system of defenses, using lawfare to breach the virtual walls of Danish society in order to inflict maximum damage on the culture that dared to insult the prophet.

After pointing out the real purposes of this particular probe, I recommended that the Danes mount a stringent counter-probe to discourage any further similar lawfare:

And sending the Saudi lawyers packing after a stern judicial admonishment is not good enough. The Danish newspapers will by then have incurred substantial legal costs, and the time of judges, clerks, bailiffs, and innumerable government lawyers will have been consumed in pointless wrangling.

The only way to repel this probe successfully is to make it very, very expensive for the people who launched it. Only a painful result will discourage more of the same behavior later on, in other contexts.

Double indemnity is the only way to go. A finding against the plaintiffs with a levy of twice the court costs would send an unambiguous message and discourage further probing.

This past February it seemed that the Danish media might take the opposite tack, and begin a campaign of groveling apology and dhimmitude. Editor-in-Chief Tøger Seidenfaden of the Danish newspaper Politiken — “The New York Times of Denmark” — negotiated a settlement with the “descendants of the Prophet Mohammed”, apologizing for offending them and promising to be a good dhimmi in the future.

Fortunately, Mr. Seidenfaden was in the minority among the Danes. Even the employees of his own newspaper turned against him, publishing an open letter expressing their dismay and their opposition to his actions.

And now a new organization has sprung up to take exactly the action I was hoping for last year: it is countersuing the descendants of Mr. Mohammed Pbuh, Esq. Led by Hans Erling Jensen, a group called Eticha has filed a libel lawsuit on behalf of all the non-Muslims whom Mohammed defamed and insulted in the Koran.

Mr. Erling sent me a copy of the letter he sent to the Saudi law firm. The full text and his introductory explanation are included at the bottom of this post, but here’s the meat of his case:

You and your clients apparently continue to insist that Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi may not be portrayed or caricatured. This implies that you and your clients give your unconditional support to the text of the Quran, as it exists today, as well as to the Hadith that, combined with the Quran (and the Sirat) form the basis of Islam and Sharia.

The descendants of the people whom your clients’ forefather compared to apes, pigs and rats, and whose case we now represent, feel not only personally insulted, but also emotionally aggrieved by these denigrations, as their own ancestors have been ridiculed, persecuted and expelled from their lands, since the Quran and Hadith imply that non-Muslims are the enemies of Allah and therefore were and are to be treated as outlaws. Due to the fact that Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi claimed, that not he, but Allah was the author of this insult and thus ascribed the saying to him, we find this not only blasphemous but also a thinly disguised attempt to decriminalize Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s own misdemeanors. This will possibly be addressed in a later court case.

The lawsuit demands an apology, and also that the offending passages of the Koran be changed or removed from all publicly available copies of the book in mosques, libraries, etc., by the end of this year.

It divides the offensive material up into seven categories:

1.		There are passages asserting that certain Jews are descendants of apes and pigs,
2.		that there is only one god and that this god is Allah,
3.		that Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi is his last prophet,
4.		that everyone who does not believe this and the day of judgment are doomed to spend eternity in hell and here on earth they shall be persecuted, tortured or murdered unless they convert to the Muslims’ god Allah and approve the Muslims’ prophet Muhammed as god’s messenger
5.		that Allah should furnish detailed revelations of certain people’s sex-life,
6.		that Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi seen in today’s light still is the best example people can have (in spite of his barbaric behavior).
7.		We also claim that the said Muhammad is responsible for a century-old persecution of women by asserting that they are worth less than men in intelligence, in matters of inheritance economy and parentage. For that we need a major alteration to be made public.

Yes, that should do for starters.

Henrik Ræder Clausen has translated the introductory portion of the “About” page on Eticha’s website:
– – – – – – – – –

A virtual think tank about multiculturalism in Denmark

Eticha provides Denmark a new virtual idea and think tank. Eticha stands for “applied ethics”, and focuses squarely on the future survival of democracy and rule of law in Denmark.

Eticha is independent of party politics and religious affiliations. Eticha is a virtual network where a variety of active individuals contribute knowledge and other resources on a case-by-case basis. We are always interested in involving new persons and new ideas.

While our politicians with their usual lack of proportion keep discussing halal food in schools, the burqa, the niqab and the hijab, the fragmentation of our societies continues apace. This is described in detail in the book Et delt folk (“A Divided Nation”, published summer 2008) by Morten Uhrskov. In spite of the general openness of Danes, the launchers of Eticha are not yet seeing the necessary debate of Denmark’s future “in the light of change”.

We believe the ‘kaleidoscopic’ composition of society — multiculturalism — makes it difficult to formulate new visions acceptable to everyone. The number of people who doubt the ability of politicians to direct developments in our common interest is constantly increasing.

We no longer believe that the current societal structure can be preserved, due to the extensive demographic shifts taking place in Denmark and in Europe. In order to uphold a workable society, we all need to follow the same rules and take part in contributing to the community.

What we need is a plan for action!

More power to Hans Erling Jensen and Eticha! The full text of his cover note and lawsuit are below.

Eticha informs lawyer Faizal Yamani of upcoming lawsuit against Muhammad’s descendants

Supported by a number of Danish and foreign associations, the virtual network Eticha is planning to sue the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s descendants, the group preparing a libel case against a number of Danish newspapers.

Background

It all began when Jyllands Posten in September 2005 published the now famous Muhammad cartoons. After half a year of boycotts, flag and embassy burnings, and various diplomatic crises between Denmark and the Muslim countries, we thought it was over. But no, nay, never! In the spring of 2008 the CIA revealed a plot to murder Kurt Westergaard — the cartoonist who had placed the bomb in Mo’s turban, and thus created the greatest symbol of “freedom of speech and expression” yet in this century.

The Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoons to show solidarity with Kurt Westergaard, which got the ball rolling. In august 2009, Faizal Yamana demanded an unconditional apology from the 15 newspapers to be published in various media across the world, in four different languages. By reprinting the drawings — and especially that of Kurt Westergaard — the newspapers had, according to Faizal Yamani, made themselves guilty of slander against the Muslim prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi.

Consequently, Hans Erling Jensen of Eticha.dk, sent his now famous letter [pdf] to the law firm, where he drew attention to Denmark’s position in history and in the world. But little did it help.

Lawyer Yamani claims to represent 94,000 people, all descendants of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, who demand an apology for the insult (they claim) their ancestor was subjected to by the Danish newspapers once again publishing the infamous cartoons.

Faizal Yamana intends to open a libel case in London against the Danish newspapers. Not that he expects to win it, he is too well educated to even dream of that. On the other hand, he has funding from a very wealthy foundation whose, objective is to protect Muhammad’s reputation at any cost. This libel case therefore constitutes nothing else than economic blackmail. One newspaper, Politiken, has already done the bean-counting, caved, and apologized.

At Eticha.dk, we presented a new plan. Due to Yamanis’ unethical initiative targeting the Danish newspapers, there was an obvious opportunity to countersue Muhammad’s descendants, to one time for all obtain an apology from people as closely related as possible to the source of the outrageous accusations, slander and the consequences of these statements that generations of innocent and defenseless people have suffered for (the Koran). In contrast to Mr. Yamani, we have a solid case, and now we even know exactly who to target with the lawsuit, that we can achieve justice.

As of today’s date [April 15th, 2010], we have sent the following letter to the law firm in Saudi Arabia:

Law Firm Of Ahmed Zaki Yamani Lawyers and Legal Consultants
35 Hassan Yamani Street, Al Hamra District
P.O Box 1351 Jeddah 21431
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

                                                                    Denmark 15th of April 2010

Dear Mr. Faisal A Z. Yamani

I am writing to you after being notified that your legal firm represents 94.000 descendants of the prophet Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi in a libel suit against several Danish newspapers. It is a relief to learn that the descendants of Muhammad have a representative, to whom we can raise our claim on behalf of people verbally vilified and physically attacked by the adherents of your religion.

This year alone, we have been contacted by a large number of individuals and organizations who are of the impression that you and your clients are not disposed to change your attitudes with regard to the scripture that Muslims allege to be Allah’s words to Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi.

You and your clients apparently continue to insist that Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi may not be portrayed or caricatured. This implies that you and your clients give your unconditional support to the text of the Quran, as it exists today, as well as to the Hadith that, combined with the Quran (and the Sirat) form the basis of Islam and Sharia.

The descendants of the people whom your clients’ forefather compared to apes, pigs and rats, and whose case we now represent, feel not only personally insulted, but also emotionally aggrieved by these denigrations, as their own ancestors have been ridiculed, persecuted and expelled from their lands, since the Quran and Hadith imply that non-Muslims are the enemies of Allah and therefore were and are to be treated as outlaws. Due to the fact that Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi claimed, that not he, but Allah was the author of this insult and thus ascribed the saying to him, we find this not only blasphemous but also a thinly disguised attempt to decriminalize Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s own misdemeanors. This will possibly be addressed in a later court case.

Descendants’ claim

With regard to the above, we request you to contact Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s descendants, to demand an unconditional rejection of and an apology for a series of statements and verses in the Quran and Hadith which the said descendants must remove. This includes articles on the world wide web and all new editions of the Quran, Hadith and Sirat.

Our demand includes a long series of texts and/or assertions which your clients’ self-appointed prophet said that he received as direct commands from Allah (via the archangel Gabriel) and which insult and intimidate non-muslims while inciting muslims either to violence or at best to the oppression of people who do not unconditionally submit to islam’s dogma

Unacceptable passages

We have made a list of passages obviously inappropriate for a religion professing to preach peace and tolerance. There are passages asserting that certain Jews are descendants of apes and pigs [1], that there is only one god and that this god is Allah [2], that Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi is his last prophet [3], that everyone who does not believe this and the day of judgment are doomed to spend eternity in hell and here on earth they shall be persecuted, tortured or murdered unless they convert to the Muslims’ god Allah and approve the Muslims’ prophet Muhammed as god’s messenger [4], that Allah should furnish detailed revelations of certain people’s sex-life [5], that Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi seen in today’s light still is the best example people can have (in spite of his barbaric behavior) [6]. We also claim that the said Muhammad is responsible for a century-old persecution of women by asserting that they are worth less than men in intelligence, in matters of inheritance economy and parentage. For that we need a major alteration to be made public [7]

Changes necessary

These changes must also be made in libraries, in all mosques and other public places in which these abominations are disseminated before December 31st 2010. Prior to this date the owners (we assume that Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s descendants possess the rights to the koran, their ancestor’s work!) must forbid publication in its present variation and likewise forbid its distribution by anybody remotely connected to Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s descendants. It must neither be financed by funds nor organisations supporting these descendants in any other issue.

We also demand that you before the termination of the year 2010 on behalf of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s descendants publish a clear and unconditional correction of and apology for the long series of gross insults, violations and persecutions of an immense number of people of other persuasions resulting from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s koran and its influence on his uncritical proselytes.

The corrections and apologies must be published globally with press-releases in English, Arabic, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. We are acquainted with the fact that your legal firm has previously produced texts for this kind of apology and have therefore no hesitation in allotting this task to you and the descendants of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, in conjunction with whom we are confident you will produce a suitable document.

Regarding the apology and the desired corrections in the Koran we imagine that the affair will have such high news value that it not will be necessary to make specific demands on which media are to be employed. We have confidence in the media’s own ability to administrate and disseminate this fitting gesture from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s descendants. If you fulfill our demands before ultimo December 2010 the involved parties I have been in contact with will relinquish all further demands on Muhammed ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Hashimi al-Qurashi’s descendants and proselytes. Here in Eticha we are at your disposal for any further information that may be necessary.

Conditions

We are convinced that fulfillment of the conditions stated above will be seen as a commendable sign of respect and understanding among first of all women, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Asa-worshippers and atheists of all kinds in the entire world, and that you thereby will contribute to resolving the serious conflict which the koran’s irreconcilable and denunciatory message has created through the centuries.

I would appreciate an answer from you at your earliest convenience — though not later than 60 days from today’s date — informing me as to whether your clients intend to fulfill the above mentioned demands or can suggest a compromise worth discussing.

If your clients — contrary to our expectations — decide not to collaborate, we reserve the right to initiate a global process of which the principal aim will be a court case against your clients for breach of compliance with international law on hate-crimes, incitement to persecution of dissidents and incitement to committing genocide.

Regards

Hans Erling Jensen,
Eticha.dk

hej@eticha.dk

Below is the video from Lt. Colonel’s appearance at the South Florida Tea Party on April 15th.

When the Baron showed it to me I’d just finished reading the April 18th post at The Belmont Club. As many readers know I am a fan of Wretchard’s writing and mention his analyses on a regular basis. This one, “The Washington Monument”, may be one of his finest efforts. Interestingly, it repeats some of the same themes Col. West used in his speech, though from another perspective.

West heartens me; Wretchard leaves me pondering what he’s said. In other words, West is a leader and Wretchard is a prophet (though he might not agree with my estimate here that is how he functions from time to time).

First the video, which was sent to us by our German translator JLH. It’s fun watching the signer for the deaf who stands next to Col. West and repeats what he says:

Now, on to Belmont Club, where Wretchard begins with an analysis of the recent meeting between the White House Press Secretary and leaders of the White House Press Association, who asked for this get-together in order to air their grievances. They’re feeling left out of the loop. Talk about high school…they’re upset at being treated the same way they treat the general public. Welcome to the club, Mr. & Ms. Media Person.

Wretchard moves on to describe how things work in Washington (in other words, why the White House Press pool feels so dissed by Obama, though he doesn’t say that directly):

Where one is on the totem is everything in Washington. The idea of hierarchy permeates every situation. Behavior is a question of knowing your place; when to say ‘thank you’ and never speaking out of turn. If you can’t understand the rules you’re a rube. Because of the default presumption that you are at Court; it follows that beneath every courteous speech ultimately you want something from the king or the duke or the duchess.

– – – – – – – – –
There’s a bit of a jump here, with a discussion of Clinton’s remarks the other day about how the current public demeanor resembled what it was in 1994, during the period of the Oklahoma bombing:

…And this is where Bill Clinton has got it subtly wrong.

The former President argued that political discourse had gotten so strident that certain individuals on the right have crossed the line between criticizing government officials and “demonizing them.” Things now remind him of the days preceding the Oklahoma City bombing when Clinton’s unpopular actions were unappreciated by an America lucky to have him.

Ah yes, back when the press drooled on another empty suit. Little did we know back then that their craven behavior was mere foreplay compared to what they were prepared to do for/to Obama. At least Clinton pretended to like “journalists”. The Dauphin doesn’t have to do anything of the sort, so he doesn’t bother. Disdain is Obama’s strong suit.

After a report of Clinton’s interview regarding us restless natives, Wretchard analyzes how Monica’s boy gets it wrong:

The point Bill Clinton is missing is that the danger doesn’t come from right wing ‘anger.’ The anger is just a byproduct. The voices he hears from the Tea Party crowds aren’t threats; they’re warnings. The real peril is coming from somewhere else: the demographic decline in industrial world working populations, the increasing cost of energy and the international movement in the factors of production. A whole generation of failed policy from both parties is coming to a head and it probably means that the welfare state, the European Union and by consequence the Chinese economy are heading for a cliff.

What’s driving the Tea Parties isn’t amorphous hate. It is concrete fear: worry that pensions have been devalued; medical care will become unaffordable; taxes are too high and jobs are gone, never to return. And a look around the world shows there’s no place to hide. When the wave hits it will be global. [my emphasis —D]

In the many back-channel emails we get from readers, those are precisely the worries we hear, and the worries we have ourselves. Our pensions have lost much of their value. It is unlikely the Baron will find work in his field again. Computer programming is a young man’s bailiwick, unless you’re in a government job you’ve had forever.

The financial news talks about the government takeover of private pension monies in order to finance their grand giveaways. So now the question becomes not just “will Social Security be there” but also, “will your company pension be there” or will it have been cynically raided as the Social Security funds have been for generations?

Medical care “reform” is going to be an expensive, fraud-ridden and incompetent failure. Think of Social Security on steroids and heroin. In the form in which it passed, our national healthcare is a disaster waiting to descend. Socialized medical care may have worked in countries where socialism is regnant, but those economies are failing too, and they’re going to take their citizens’ medical care with them. But America, despite the overreach of government and the unions, is not and never has been a polity where socialism could function very well. Despite the valiant efforts of the Obamians and the Keynesians to groom us into becoming obedient recipients of government largesse, Americans are simply too ornery for such plans to work in the long run.

Even now, as evidence of the ‘grey’ market, of services paid for under the table (and thus out of the reaches of the tax man) continues to grow, I wonder how they handle that in Europe. Do government laborers work “side jobs” on their off-time to earn extra money? Is it a huge market and growing bigger as it is here? Or is the surveillance too rigorous for that to happen?

Wretchard comments on the current situation of world governments:

In the UK membership in political parties is at near historic lows. In America Congress’s popularity is lower than whales**t. The Eurozone is cracking up under its weight of debt. First Greece, now Portugal are being ripped off the cliff face like a zipper – and all the climbers are roped together. Japan is like a kamikaze sub heading for the depths and tapping out a sayonara. Russia was history long ago. And China, when it has used up its flowering moment, will face the consequences of its one-child policy. And Middle Eastern potentates, stuck in the same old, same old, are warning about a Summer War [the link to that War at his post is worth following].

Thus, as W. says, “the Tea Parties aren’t about putting some country club Republican in the White House…” And they never have been. The Tea Parties are a phenomenon of the rising of a movement toward individual state control, sometimes to the exclusion of the federal behemoth. Washington has every reason to be afraid of that desire that West expresses to shrink the bureaucracy.

Then Wretchard circles ‘round to the beginning of his essay with this passage, worth reading and re-reading:

The cheese-paring scene at the White House Press Corps is just as indicative of the coming storm as the Tea Parties. It is yet one more sign that the old institutions are making plans for a future that isn’t there; moving trillions of dollars in projected revenues around a five year plan like Hitler’s fictive armies were moved around a map in 1945. When you hear Gordon Brown describe the billions he’s going to spend to save the world and heal the planet; when you read news about the proposed legislation on “cap and trade”- the issue isn’t the “right wing hate” but where’s the money going to come from? The most telling fact about Bill Clinton’s speech is that 2010 reminds him of 1994. If he – or the political establishment – can’t tell the difference between the decades, that’s your problem right there.

Amen.

Bill Clinton, and the Democrats in general, are stuck in 2008, when they thought they had it nailed. Unfortunately, circumstances beyond anyone’s control have handed them a large mess. Their response, a kind of manic, drunken spree, has the electorate afraid of them. Our response has been to begin to work to get rid of those currently in power. They have become part of the problem in our very troubled future. Their solutions are bizarre, scandalous, and deeply cynical. In that sense, this is indeed a transparent administration.

I only hope the few decent folks in our current national legislature are not washed away in this tsunami of fear. I pray that citizens will look carefully at who it is that represents them in Washington and choose to retain those who are attempting to hold back the deluge of bad legislation in this shameful 111th session of the American Congress.

As Col. West said in several different ways during that speech, the most important thing facing federal, state, and local governments is re-establishing fiscal security. In order to do that, a lot of bulls are going to be gored. The next five years will not be pretty, not anywhere.

God help us all.

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at the Brussels Journal. Some excerpts are below:

Although the Incas in South America are sometimes described as a “civilization without writing,” most historians are reluctant to use that term for non-literate cultures. If we limit ourselves to urban, literate cultures then the first true European civilization we possess evidence of appeared on the island of Crete in the eastern Mediterranean more than four thousand years ago. The erection of the first palace-centers and the appearance of large towns took place there around 2200-2000 BC. The peak of their civilization came between 2000-1600 BC. The inhabitants created a sophisticated, thriving society with royal courts, large-scale architecture, cities and towns, and above all magnificent works of art. Their earliest writing system, pictographic or hieroglyphic, appeared before 2000 BC. By the 1700s they had adopted another kind of script, Linear A, which so far remains undeciphered. A third script called Linear B was adopted from the 1400s BC by the invading Mycenaean Greeks.

No extensive literature or descriptive writings have survived from this Cretan culture, and there are those who believe it never existed. Since their language is undeciphered it is theoretically possible that there is a Minoan Aristotle or Archimedes hidden away in their records, but from what we do know about them there is little to indicate this. The Minoans were apparently not brilliant mathematicians or natural philosophers like the Greeks were centuries later, but they were great artists who impressed some of their contemporaries.

Western culture is the only culture in the history of mankind to develop realistic, faithful depictions of beings and matter in our paintings and sculptures, rather than merely stylized depictions, creating ways to depict three-dimensional subjects in a two-dimensional format. A similar perspective was lacking in all other types of early art, be that Chinese or Japanese, Indian, Mesoamerican, African or Middle Eastern. Could this conceivably be because the Western man has perceived space and spatial relationships in a different way than others?

Some of the oldest, if not the oldest, works of art clearly identifiable as human and animal figures were created in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic, from ca. 40,000-10,000 BC. They include the Venus of Hohle Fels from Baden-Württemberg in Germany, which is almost 40,000 years old, cave paintings in Altamira in Spain or in Vila Nova de Foz Côa in Portugal, located in the famous Alto Douro wine region, not to mention Chauvet and Lascaux in France. The painted walls of Lascaux are among the most impressive artistic creations of the Paleolithic era. A few of these drawings show traces of techniques similar to perspective.

– – – – – – – – –

A case can be made for the claim that the creation of unusually lifelike art for its time has been the hallmark of European civilization since its inception more than 4,000 years ago. This does not mean that artistic realism has been equally prominent in all places or at all times; it was not important following the collapse of Minoan civilization, just like it was not important during the Early Middle Ages after the collapse of Greco-Roman civilization. However, in all periods of great cultural dynamism, from Minoan civilization at its peak via Classical Greece to Renaissance Italy as well as Germany, France, Spain and the Low Countries, artistic realism has been a distinguishing trait of European culture. This constitutes perhaps the single most important thread of continuity in European culture, arguably stretching as far back as the Paleolithic era. This begs the following question: Does this have a genetic basis? Did European man view the world differently from his neighbors, perhaps even quite literally?

Several potentially serious objections can be raised to this hypothesis. The first one is that it is not at all certain that the genetic profile of the Minoans on Crete four millennia ago was comparable to that of Italian Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo, Masaccio or Raphael, not to mention painters north of the Alps like Rembrandt, Jan van Eyck, Vermeer or Albrecht Dürer. Europe is a big place after all. For that matter, it is not at all certain that the people who inhabit Crete today are quite like the Minoans. Four thousand years is a long time. This objection becomes even more serious if we consider Paleolithic art. Just to name one example, geneticists believe that not a single human being on Earth had either blond hair or blue eyes when the Lascaux cave paintings were created. Obviously, these are just among the most visible mutations, but it is likely that there were other evolutionary traits which affected mentality, too, especially since the rise of agriculture and associated diets happened after this.

These are weighty arguments that cannot be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, the incredibly rich history of Western art suggests that the hypothesis deserves serious consideration.

Read the rest at the Brussels Journal.

The transport ministers of the European Union met today and agreed with the recommendations of the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. They have decided to open up some flight routes in Europe, so that only the regions most severely affected by volcanic ash will remain closed to air travel.

In other news, a Swiss newspaper has been sued for denying that there was a genocide in Srebrenica during the war in Bosnia.

Thanks to Amil Imani, C. Cantoni, CSP, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, KGS, Zenster, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

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

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!]

Henrik Ræder Clausen and our Austrian correspondent AMT have collaborated with our German translator JLH to examine the recent deleterious effects of Austrian “anti-discrimination” laws, and in particularly the harm done to nightclub owners who wish to keep out potentially unruly customers.

Discrimination Is Not Evil

by Henrik Ræder Clausen and AMT
with additional translation by JLH

A couple of interesting, seemingly connected stories have come out of Austria. Both have to do with discrimination, yet the outcomes are very different. “Discrimination” is all the rage these days. Being able to discriminate used to be considered a positive, personal quality. Times have changed, and now “discrimination” is considered a serious crime.

The first story concerns a young English teacher, Mr. Maier. Working at an English language institute, he has been helping students prepare for their IELTS exam, an exam non-native speakers of English must take if they want to study at English or American universities. Mr. Maier’s success rate is a high one, and many of his former students have informed him about their scores, which are usually those the students were aiming for.

A quality indeed, and worth paying for.

Recently, Mr. Maier was asked once again whether he would available to coach two girls wanting to take the IELTS, and together with the office manager dates were set up. When he inquired whether the course would take place he was told that the prospective students had asked whether the teacher was a “native” speaker. The office manager answered in the negative even though this is not true, as Mr. Maier is completely bilingual and has been booked as “native speaker” many times before. In addition, the students demanded that the teacher possess US citizenship since that would virtually guarantee them high scores on the test. Explanations that Mr. Maier boasts more than seven years’ experience in test preparation were deemed completely irrelevant by the students.

In a perfect world, this situation would be nothing to report. Mr. Maier could, and would, accept that the customer is a) always right, and b) has the right to choose his or her teacher.

In the warped world of today, this is clear discrimination. Mr. Maier was discriminated against because of his citizenship, or lack thereof. He failed to get the job not because of his abilities, but because he did not have the right passport.

Also in a sane world, where citizens are free to do as they see fit, this constitutes discrimination. So what?

In the warped world of today, as in a perfect world, Mr. Maier would not dream of suing for compensation. He is of the opinion that discrimination is a fact of life, a part of everyday dealings, and as such in most cases not negative.

The virtue of discrimination

In everyday life, people discriminate. They pick apple pie over peach pie, for no other reason than liking apple pie better. That doesn’t offend the peach pie, nor should it. Customers are free to choose where to put their money, and can choose one store for the simple reason of liking it better than the other — or, as above, to dismiss qualified suppliers on any irrational grounds. That constitutes ‘discrimination’, yet is perfectly legal.

Discrimination means differentiating between what is desirable and what is not. It is a subjective evaluation of things, events and persons, and by human nature we do tend to distinguish between good and bad, useful and useless, desirable and unattractive. Laws against ‘discrimination’ as such — that is, laws that are overly broad — deny us the right to differentiate in certain fields of life, and conversely assign others rights to not be discriminated against.

This is, as a principle of law, rather abstract, and a significant departure from how we live our lives. In daily life we discriminate who to visit, who to date, who to start projects with etc. We do so based on personal evaluations and prejudices (well- or ill-founded), but generally we do have the right to evaluate things personally and act upon our judgment. ‘Discrimination’ simply isn’t a crime in the same sense that ‘theft’ or ‘rape’ is.

Then, why do we have laws against ‘discrimination’?

There has been a general condemnation of being ‘prejudiced’, that is, having preconceived ideas. The notion behind this is that prejudice results in widespread damaging behavior, is the root cause of problematic attitudes such as anti-Semitism, and that by eradicating prejudice one can prevent future crimes originating from unjustified prejudice.

But prejudice makes sense. If you’re in a jungle and see that on one side of a tree there is a striped head, on the other side a striped tail, the prejudiced person will conclude “Tiger!” and get out of there fast. The person prejudiced against prejudice would have a similar reaction, but would force himself to say: “Really, I can’t permit myself to be prejudiced against tigers, and the tiger may even feel offended if I do something to indicate that I don’t like it. Thus better to walk on and pretend nothing is amiss.” Here, as in other cases, natural selection clearly favors prejudice.

Fort Hood, political correctness, and the fear of facing actual problems

The problem is that if we don’t have the guts to differentiate between ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, and to act accordingly, we get eaten. Or shot, as was the case at Fort Hood, where Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan should have been suspended from service long before he managed to shoot 41 people, killing 31 of them. Fear of ‘discriminating’ constrained the hand of the intelligence services, with fatal results.

As Brigitte Gabriel of Act for America puts it:
– – – – – – – – –

“Political correctness. It’s no longer annoying and frustrating. It’s no longer a restraint on common sense and speech. It’s dangerous and deadly,” Gabriel said.

[…]

“Why is political correctness so powerful that there are some in the military that would risk the lives of their soldiers [rather than] be accused of discrimination?” she said.

“Those same leaders who would bravely lead troops into battle are cowering in fear of political correctness,” she said.

‘Political correctness’, ‘religious sensitivity’, ‘anti-discrimination’ — the problem has many names. Yet, they have a common core — a denial of our right to act in accordance with our values. International organizations and human rights committees deal with problems on levels of abstraction bordering on the absurd — thus the generic condemnation of ‘discrimination’ — and this leads to regulation on the rights of discotheque owners to refuse guests, while neglecting real world problems of severe persecution. This nitpicking on benign details while ignoring glaring problems is ridiculous.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The other incident concerns a young Austrian of Egyptian background who wanted to enjoy a night out in the Austrian city of St. Pölten. He and his friends tried to gain entrance to a discotheque, where the security guard at the door checked identification of those wanting to enter the premises. This is standard in Austria and has been for as long as one can remember. According to several newspaper reports, the security guard denied the man entry, saying “Today we only allow regular patrons.” When the young man asked whether this denial was as a result of nationality [?? He was Austrian, so what was the problem? He has Austrian citizenship, but apparently still feels Egyptian], the security guard referred to his boss and his rules. A week later, the young man tried again, with the same result: “Not today!”

The rejected man contacted ZARA, the most important anti-racism group in Austria, which also reports to the EU and the Fundamental Rights Agency, and charges of discrimination were filed immediately. According to the verdict:

In both cases the plaintiff was refused admission to the discotheque exclusively on grounds of his ethnicity which was determined by his ‘foreign appearance’ and by the name on his driver’s license. In accordance with paragraph 1, section 1Z4 of the GIBG, no one may be directly or indirectly discriminated against in admission to or acquisition of goods and services which are available to the public. If a person receives, has received, or would receive less favorable treatment than another person in a comparable situation on grounds of ethnicity, that is direct discrimination. In the eyes of the law, the plaintiff proved discrimination. Testimony of foreign witnesses on behalf of the discotheque changed nothing. The discotheque was legally required to pay punitive damages in the amount of 1440 euros.

Business owners, on the other hand, do not have an immediate right to refuse doing business with individuals they do not like. Anti-discrimination laws with strong punishments make business owners give up, and assigns immigrants special rights to act with impunity in detrimental ways.

According to Kurier (March 17, 2010, page 18), the owner of the discotheque said he would pay, but only due to economic reasons. “It is a waste of money to take the case to the supreme court.” The verdict surprised him because it was the young Egyptian-Austrian who caused the problems in his discotheque. “We have many guests from many different countries whom we hold very dear and who ‘play’ according to the rules and laws.” However, there are some guests with a migration background “who do not accept our cultural norms.”

This is the crux of the matter. The business owner is trying to uphold what is considered decent behavior in his place, according to what is ultimately his personal judgment. That will naturally exclude persons who have, ahem, different behaviors, for example towards women. While no specifics are given, there appears to be a history of problems with this particular person.

This verdict brushes this off, and trumps the indicated problems, as well as several witnesses who spoke for the discotheque owner. The indication of a history of trouble-making, backed by witnesses, should cast into reasonable doubt that the exclusion was based on ethnicity, yet did not. The usual legal practice of not passing a guilty verdict as long as reasonable doubt exists appears to have been ignored. The fear of ‘discrimination’ apparently trumps classical principles of Rule of Law.

Further, this verdict is an example of what we term ‘draconian’ punishment. The actual damage done is immaterial, it is not like there is a damaged car to repair or a broken window to replace. A feeling of ‘unjust discrimination’ is hard to quantify in monetary terms, for no free market exists where this feeling is traded at observable prices. Thus, instead of defining a fine with direct proportion to actual damage, it is set to a level that should be sufficient to force a change in behavior for the defendant, as well as other citizens made aware of the verdict. This kind of micromanagement of citizens who have not committed any crime is not fitting for a free society.

Verdict: Discotheque Found Guilty of Refusing Admittance

It is the first verdict in Austria that clearly categorizes refusal of admission because of “foreign appearance as direct discrimination on the grounds of ethnic identity”.

The verdict appears to be groundbreaking to the political and leftist elite and has thus been published online:

Facts:

In the first instance, the plaintiff wished to visit a discotheque in St. Pölten, together with a friend. Everyone in front of them was admitted. Even the friend was allowed to enter. After looking at the plaintiff’s driver’s license, the security firm charged with monitoring admission refused the complainant admission on the grounds that only “regular customers” would be allowed in. Since it was clear to the plaintiff that refusal of admission was on the basis of his of his nationality, he inquired of the door-man. This person did not answer the question and made clear that he could do nothing more and referred cryptically to the boss’s instructions. During this time, the other door-man let the rest of the people in.

A week later, the plaintiff tried again with a different friend to visit the discotheque. Again he had to show ID. The doorman looked at the driver’s license and said: “Not today.” Once again, the friend was allowed in with no problem.

The doorman is hired to do things like this, valued for his skill in discriminating who make good customers and who do not. Note that no explicit reason for the rejection is given. Unless we’re missing something, the ethnic justification for the rejection is an assumption, not a documented fact.

Now, doormen represent the business owner and are hired for business purposes. Hiring a doorman costs money, and having him turn away prospective customers is an immediate expense as well. Business owners have as their primary concern to turn a profit, and would not decline business unless there is a reason for it — such as individuals disturbing an otherwise pleasant evening for his other customers.

The article continues:

Complaint

The plaintiff turned to ZARA — Civil Courage and Work Against Racism. ZARA activated its complaints department and, represented by them, the young man sued the company responsible for immaterial compensation for discrimination on the grounds of ethnic identity in two cases under the Equal Treatment Law (GIBG) and he won.

Verdict

The verdict is clear. In the findings it says: “In both cases the plaintiff was refused admission to the discotheque exclusively on grounds of his ethnicity which was determined by his ‘foreign appearance’ and by the name in his driver’s license.” In accordance with paragraph 1, section 1Z4 of the GIBG, no one may be directly or indirectly discriminated against in admission to or acquisition of goods and services which are available to the public.

This is a matter of principle. In a purely free society, any business owner — any individual, in fact — would be free to decide who he’d do business with and who he’d reject, without providing any justification for his choices. Now, this is obviously a hypothetical situation. Regulations exist, and anyone wanting to do business will have to abide to those restrictions, or not run a business at all.

There’s an asymmetry here, though. Customers are still free to choose their shops based on any criteria they desire, while business owners do not have that right. This actually constitutes a limitation to the property rights of the business owner. He owns his business, and as such has a fundamental right to do with his business as his pleases, including turning away potential customers.

The principle of ownership implies that the owner has the right to deny others the use of his property at his own discretion. Anti-discrimination laws violate this fundamental principle.

This verdict makes that right secondary to the right of the potential customer not to feel discriminated against, and assigns the person a positive right, enforced by the legal system, to be admitted to the discotheque.

If a person receives, has received, or would receive less favorable treatment than another person in a comparable situation on grounds of ethnicity, that is direct discrimination. In the eyes of the law, the plaintiff proved discrimination. Testimony of foreign witnesses on behalf of the discotheque altered nothing. The discotheque was legally required to pay punitive damages in the amount of €1440 Euros.

This is a rather remarkable fine, right up there in the league with drunk driving, violence, and compensation for unjustified imprisonment. One may wonder: “Why so big a fine?”

The objective of such hefty damages is obviously to dissuade the business owner from repeating the offense, and to present a clear example to other business owners that acting in a similar way will be expensive and detrimental to their profits, in order that they will not act in a similar way. By imposing fines of this size, all business owners will be made to fear similar lawsuits, and thus refrain from refusing admission of similar persons. This is in line with the EU Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, which states:

The purpose of this framework decision is to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in the European Union (EU).

Now, racism in its extreme forms has led to unspeakable crimes, which every decent human being will not wish to see repeated. But will forcing discotheque owners to admit otherwise unwanted persons serve that end, or will it eventually make matters worse?

According to Kurier (March 17, 2010, page 18): “The verdict surprised him, because it was the young Egyptian-Austrian who caused the problems in his discotheque.”

This is important, for a primary function of the doorman is to keep out troublemakers, and apparently there is a previous history of problems here. Now this function has been deemed of secondary importance to ‘non-discrimination’. This verdict will make it harder for discotheque owners to evict troublemakers of non-Austrian ethnic origin. To put it another way: There will be much more scope for non-Austrians to behave in unruly ways, and this is bound to have a negative impact on the perception of immigrants.

The article continues:

Commentary

In the course of this trial, a much-discussed question about passive legitimization in connection with refusal of admission (the question of who is the correct defendant) was finally judicially resolved.

The issue of who bears the responsibility in cases like this is of lesser interest. Common sense dictates that the security company does represent the business in a case like this.

From the filing of the suit to the verdict, the trial lasted just one year. In the trial, the defendant objected that it had tasked an external security firm and therefore passive legitimization was lacking. The court explained:

“The case before the court is to be judged from the point of view of a hospitality contract and the pre-contractual duties of protection which result from that. A pre-contractual obligation of protection on the part of the defendant is that the defendant shall not be discriminated against on grounds of ethnicity in connection with this hospitality contract. When the defendant employed a security firm, it guaranteed against violation by the doormen of GIBG paragraph 1313a of the General Civil Code of Law (ABGB), because the actions of the doormen were within the job description indicated by the plaintiff and were foreseeable in it.

From start to finish, the trial lasted just under a year.

The above story appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Another followed immediately:

Damages: Disco Before the Kadi (judge)

A Turk and his Austrian wife were denied entrance to a Graz disco — they are now suing for damages. Owners of the Disco were not prepared to comment.

A verdict in St. Pölten is causing commotion in the disco scene: for the first time, a disco owner had to pay damages because a young man from St. Pölten was not allowed into the club because of his ethnic origin. The verdict was 1440 euros.

In Graz a similar case is pending. Family B. wanted to spend a relaxing evening in the disco Fledermaus, but it came to nothing. The doorman (bouncer) refused them entrance. “After that had happened to us often, this time we really got mad,” says Mrs. B. They turned to Helping Hands and the equal rights commission in Vienna.

It was November, 2008. The married couple wanted to enter the disco close to midnight, but two bouncers demanded the man’s ID — no passport, no entry. The couple went home and returned twenty minutes later with the Turkish husband’s pass. However, that was still not enough for the bouncers. “We select our guests,” they are reported to have said.

This constitutes a rerun of the scenario above, with a clear assertion from the business owner that he has a right to choose who to do business with. This right is now being disputed in court, and since laws against ‘discrimination’ are in force, there is a significant chance that the disco owner will lose the case.

This, however, is a stiff and bureaucratic way to go about things. If ‘discrimination’ is really such a big problem, there would be a business opportunity for others to run discotheques where discrimination is guaranteed not to take place, while others can be run with full rights of the owners to refuse any individual for no specific reason.

The common sense of common people

One of the main reasons that discotheque owners and others choose to refuse certain guests is that they don’t “play by the rules” — that is, they don’t act reasonably in line with the behavior he and most guess expect, leading to difficult situations, conflicts and possibly even to violence in places which should be secure for everyone.

The question is: Who gets to set the rules?

The answer used to be: The landlord.

In days past, the word of the patron was final. Now, in these times of cultural relativism and ‘cultural enrichment’, this right is no longer a given. Customers who feel unfairly treated increasingly take recourse to the law, using anti-discrimination laws to undermine the right of the business owners to enforce rules of conduct.

This is bad, for common people have common sense of rules of conduct that cannot be codified into law. Coherence in our societies is based on common, sensible rules that are largely respected. When the law is used to suppress the private exercise of rules of conduct, an important source of civilized behavior, the common citizen, is cut off. Though it happens in the name of ‘non-discrimination’, the long-term disruptive effects on our societies is likely to be detrimental.

The article continues:

Discrimination

The equal rights commission clearly decided that the Turk as well as his wife were discriminated against. With this verdict in hand, Family B. ultimately went to civil court and sued for damages. The trial is ongoing.

Daniela Grabovac of Helping Hands knows that this was not an isolated incident for Family B. “On the contrary, it is the same as always in the ordinary course of things: immigrants are not allowed into discos. Except the excuses have improved in the meantime, and proof becomes more and more difficult.” In 2009 alone, she has had ca. 50 complaints, “but many do not come to us.”

No one was prepared to comment on behalf of the disco Fledermaus.

We can expect similar (successful) lawsuits to follow in the near future, though not for Mr. Maier.

While anti-discrimination laws are originally well intentioned, with the European history of anti-Semitism in the background, the examples above show they have now come to a point where they are repressive, not protective of the freedom of European citizens. Likes and dislikes, attraction and revulsion are natural features of human life, and cannot be legislated away. The immediate risk from the frivolous application of anti-discrimination law is that certain ethnic groups are effectively granted impunity to behave in ways normally considered socially unacceptable.

We can expect an increase in cases like this, where anti-discrimination and anti-racism groups misuse the power granted them by overly broad laws to coerce businessmen and others out of reacting sensibly to bad behavior. A ‘license to misbehave’, granted to Arabs and other ethnic groups, can only cause an increase in actual racism, a problem that no amount of state coercion can cure. If this path is followed, unruly vigilante groups may form in response. This is not a good way.

What we really need is the opposite: Repeal the broad anti-discrimination laws and focus on laws that deal with actual physical crimes: Threats, violence, damaging property and the like. Removing the legal stigmatization of ‘racist’ will permit the common sense of common people to sort out the small conflicts in daily life. While such a reform would disempower ‘anti-discrimination’ groups and constitute a snub to the European Union, it would — much more significantly — restore power to where it belongs in a democracy: the citizens at large.

As most of you know, over the last year or so Vlad Tepes has become the mainstay of our video operation. Vlad does most of the capturing, editing, titling, and uploading of video used here. His contribution has been invaluable.

Recent circumstances indicate that Youtube is moving towards deleting Vlad’s channel, possibly because of accusations that he promotes “hate speech”. The situation is so ominous that Vlad has posted a “mirror me” appeal to fellow Youtubers, urging them to capture and upload his important videos to their own channels:

So what made Youtube decide to come down hard on Vlad Tepes at this particular moment?
– – – – – – – – –
One possibility is the abridged version of Col. Allen West’s speech at FDI in February. That clip has recently gone viral, and is being viewed roughly 30,000 times every day.

Col. West is a threat to the powers that be, especially CAIR and its Islam-appeasing fellow travelers. He speaks the hard truth about Islam, and is immune to having the “racist” card played against him. Stopping a popular video that exposes the danger of Islam is undoubtedly a top priority for the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA.

The usual strategy is for Muslims to pass the word among themselves on forums and other websites, advising readers to complain to Youtube that certain videos are “racist” or exhibit “hate speech”. Youtube then removes those videos, and sometimes shuts down the channel.

Is that what’s happening to Vlad? It’s too early to tell.

But mirroring important videos from his channel is a good idea in any case. We can’t have too many copies of them. The more there are of us, the harder we are to silence.

Adam Savit at Big Government has turned over a rock and uncovered some unsavory details about a recent influence operation mounted by CAIR:

On April 5 the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release urging GOP leaders to “insist” that Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) withdraw support from the non-profit grassroots advocacy organization ACT! for America. CAIR referred to ACT! for America, one of the largest national security (and pro-American and pro-Israel) citizens organizations in the United States, as an “anti-Islam hate group.”

As we at the Center for Security Policy have reported previously at Big Government, we believe — with the backup evidence to prove it at CAIRObservatory.org — that CAIR has been operating as an unregistered foreign agent, as defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). FARA § 611 (o) states that foreign agents who engage in any activity to “influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States” must register as a foreign agent and report such activity to the Department of Justice. Therefore as Rep. Myrick and GOP leaders are “officials of the government of the United States,” CAIR’s attempt to influence their conduct and associations in this way is a clear violation of the FARA statute.

On April 13 CAIR-Tampa echoed the CAIR national office message with this action alert and directed readers to a petition calling for 5,000 signatures condemning the GOP and Myrick for associating with ACT! for America. CAIR could only find a single spokesperson to prop up their attack on ACT! For America, a certain Reverend Wilifred Allen-Faiella of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Coconut Grove, FL. The CAIR action alert quotes from her letter which echoes, word for word, CAIR’s talking points from their smear campaign:

“As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who preached love for all I am appalled that a Congresswoman can support a hate-filled group such as “Act for America”. Their statements about Muslims constitute hate speech and no responsible leader of this country founded on the principles that all are created equal should associate herself with such an anti-American group.”

Big mistake in spokespersons, CAIR.

So what is the problem with the Rev. Wilifred Allen-Faiella?
– – – – – – – – –
Nothing, really — she just happened to let a convicted pedophile volunteer at the thrift shop next to her church’s elementary school. No big deal. This is, after all the Episcopal Church we’re talking about, whose most recently formulated moral and theological positions are not that far removed from the mission statement of NAMBLA.

Funnily enough, however, the parents of the children at St. Stephen’s school did not agree with Fr. Allen-Faiella:

According to the Miami New Times, “When parents discovered the man’s criminal record, Allen-Faiella failed to take immediate action, so the school’s principal, Carol Shabe, forcefully confronted the pastor, demanding that the man’s school access be revoked at once….” According to the report, the school principal had to ask Allen-Faiella two more times to take Sypnieski’s keys away from him before Allen-Faiella would take action. Parents and donors withdrew support for the school in reaction to the pastor’s behavior; and Pastor Allen-Faiella fired the school principal Carol Shabe later that year for “divisiveness.”

Angry parents described Allen-Faiella as “intransigent and unresponsive.” Indeed, the pastor told the Miami newspaper “I think it’s being blown totally out of proportion… The appropriate people knew about it. No big deal was made about it. And suddenly it became a big issue.”

In summary:

• CAIR is an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (see the report at CAIRObservatory.org).
• This particular CAIR influence operation targeted Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) through a related influence operation in order to smear ACT! For America as “hate-filled…anti-American.”
• The sole spokesperson that CAIR-Tampa could find to support their smear campaign is best known for her earlier tolerance for a convicted pedophile, for whom she permitted potential access to children in her care, according to news reports in the mainstream newspaper Miami New Times.

CSP has sent the Rev. Wilifred Allen-Faiella a letter outlining the danger she has placed herself in as a representative of an unregistered foreign agent, and urged her to contact the relevant authorities to report the details of CAIR’s influence.

Next step: Follow the money.

And who are the foreign principals — individuals, companies, organizations, government offices — bankrolling CAIR’s smear campaign using that most tolerant (of pedophiles at least) Reverend Allen-Faiella? A major one is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who gave CAIR $325,000 in 2007 — just part of the $6.6 million in cash and loans given to CAIR by foreign principals based in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iran. The OIC’s Ten Year Plan demands “deterrent punishments” for any alleged acts of so-called “Islamophobia” in non-Muslim countries.

Sound familiar? You’ve met the same unsavory characters here before, most recently last night, as they worked to get “Islamophobic” ads pulled from the sides of Miami’s municipal buses, and in the process smeared Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

The OIC is keeping very, very busy. It has to; there are only five years remaining to complete its Ten-Year Program.

So little time, so much Islamophobia.

A man in Chicago named James Larry killed six members of his family in his home, and critically injured two others. Among the dead were his wife and two unborn children.

Mr. Larry had spent a stretch in prison, and while he was there — you guessed it! — he converted to Islam. When he got out, he was unhappy that his wife and other family members refused to wear the hijab and otherwise conform to the tenets of his new-found faith. So he decided to follow the commands of the Prophet, and attempted to killed them all. Mr. Larry is now in police custody.

In other news, a demographic consulting company in Australia predicts that within fifteen years, “persons of Australian background” will have become a minority in their own country. This is perfectly fine with the company and with the government agencies that hire it, but ordinary Australians overwhelmingly oppose what is being done to them.

Sound familiar? To make the issue even more ominous, the demographic consulting company is called “Macroplan Australia”.

Fjordman: Phone home!

Thanks to Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, DC, Fjordman, mriggs, Sean O’Brian, Steen, TB, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

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

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!]