30 November 2010

It Just Isn’t Christmas without a Muslim Bombing

I always enjoy Daniel Greenfield's articles. Most times I don't post them as they're very lengthy. This article is too good not to post - full-length. The West ignores what's before its eyes - the blame is always a social ill, followed with lots of money being thrown at the "problem". When will be realise that we can not live with Muslims as they don't want us to live. They want to invade, conquer and impose. When will we wake up?


Mistletoe. Egg nog. And now Muslim terrorism. Last year’s Christmas bomber was an African Muslim who stuffed his underwear full of plastic explosive and tried to detonate it on Flight 253.

This year it’s another African Muslim who tried to get an early start on Christmas terror by trying to car bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony.

Last year’s Christmas terrorist hailed from Nigeria. This year’s mad Muslim bomber comes from Somalia. And they bring with them tidings of a new season. A season in which holiday shopping now comes with massacre plots mixed in with the radio jingles and cheer.

If gift wrapping and church going are Christmas traditions, carrying out massacres during other people’s holiday celebrations is a Muslim tradition. In Israel, holidays are a time for extra special caution. The Passover massacre in which dozens of senior citizens attending a holiday meal were murdered, the Yom Kippur War in which Muslim armies invaded Israel on the holiest day of its year or the Purim bombing outside a Tel Aviv mall using a nail bomb, are just some of the obvious examples of Muslim religious tolerance at work.

It’s not limited to Jews or Christians either. In 2008, a number of bombs went off in Delhi just before Diwali. And back in 1991, Muslims planned to massacre thousands of Hindus during Diwali. Had they succeeded, the death toll might have been bigger than 9/11. Nearly two decades ago, North America was put on alert that importing Muslim immigrants, also meant bringing along their genocidal tendencies. Like renting rooms to tenants whose dogs have a little rabies problem, importing Islam, also means bringing in the same people who have been murdering Christians, Jews, Hindus and countless others around the world, ever since Mohamed’s namesake first preached that he had a unique revelation and an exclusive license to kill, rob, rape and subjugate in the name of Allah.

While the news stories will insist that Mohamed Osman Mohamud (twice the Mohammed for twice the mayhem) was “lured” into a life of terror, he was just doing what Muslims since the time of Mohammed have naturally done. “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”, the Koran proclaims to the devout Muslim. For Mohamedx2, the “unbelievers” were grouping together at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland. And his goal was simple enough, “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave dead or injured.”

For Muslims this is a religious war

While we may go on denying it, for Muslims this is a religious war. And what better target for terror, than an infidel’s religious event?

The clergy at interfaith conferences may yammer on about how we’re all the children of god, but Muslims know better. They are the slaves of Allah and we are heretics and idol worshipers. It’s their duty to fight us, until we submit and accept Muslim rule. The more we resist, the more they’re obligated to kill us until we give in and there’s a mosque on every corner and the Koran replaces the Constitution. It’s a religious duty for a Muslim to make the Way of Allah triumphant all across the globe. To Muslims, this is a sacred duty and a way of life, that is not a detail, but the heart of the Koran.

Unlike Christians and Jews, the Islamic holy texts are not a complicated structure that takes place across a swath of history—but an enormously simple one dominated by a relatively brief period and a single categorical imperative, to expand, dominate and rule. For the Muslim, life is complicated, but Islam is simple. And even the most secular and westernized Muslim will sooner or later feel an imperative to escape from the complications of modern life, into the pure simplicity of Islam. The media charges that such escapees misunderstand Islam, but in actuality they understand it quite well. It is a reversion to the barbaric, an Islamic narrative that sweeps aside the complexities of civilization and personal choice for something more elemental.

Goggling when university grads, doctors and other high end professionals suddenly embrace their “Inner Mohammed” and go on killing sprees is foolish. Modernity for the Muslim is a sham inflicted by colonialism and globalism on his own country and multiculturalism when he’s abroad in the West. It is not the natural product of his own advancements, and no matter how often he’s told that his people invented everything from telescopes to planes, it’s always a poor fit.

Civilization is not something the Muslim invented, but something that was forced on him in defiance of his law, his culture and his traditions. And if he does everything in his power to bring it down in ashes, to burn, loot and rape his way across the continent, and every continent that was foolish enough to allow him entry in the hopes that he would be a good citizen and a worthwhile member of society, then its governments have more of the blame than he does.

The United States has taken in large numbers of Somalis. A poor idea even if they had not been coming over from a disaster area of a country, whose own version of the Taliban, the Islamic Courts Union made even the Afghan version look mild by comparison. A country where the motto is “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God”, where the law is Sharia law and the beheadings and floggings come fast and furious. Our newfound Somali citizens have since then done their parts to make America a more dangerous and more Muslim place.

In Minneapolis, Somali Muslim cabdrivers tried to deny service to infidels carrying duty free liquor. They’ve intimidated and shaken down companies who are afraid of being condemned as Anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. This August a baker’s dozen of Somali immigrants were arrested for funneling money, weapons and fighters back home. Last year it was another eight. And the hits keep on coming out of Minnesota’s “Little Mogadishu”.

But Oregon has its own “Little Mogadishu”. Before the influx of Somali Muslims, the American experience with Mogadishu was limited to the Battle of Mogadishu in which American military personnel were brutally murdered in the streets of that godforsaken urban slum masquerading as a city. Today there are Little Mogadishus everywhere. Sweden’s Little Mogadishu suffers from riots and arson. And the usual terrorist recruitment. And their American Swedish cousins over in Minnesota are burdened with their own Little Mogadishu. Oregon’s “Little Mogadishu” in Cedar Riverside has come of age, producing not just social problems, but a plot of Muslim mass murder.

Not that this is a bad thing of course. For a while it was a running joke, that the best way to upgrade your country was to attack America, lose and then wait to get rebuilt. That’s the way it is in the Little Mogadishus too. The liberal solution to Muslim terrorist is to treat it as a social problem, throw some community centers, job opportunities and social services at it. And if some of that money filters back to the terrorists. If the social services centers become stealth mosques and the graduates of OSU choose bomb throwing over pigskin tossing, that just means not enough money has been sunk into making them feel at home. Meanwhile the Little Mogadishus keep growing, until they’re not so little anymore.

Over in Oregon, Mohamed Osman Mohamud has made his own contribution to American culture. And the media assures us that this was one of those once in a million events. Nothing to see here, folks. We’ll find out soon enough that he had personal problems. Maybe his rap career didn’t work out. The girl he liked wouldn’t go out with him and agree to be his third wife. And the camel’s milk wasn’t flowing like honey anymore. Not that it really matters. Everyone has stressors. And if we are to keep Muslims stress free, for fear that they’ll start flipping through a Koran and shooting up the joint, then even the most ardent devotee of the Lady overlooking Liberty Island must ask himself if the price of Muslim immigration is really worth it.

West may subscribe to multiculturalism, its Muslim imports subscribe to only one law. The law of Islam


Multiculturalism is one thing. But that’s not what we have here. It’s not living side by side with chicken noodle soup and tandoori restaurants. Or stacking churches, synagogues, ashrams and Shinto shrines on every block. Because while the political and cultural elite of the West may subscribe to multiculturalism, its Muslim imports subscribe to only one law. The law of Islam. They may lapse at times. They may get through a university education, attend nightclubs and strip clubs, listen to the same music all the other kids their age do—but there’s still a ticking time bomb inside their heads. And that bomb is the same one that appears as the lit fuse on the turban of the cartoon Mohammad. The cartoon that Muslims were willing to kill over. The bomb is Islam. And when it’s lit, the result is mass murder.

It is an uncomfortable thing to think about. We who pride ourselves on our tolerance and slap ourselves on the back for our open-mindedness do not like to think that our civilization is an illusion, a parquet floor built over the roaring fire of barbarism underneath. But it was not so long ago, in the space of years, that our ancestors would have thought no more of killing people because they were different, than we would think of swatting a fly. The difference between us and the inhabitants of the Little Mogadishus is that we have changed. They have not. We have changed because we had time to change. Because we are the products of a culture that has changed. They are the products of a culture that has consciously resisted change. And much as we may befriend them, the thought of killing us can never be entirely wrong to them. After enough time spent together, we might rank above flies to them, but well below full-fledged and fellow humans. And when they need answers, they turn to a book whose verses promise salvation to our killers.

It is important to think of these things, because our lives and the survival of our civilization are at stake. We have begun to learn what it is like to live with terror. But we have not learned all of it by far. Terror haunted Christmas tree lighting celebrations are the beginning, but not the end of it. This is not a bridge we can cross with some multicultural cuisine and a PBS special. It requires that we understand what we have done. We have imported people from a culture and religion that has never accepted the most basic premise of our way of life. Coexistence. And so we cannot coexist with them. And they cannot coexist with us. After a few years or decades of baffled attempts to adjust to a foreign way of life, they will either wall themselves off or make war on us. Or both at the same time. They cannot be our neighbors, only our enemies.

The sooner we realize that, the fewer bombing stories at Christmas we’ll have to read about.

Source

South African mines plagued by mismanagement, neglect

Seems like more and more hard-luck stories of corruption and mismanagement are coming out of South Africa daily. It seems that the Black population are starting to see the last 16 years of ANC incompetence for what it is. In fact, they've even reached the point now that they don't care who is running businesses (Black or White), as long as they are competently managed. South Africa has a population of +/-50 million with only +/-5 million tax payers - and most of the unemployed are on some sort of social benefits...in Africa....and with a corrupt government in charge....recipe for disaster. There's a wonderful saying in Afrikaans - hulle moet voel (they must feel (the pain)) - that's how I see it. They wanted this - the world wanted this - so now they must feel. The world rejected a South Africa with a well-run government, no starvation, well educated Blacks, best life expectancy in Africa, lowest birth-rate deaths, relatively crime free - for what?? For Blacks to be able to enter White areas as they please? Wow - what an exchange and now look what they have....hey, but at least they're freeeeee. South Haiti, here we come.


ORKNEY, South Africa (AP) - Mawethu Mguli and hundreds of other workers at the gold mine in Orkney have gone months without pay at a time when gold is going for around $1,400 an ounce.


After the mine's previous owners went bankrupt, the workers expected that a new partnership - headed by relatives of Nelson Mandela and President Jacob Zuma - would get operations back on track when it took over last year.

"Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way," Mguli said softly as he sat in his dimly lit room in the mine dormitory. The mine northwest of Johannesburg remains idle and the workers are getting by on food handouts and odd jobs.

South Africa sees getting its vast mineral wealth out of the ground as vital to creating desperately needed jobs, fueling growth and redressing the economic ravages of apartheid. But a toxic combination of a crumbling infrastructure, mismanagement and the specter of nationalization is frustrating the drive to improve and expand the country's mines. Some are asking whether political connections mean more than competence in an industry that is a pillar of South Africa's economy.

South Africa is the world's richest mining country in terms of its reserves, according to a Citibank estimate that valued its mineral resources at $2.5 trillion. It is a major producer of diamonds and gold, and has major reserves of less sexy but still lucrative minerals like platinum.

Mining has accounted for an average of 7.7 percent of South Africa's gross domestic product over the last decade, according to the Chamber of Mines, an industry trade group.

Half the country's merchandise exports were mining products in 2009, when the industry employed half a million people. Another half million worked in fields dependent on the mines in this country with a population of 50 million where at least a quarter of the work force is unemployed.

Yet, during a global boom in commodities prices from 2001 to 2008, other countries with major mining operations outperformed South Africa, according to the chamber, whose members include such industry giants as Anglo American and DeBeers. The world's top 20 mining countries saw mining GDP grow at an average of 5 percent a year during the period, while South Africa's mining sector GDP dropped by 1 percent a year.

"How come, sitting on the largest mineral resource base in the world, we are not doing better?" said Sipho Nkosi, a former chamber president who now also heads the Exxaro coal mining company.

The answers are not hard to find.

The country's mining infrastructure - from the power plants needed to get the ore to the surface, to the roads and rail lines to get it to market - is tattered. Talk of nationalizing mines in some political circles has spooked foreign investors. And questions about corruption among the civil servants became so heated that in August the country's mining minister imposed a six-month ban on the issuing of prospecting licenses.

"All of that is quite worrying if you're an investor who's invested or is going to continue to invest billions in this sector," said Alison Turner, an analyst with the British firm Panmure Gordon.

Mining Minister Susan Shabangu told reporters recently she is working with other government departments to address infrastructure problems, including an energy shortfall that just a few years ago forced gold and platinum mines to suspend production because of lack of power. Eskom, the state-owned electricity company, blamed years of under-investment and rising demand.

Now, ambitious plans include a six-unit, coal-fired power station in northern South Africa that will be the first of its kind to be built in the country in more than 20 years.

South Africa has special challenges, including the extraordinary depth of many of its gold mines. According to the Metals Economics Group, which compiles information on the mining industry, the cost per ounce of mining gold in South Africa is $539, about 12 percent higher than a comparable group of North American mines, and 4 percent higher than a comparable group in Australia.

Shabangu said a comprehensive, multi-department plan that looks at power, transportation and other issues will be ready next year.

"We think we are on track," she said.

Shabangu says that while nationalization is not government policy, her African National Congress party is studying its feasibility. The issue is being pushed by Julius Malema, the vocal and populist leader of the ANC's youth league.

Key industry leaders have ridiculed Malema's suggestion. Frans Baleni, general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, is also on the central committee of the South African Communist Party, yet he suspects the calls to nationalize are backed by businessmen who want to shift money-losing mines to the state and reap profits in any transfer. Baleni says that could endanger miners' pension plans established by private companies _ and that workers would fight anything they saw as endangering their future.

Nkosi, the former Chamber of Mines head, calls nationalization an "antiquated and discredited practice" that has impoverished African and other countries.

Yet, the issue won't die. Turner, the British analyst, said investors will be anxiously awaiting a final decision expected to be made at an ANC policy conference in 2012.

In the short term, investors are watching Shabangu's efforts to clean up a bureaucracy seen as inefficient at best, corrupt at worst.

In an attempt to find out why companies like the two involved in the Orkney mine managed to get into the industry, Shabangu launched an audit of her department's operations. Pending the audit, she put in place the six-month moratorium on prospecting licenses.

Early results from the audit, expected to be completed in February, are not encouraging.

Shabangu said inspectors found some companies had fraudulently claimed significant black ownership to qualify for licenses under so-called black economic empowerment rules established to give opportunities to South Africans discriminated against under apartheid. Other companies got licenses even though they were bankrupt. Inspectors conducting the audit were threatened or offered bribes - when they could find company officials to speak with at all.

Shabangu said black economic empowerment companies are a special concern, and that some are "clueless" about mining. She said the most widespread problem is companies never embarking on the search for minerals for which they have been granted licenses.

Mining is closely associated with apartheid - it was the industry, after all, of the migrant labor system that tore men from their families across southern Africa, creating a legacy of broken homes that persists today. For many, mining still epitomizes the apartheid equation of white power and black poverty.

Sandile Nogxina, the top civil servant in Shabangu's department, told The Associated Press that the government is pursuing two goals: ensuring the industry grows, and ensuring blacks benefit from that growth.

In Orkney, Solly Phetoe, a union organizer in the region, said that after the bankruptcy of one black economic empowerment company, and the disappointing debut of the Mandela-Zuma partnership, all workers want is competent management, whether black- or white-led.

At Aurora Empowerment Systems - whose chairman is Khulubuse Zuma, the president's nephew, and whose managing director is Zondwa Mandela, the former president's grandson - officials referred questions about the Orkney mine to a prominent lawyer, Michael Hulley. Hulley, listed as a non-executive director of Aurora, did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

Mguli, a 51-year-old with four children far away on South Africa's southern coast, had been a cook in the mine cafeteria. He said younger workers had left in search of other jobs, but he believed chances were slim at his age.

Mguli said he could not afford to make his usual trip home for Christmas.

"I'm surviving by borrowing, just to get something to eat."

Source

Israel to crack down on illegal migrant workers

Israel may as well use the "pariah of the world" title to hide behind and get rid of all the illegal immigrants that are invading and "changing" the character of the country. Good on them. At least they have the guts to say it like it is. They don't take nonsense from their own people and look out for the future of the country. Some esteemed Western countries should take a page out of their book.

Photo
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel approved a plan on Sunday to hold and deport thousands of illegal migrant workers whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a "threat to the character of the country."

In remarks to the cabinet, Netanyahu said thousands of migrants who have entered Israel mainly through Egypt in past years would be housed at a special holding facility, due to built in Israel's southern Negev desert.

"We must stop the mass entry of illegal migrant workers because of the very serious threat to the character and future to the state of Israel," he said, adding Israelis who gave them work would face severe fines to make their employment unviable.

Established as a Jewish state in 1948, Israel welcomes Jewish newcomers, most of whom receive automatic citizenship, but policies toward non-Jewish migrants are more restrictive.

The cabinet approved the plan under which the state would control the migrants' movement until they are deported.

Netanyahu said however that migrants fleeing persecution would be allowed to stay.

"We do not intend to stop refugees fleeing for their lives, we allow them in and will continue to do so," he said.

Israeli officials have insisted on setting up the camp despite sensitivities over comparisons with Nazi concentration camps where Jews were held and killed.

"We must find a humane solution to look after the workers who will be lose their jobs and we must therefore provide shelter, food and health services until they are deported," Netanyahu added.

Last week Israel began work to construct a barrier to seal off part of the border with Egypt's Sinai desert from where many of the migrants enter the Jewish state.

ISOLATED CAMP
Israeli officials have yet to say how many migrants would be sent to the facility, expected to be built at or near the site of a former prison camp for Palestinians deep in the desert.

The plan is to have an "open" holding center, officials said, but as it would be in a largely uninhabited desert area far from the nearest town it was not clear how they could travel to and from the camp, or how often.

Eyal Gabai, director-general of Netanyahu's office, said last week that over 35,000 migrants had entered Israel in the past few years and that in 2011 Israel could expect to see up to 20,000 migrants enter illegally.

Israel has brought in tens of thousands of Ethiopian Jews including many rescued from famine in the early 1980s.

Israel has also permitted the limited employment of tens of thousands of foreigners in recent years in such fields as farming, construction and care for the elderly and infirm.

Legislation restricting their numbers provoked strike action by farmers last week. They complain that without Asian helpers, mainly from Thailand, their costs will become prohibitive.

Source

Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world

Tut tut - Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions. Put a bunch of "respected" Marxist "scientists" in a room and watch them go nuts dreaming up ways to inconvenience and control us. The basic thrust of their argument is as follows: allow poor nations to grow by halting the economic growth of richer countries! I mean, why didn't I think of this marvelous concept - I too could be famous! Mind you, they are predicting a 4C increase in temperatures by 2060! Mmmmm - has ANYBODY told them that the earth is actually cooling? Is anybody of a sane nature in Cancun this week? And watch the media be complicit in this scaremongering.

Second World War Rationing: Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world


In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

Unless emissions are reduced dramatically in the next ten years the world is set to see temperatures rise by more than 4C (7.2F) by as early as the 2060s, causing floods, droughts and mass migration.

As the world meets in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of United Nations talks on climate change, the influential academics called for much tougher measures to cut carbon emissions.

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods.

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

The last round of talks in Copenhagen last year ended in a weak political accord to keep temperature rise below the dangerous tipping point of 2C(3.6F).

This time 194 countries are meeting again to try and make the deal legally binding and agree targets on cutting emissions.

At the moment efforts are focused on trying to get countries to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.

But Dr Myles Allen, of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, said this might not be enough. He said that if emissions do not come down quick enough even a slight change in temperature will be too rapid for ecosystems to keep up. Also by measuring emissions relative to a particular baseline, rather than putting a limit on the total amount that can ever be pumped into the atmosphere, there is a danger that the limit is exceeded.

“Peak warming is determined by the total amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere, not the rate we release it in any given year,’ he said. “Dangerous climate change, however, also depends on how fast the planet is warming up, not just how hot it gets, and the maximum rate of warming does depend on the maximum emission rate. It’s not just how much we emit, but how fast we do so.”

Other papers published on ‘4C and beyond’ in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A warned of rising sea levels, droughts in river basins and mass migrations.

Source

The Real Scandal Behind the WikiWhimper

On Sunday, the website Wilileaks began releasing 250,000 US diplomatic cables. Most Americans are concerned about national security and are upset about this. Me? I feel a bit let down - false advertising really. What was billed as a "global diplomatic crisis" turned out to be nothing but confirmation of everything we've always suspected.  Mr Assange wants his 15 minutes of fame - but at what cost? Why would he put a target on his back all in the name of governments being open and transparent. I think he's a dead man walking and he better take up the offer from Ecuador! Pity these "classified" files didn't reveal the birth country of Obama - now that would be worth my money!!
 

So, let me get this straight. The big data-dump of 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables reveal that American diplomats occasionally spy on other diplomats, the Arabs don’t like the Persians, British royalty can be rude, and Obama and his disciples have poor opinions of other world leaders. Oh, and the Chinese government might be trying to censor parts of the internet, the Russian government might have ties to organized crime and members of the Afghan government might be corrupt.

Really? The UK’s Guardian says the leak of the diplomatic cable “sparks a global diplomatic crisis.” Michael Kinsley famously said once that a “gaffe” in DC was committed when someone mistakingly spoke the truth. I guess the stripped-pants crowd is a bit more high-strung. Speaking the truth isn’t a gaffe among the embassy set, its a full-blown ‘crisis.’

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) says the Wikileaks organization should be classified as a “terrorist organization” and its founder, Julian Assange should be criminally prosecuted. Personally, I think Mr. Assange should be sued for false advertising. The revelations from the diplomatic cables aren’t anywhere near what was promised. I want my money back.

Of course, it is possible that more startling revelations come to light. Color me skeptical, though, as it seems Assange would lead with his best stuff. Regardless, I don’t think the real scandal is the content of the cables. I think it is this:

How the hell does a 22-year old private have access to this stuff?

The UK Guardian explains it was actually pretty easy:
It was childishly easy, according to the published chatlog of a conversation Manning had with a fellow-hacker. “I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like ‘Lady Gaga’ … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing … [I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history.” He said that he “had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months”.
Lady Gaga? Is this a joke?

In case you are thinking that Private Manning was some kind of brilliant cyber-sleauth who figured out how to get special access to the cables:
More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked “protect” or “strictly protect”.
Three million people have access to classified information that can ’spark a global diplomatic crisis?” Really? Again, is this some kind of joke? Do they give out access for simply eating your vegetables?

This is indicative of why I’ve never bought any of those wild conspiracies of super-secret actions by the government. Most of those theories would necessitate super-duper and elaborate planning and coordination and ninja-like execution. Our government just isn’t anywhere near that competent. Less like ninjas, it is really more like the Apple Dumpling Gang.

So, let’s put aside the gossipy stuff and ask the really important question: Who put these idiots in charge of anything?

Source


29 November 2010

Swedish parents jailed for 'spanking' kids

Political Correctness is a tool of Marxism - and this article proves it. Now, before you misunderstand my point of view, I'm totally against physical abuse of children. However, when it come to discipline then I stand by the adage that a timely smack when required saves a lot of tears later - and I mean smack and not beat? I know lots of people who have judged parents who have smacked their kids (including an Education Psychologist) - until they had their own! Then, whatever was handy was used - as I have witnessed. In my case I have two sons (now teenagers) and they got their fair share of smacks when they were younger. I can't remember the last time I needed to give them a smack - maybe 5-6 years ago. Not all children require a smack to open their ears, but some certainly do - as did my 2 boys. I could speak till the cows came home and achieve nothing - especially if they ganged up - but if I got out the wooden spoon their ears would magically open and the canal between their ears and brain would work again. In any case, Sweden doesn't believe that parents have a right to raise their kids in a way they seem fit. No surprise people don't bother having kids anymore - between being branded a racist if you love your country; to being branded a child abuser if you discipline your kids - it's no wonder that you'd rather sit at home with the curtains drawn in case you offend anyone.


A Swedish court has jailed the parents of three children who were regularly beaten since the age of three in what they claimed was a method of discipline prescribed in the Bible.

The couple, from Karlstad in central Sweden, were imprisoned for nine months apiece, according to a Sveriges Television (SVT) report.

Corporal punishment, formally outlawed in Sweden in 1979, was a regular feature of three of the couple's four children's lives, the Värmland district court heard.

According to the court transcripts, the parents "explained that they had used, what they themselves described as spanking, physical punishment as part of their methods for raising the children."

The court heard that the couple had used a hairbrush, a wooden plank or a hand to punish their three eldest children, SVT reported.

The father explained that when the children did something wrong they were given a first warning and then a second and if they, for example, carried on cycling in the street without permission, they would then receive a physical punishment.

The court found that "despite the details of the case at hand" the parents "had a loving and caring relationship to their children", but that the systematic treatment metered out was in breach of the law and deserving of a custodial sentence.

The parents were furthermore order to pay damages of 25,000 kronor to each of the affected children.

The three children at the centre of the case, as well as a younger sibling, have been in care since the preliminary investigation was opened against their parents in the beginning of the summer.

Parents' rights to meter out physical punishment was revoked already in 1966 in Sweden, with a formal legal ban coming into into force in July 1979. Children in Sweden now enjoy the same legal protection from physical assault afforded to adults.

Source

Canada: Gov't urged to pronounce husband, wife, wife, wife

This sums up my point of view 100% about legalising Gay "marriage". Firstly, marriage is defined as an institution between a man and a woman with future children being protected within this institution. If Gays want to "bond" with their partner - and I contest that only a tiny minority do - then they are welcome to go the civil union route - no one would stop them. Why do they need the word marriage for them to feel normal? They are not "normal" in the traditional sense and that is why marriage should remain as it is defined - between heterosexuals. Once you shift that moral window to the left then every creepy person with very "abnormal" and sick views will be given a platform to fight for their rights. Canada is now heading down this route - same-sex "marriage" has been recognised there since 2005....and now it's the turn of the polygamists and bigamists who want their day in court. Where will this stop? Next will be animal-man "marriage" or even paedophiles wanting to marry their victims. Marriage is already a dying institute with the related moral slide and to further debase it would mean the death-knell to Judea-Christian values. We need to draw the line in the sand somewhere...

 

Canada has recognized same-sex "marriages" since 2005, and now apparently is preparing to take the next step in the "progressive" movement, with arguments scheduled in coming days before the equivalent of a state Supreme Court on a plan to repeal laws against polygamy and bigamy.

The CBC has told the story of Zoe Duff, a director of the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, who has two male common-law partners and believes Canada's polygamy laws need to be stricken because they don't permit her to live her chosen lifestyle.

The situation involving the Vancouver Island woman is expected to be the subject of hearings planned before the British Columbia Supreme Court over the coming weeks.

If the advocates for multiple partners are successful in the provincial court, their next hurdle would be the Canadian Charter, where Section 293 of the Criminal Code at this point still bans polygamy and threatens offenders with a five-year prison term. Section 290 makes a similarly serious crime of bigamy.

Observers note that American values appear to be following Canada's down the slippery slope of lifestyle choices.

The arguments for same-sex marriage have been white-hot in several campaigns recently in the U.S., including the 2008 vote in California where voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman only.

The results overturned a state Supreme Court decision there that had created same-sex "marriage" only months before, and were, in turn, overturned by a federal judge, a homosexual who concluded that such "rights" were embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

The vote followed a campaign that saw supporters spend $39.9 million on their position and opponents $43.3 million, for a spending total of $83 million for a new record nationally for a social policy initiative.

It was in September when U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, an open homosexual, overruled more than seven million voters to banish Proposition 8, setting up an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

His 136-page ruling said, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

Walker also wrote:
  • "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."
  • "Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."
  • "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment."
  • "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes."
  • "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."
  • "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."
Proposition 8 was passed by voters in 2008. In his Aug. 4 decision, Walker declared it violates the rights of homosexuals under the federal Constitution.

Walker's decision also had disregarded the terse warning contained in California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter's dissenting opinion in a 2008 case on same-sex "marriage." That case saw same-sex "marriage" imposed by judicial fiat on the state, a result that was reversed by the Prop 8 vote.

Baxter had warned of the "legal jujitsu" required to establish same-sex "marriage" by court order.

"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," Baxter warned in his dissent. "Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

Jim Campbell, a lawyer supporting Proposition 8's ban on same-sex "marriage, said, "In America, we should uphold and respect the right of people to make policy changes through the democratic process, especially changes that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the founding of this country and beyond."

Canada's legalization of same-sex "marriage" has sparked a collision course between law and religion and observers say adding polygamy to the argument will only exacerbate the problem..

They say the arguments the Canadian provincial Supreme Court will consider in whether or not to ban laws against polygamy are identical to those in favor of same-sex "marriage."

Those include medical and psychiatric arguments that denying same-sex couples legal access to "marriage" and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Another argument in support of same-sex marriage is the assertion that financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage (of any kind), and that children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society’s institutions.

James Cohen, vice president of The International Free Press Society Canada, regarding the possibility of Canada repealing its polygamy laws said, "Even though I am a libertarian (more or less) the elimination of monogamy and legalization of polygamy is fast tracking the end of Western civilization."

Cohen said the elimination of a ban on polygamy actually would speed the Islamization of Western culture.

"For those who feel there is a cultural and other divides between the rich and the poor, just wait until the wealthy and the powerful have a disproportionate number of wives and the poor have none. It is a recipe for if not Muslim, a Muslim-like hierarchy," he said.

"It will be in truth, a giant leap forward for the Islamification of Canada, which is what it is meant to be, and will create a system within which non-Muslims will be at a distinct disadvantage in many ways. Already many Muslims in Toronto have multiple wives, all of whom get large welfare benefits based on number of children they have and in violation not only of our polygamy laws, but also the laws determining how many people may collect welfare within one household," Cohen said.

Duff says she would like the court to strike down the laws so that she doesn't have to live in the shadows.

David Harris, a Canadian barrister and solicitor and a panelist at a Washington International Legal Conference last year, said he expects polygamy ultimately to be established in Canada.

"Canada, a country of 34 million, has the greatest per capita immigration intake in the world. And that's based on the official figure of 260,000 a year; the actual figure – taking into account foreign students and 'temporary' workers – is estimated by experts to be at least double that. The refugee numbers are also the biggest per capita in the world. This is socially and economically disastrous, and is explained almost exclusively by politicians' wishing to ingratiate themselves to religio-ethno-cultural voting blocs," he said.

Both Canadians Harris and Cohen, independently of one another, emphasized the strong probability of Canada quickly becoming overrun with Muslims if Canada's polygamy and bigamy laws are overturned.

"I'd invite you to imagine the magnet Canada would become for radical-Muslim immigrants and refugees, if, on top of all this, Canada's Supreme Court were to confer legitimacy upon polygamy and other Shariah-friendly arrangements," he said.

The hearings are expected to run into January. Some three dozen witnesses are expected to testify.

In America, some half a dozen states "recognize" same-sex "marriage," including several where it has been imposed on residents by judicial fiat.

In one such state, Iowa, voters responded earlier this month by voting to fire three of the seven state Supreme Court justices who imposed homosexual marriage. The remaining justices were not up for a vote at this time.

Now those who campaigned for voters to reject Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit say they are hoping that the message will reverberate across the country and other judges will begin reining in their activism.

"The people have spoken. Time for the elitist judges to understand there is a constitution and that government is owned by the people," wrote Dennis S. in a forum at the Topix.com website.

Pastor Cary Gordon of Cornerstorne World Outreach in Sioux City was one of the pastors who coordinated a letter to churches asking them to speak out against homosexual "marriage."

Source

Swiss approve foreign criminal initiative

This time last year the Swiss pulled out ahead of the rest of Western Europe when they voted in favor of a ban on the building of new minarets. They followed it up by approving a referendum that would force the deportation of all foreigners convicted of serious criminal offenses. The Swiss the electorate were faced with a choice between a hard line option (immediate deportation) and a compromise version (included judicial review). Swiss voters, perhaps aware of what happens when things are left to the discretion of progressive-minded judges, did not take the bait, and 53% voted for the stronger version of the new law.

The prison at Kloten holds convicted criminals awaiting deportation
 The prison at Kloten holds convicted criminals awaiting deportation

The Swiss have voted to adopt tough new regulations on the deportation of foreigners convicted of serious crimes and welfare fraud.

Final results showed 53 per cent voting in favour of a rightwing initiative. The initiative also won the backing of 20 out of 26 cantons.

In a complex nationwide vote on Sunday, the electorate were faced with a choice between a hardline option and a compromise version; or approving or rejecting both proposals.

Turnout was higher than usual - at 52 per cent - a sign of how contentious were the issues being voted on.

The rightwing People's Party initiative called for the automatic expulsion of non-Swiss offenders convicted of crimes ranging from murder to breaking and entry and social security fraud. The proposal denies judges judicial discretion over deportation.

An alternative option by parliament would have allowed for a case-by-case examination and additional integration measures.

Parliament's counter-proposal was rejected by 54 per cent of voters, results showed.

An unofficial voting platform for migrants, Baloti, reported very different voting results: 85 per cent against the initiative, and 15 per cent for.

Reactions
"In future, foreign nationals who have committed one of the criminal offences named in the text of the initiative should automatically lose their right of residence and be deported to their country of origin," said a government statement. It said Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga would "set to work on implementing the initiative without delay".

"The majority of voters have sent a clear signal that they consider foreign criminality to be a serious problem. The Federal Council [government] respects the will of the people and will set to work on putting the task confided in it into practice," it went on.

The government statement also pointed to problems in implementing the initiative, saying parliament would have to draft a list defining precisely which offences would result in deportation.

A statement by the People's Party said voters had sent a clear signal that "criminal foreigners should be systematically deported". It said the acceptance of the initiative marked "the first step on the road to greater security". The legal framework for the initiative's introduction had to be created as soon as possible, it said.

The Federal Migration Commission said the initiative would be very difficult to enforce. It said the state must not act arbitrarily in deporting foreigners, but judge each case individually.

"Even People's Party parliamentarians agree that no one should be sent back to a country to face torture or death. Automatic deportation, as demanded by the initiative, is therefore not possible," the commission said in a statement.

The main Christian churches, which had opposed both initiative and counter-proposal, called for deportations to continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In a joint statement, the Swiss Federation of Protestant Churches and the Catholic Bishops Conference said the cantonal and federal authorities must ensure that implementation of the initiative conformed to the constitution. They also said it was important "not to cast a negative light on migrants".

Source

Despite Billions in AID, Haitians refuse to clean up their nation

Haitians tell CNN, “we grew up like this, we're used to it.”

Just have a look at the amount of garbage that lines the streets of the capital city of Haiti. Coming from Africa I'm quite used to this - in fact, it reminds me of the black townships in South Africa. The inhabitants expect someone else to clean up after them. It's never entered their minds to do something about the situation themselves. Like the man at the end of the clip says - we grew up like this so we're used to it. But, they blame UN peace keepers for bringing cholera to their country!





28 November 2010

Australia: Police Union angry at 'political correctness gone mad'on naming offenders' race

Political correctness once again gone crazy. Western Australia (WA), of which Perth is the capital city, has imposed a ban on using ethnic or religious words to describe offenders when seeking public help. This follows international trends where it's become fashionable to use vague descriptions of perpetrators in case you offend their sensitivities. Once again another bleeding heart from the Equal Opportunity Commission for WA, Yvonne Henderson, said using ethnic descriptions reinforced negative stereotypes (has anyone noticed how many females are on these types of boards - let me guess, she votes for the Greens and probably has no children??). Hey Ms Henderson - let me guess - if anyone from YOUR family were to be a crime victim I'm pretty sure you wouldn't mind the police offering a more accurate description of the perpetrators - or perhaps you'd rather go hug them to make them feel better once caught? Just when are these do-gooders going to get it? It's NOT about race or religion - it's a SAFETY matter. Get with it or ship out to lala land where there is no crime and everyone sings Kumbaya all day long. You really can't blame the police here as their hands are tied to the biddings of these "Commissions".

Karl O'Callaghan
Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan

POLICE say a ban on using ethnic or religious words to describe offenders is obstructing investigations.

The police union has labelled the policy, a direct order from Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan, as "political correctness gone mad".

Officers can no longer use details such as a suspect's nationality, race or religion when seeking public help.

Instead, they have been told to say if the person is light or dark skinned.

WA Police Union president Russell Armstrong wants the rule overturned.

The Equal Opportunities Commission says the ban was introduced six months ago after complaints that using ethnic descriptions was racist.

The commission said witnesses who made reports to police would often get the ethnicity of a suspect wrong.

Mr Armstrong said using "scant descriptions" made it harder to catch criminals.

"If you just turn around and say we are looking for a 20-year-old male, 180cm, with black hair, how many people in the community does that description fit?" he said.

"If somebody is Australian or if somebody is English or if somebody is Nigerian, wherever they are from, police should be allowed to say that in their description of offenders.

One police insider said the policy had prevented the capture of suspects.

"These rules don't give a true indication of who police are looking for," the source said.

"There is a big difference between a dark-skinned person being Aboriginal or African. And if we are looking for an Asian person-of-interest it's a bit narrow to describe them as simply having fair skin and dark hair."

Yvonne Henderson
Yvonne Henderson

But Equal Opportunity Commission state commissioner Yvonne Henderson said using ethnic descriptions reinforced negative stereotypes.

"It can feed into prejudiced ideas in the community about which ethnicities are mainly responsible for criminal behaviour," she said.

Ms Henderson also said the police use of ethnic descriptions was often misleading. "Often they were inaccurate because they were based on one person's assumption of someone's racial background, which could be wrong," she said.

The commission will investigate any incidents where police use ethnic descriptions.

Ethnic Communities Council of WA president Maria Saraceni said the ban stopped police condemning everyone of a particular race in an area they were investigating.

"If police say they are looking for an Indian, how would the public know to distinguish between an Indian and a Pakistani?," Ms Saraceni said.

"It is much more accurate to use details like height, weight or hair colour."

Police spokesman Insp Bill Munnee defended the rule.

"The continued use of ethnic descriptors enforces stereotypes, does not promote understanding between cultures, damages police-community relationships and is not considered a sound investigatory practice," Insp Munnee said.

Source

27 November 2010

Muslim woman says roller-skating rink discriminated against her

Two choices: take off the headscarves, or wear a helmet over them. They refused to remove the headscarf but it doesn't say if they also refused the helmets. This is getting rediculous. The rules to this private establishment are posted at the entrance and are as clear as daylight. Anyhoo, CAIR has filed a complaint with the Connecticut's Human Rights Commission. I know what I would do with that complaint...

Rodriguez-Colon: Rink headscarf barred.


Muslim woman claims that a Connecticut roller-skating rink discriminated against her because it wouldn't allow her to skate in her headscarf.

Marisol Rodriguez-Colon, 40, said she was "mortified" when she and another female relative showed up for a niece's birthday party at the Ron-A-Roll rink in Vernon and were barred at the door.

The venue's rules, posted at the entrance, read: "No Hats. No Headwear. No Exceptions."

Colon said her religious hijab shouldn't count under that policy -- and tried to appeal to a rink manager.

"We wear this for religious reasons," Colon said. "But they didn't want to hear that."
The manager, Colon said, gave the women two choices: take off the headscarves, or wear a helmet over them.

Taking off the hijabs was "not an option," Colon told WTIC-TV in Hartford.

She said she has worn the traditional headscarf for 16 years and has it on "wherever I go."

She and the other relative went back to their car and missed the party.

"I wear this with pride," Colon said. "I was mortified -- by asking someone to wear a helmet you are actually ostracizing us.

"You are singling us out and showing everyone there is an issue -- that something is wrong with these two women."

Ron-A-Roll management issued a statement spelling out its "no headwear" policy. It said helmets are offered for safety purposes.

"You are not allowed -- you are not welcome here. That is what that says to me," Colon said of the statement.

She said she was insulted that the rink would deny entrance to people "because of what they believe and what they are wearing because of those beliefs."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said yesterday it filed a complaint with Connecticut's Human Rights Commission.

Source

Australia: Power debate fuelled by lack of logic

The Australian Labor government refuses to use its rich coal reserves to provide cheap electricity to its citizens - instead they spearhead the closing of existing coal-fired power stations so as not to hurt the environment. They intend to use inefficient solar and costly windmills to make the shortfall up in energy - to run and grow Australia. All the while China are laughing at us and buying up our coal reserves to fire their new coal-fired power stations, which are being built at 1 new plant every 2 weeks. The current Labor government, headed by Julia Gillard (a Fabian Socialist), is in bed with the looney Greens - a political party with no proven track-record or any sustainable policies, yet who has a strangle-hold on a first world country in the form of an alliance with a struggling government. The Gillard government is, however, prepared to hand over millions to the World Bank annually, who in turn uses the money to subsidise new coal-powered stations in "developing" countries. How ironic is that?

Edward Gibbon:
"In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again."
 

THE Gillard Labor Government is spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars to build coal-fired power stations to provide cheap power for the Third World.

Meanwhile, it is forcing Australians into debt as they scrabble to meet their rising power costs.

The policy is illogical and contradictory - like most of the policies pursued by

Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her predecessor, Kevin Rudd.

According to the Budget Papers, Australia will provide $157.3 million to the World Bank (through the International Development Association) in 2010-2011.

Including Australia’s contribution, the World Bank is spending billions subsidising new coal-powered stations.

This is happening while Gillard, just like Rudd before her, persists in claiming that burning fossil fuels will expose the world’s poorest populations to catastrophic climate change.

Under Rudd, global warming induced by human activity was the “biggest moral challenge” of our times - until the rest of the world backed away from the prospect of massive carbon reductions at the failed Copenhagen conference almost a year ago.

Then the entirely poll-driven Gillard persuaded Rudd to dump his plans for a flawed emissions trading system before cutting short his prime ministership.

This occurred when surveys and the ALP’s internal polling revealed that, while voters might not have liked Rudd, they disliked his backflip on so-called global warming even more.

Gillard proceeded to campaign before last August’s election on the basis that her government would definitely not introduce a carbon tax.

She could not have been more explicit.

“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” she told Network Ten.

Treasurer Wayne Swan was just as adamant, claiming that those who accused Labor of planning to introduce a carbon tax were “hysterical”.

Far from it, Mr Treasurer. They were not hysterical. They were prescient.

But of course Gillard wasn’t telling the truth.

She told the electorate that she would appoint a so-called citizens’ committee (believers only need apply) to help guide the nation towards a carbon tax. When Labor lost the trust of the nation and was forced into its uneasy coalition with the radical activist Greens and made hostage to the independents who had betrayed the wishes of their constituents, the citizens’ committee was dumped in favour of a parliamentary committee (only believers to be appointed).

This was a sop to the treacherous independents and the Greens, upon whom Labor was reliant for power.

There are 12 new power plants planned for Australia on the drawing board. But on the drawing board they will remain, because they are all coal-fired. Not one will be built while Gillard remains Prime Minister and the Greens retain control of the Government.

But Australians will help build new coal-fired power plants in Africa and elsewhere through our $153 million gift to the World Bank.

As a balm to the consciences of the doctors’ wives and brain-washed products of Labor’s enviro-education system, Australians are also contributing $25 million towards the World Bank Clean Technology Fund.

That is less than one-sixth of the amount we are paying to the World Bank to help its coal-fired power plants project, among other things.

The World Bank is as confused as the ALP as it, too, subscribes to the view that burning fossil fuels exposes the world’s poor to the worst nightmares the global warmists can conjure up.

But it is conflicted because it believes that its goal of reducing global poverty can only be achieved through building coal-fired power stations. So, it preaches that the world must cut its use of fossil fuels, but it practises building huge new coal-burning plants that will put millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year for the next 40 to 50 years.

As further evidence (as if it were necessary) that the Gillard Labor Government hasn’t a clue what’s going on, or what to do, except what seems most politically expedient, the Queensland Labor Government has just released its 20-year plan for the coal industry.

It has wholeheartedly embraced the fossil fuel as the underpinning strength in that state’s economy.

Coal is Queensland’s largest single merchandise export earner, bringing in sales of approximately $41 billion in 2008-09.

“The coal industry provides direct benefits of more than $11 billion a year to the state’s economy - $3.3 billion in royalties alone,” Ms Bligh said.

“The industry also directly employs over 29,000 workers, the majority of whom are based in regional Queensland - and the workforce has enormous potential for growth.

“Forecasts reveal the state’s current annual output of around 190 million tonnes of high-quality coal could potentially reach 340 million tonnes and beyond per year over the next 20 years.”

She should get on the phone to her Labor sister-in-power Gillard and give her a quick lesson in how to grow jobs in an expanding economy, as Gillard and her Green partners are determined to stifle the economy through their mining taxes and their carbon dioxide taxes, and to shift jobs offshore to those nations whose power stations Australians are now helping to build.

According to World Bank’s World Development Report: “Developing countries are disproportionately affected by climate change - a crisis that is not of their making and for which they are the least prepared.

“Increasing access to energy and other services using high-carbon technologies will produce more greenhouse gases, hence more climate change.”

The hysterical report says between 75 and 80 per cent of the damage caused by climate change through drought, floods and rising sea levels will happen in developing countries.

A single plant in Gujarat, in western India, one of the nine planned for India, is projected to be one of the biggest new sources of greenhouse gases on Earth, emitting 26.7 million tonnes of CO2 a year for the next 50 years.

If Gillard and her carbon dioxide cops believed in their propaganda, they would be selling uranium to India, and sending windmills and solar technology to rogue nations that can’t be trusted in the Third World, where Aussie dollars are helping build coal-burning plants.

Those Third World nations have coal reserves, though, and Third World leaders know that developing coal as their primary fuel is their best option to provide a cheap power source - just like Australia.

Unlike Australia, however, the Third World cannot afford to support a large lazy rump of inner-city Labor-Greens nursing troubled consciences.

Source

'Who the Hell You Think You Are?' Nigel Farage throws egg in Eurocrat faces

Nigel Farage is the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and a current Member of the European Parliament for South East England. He is vehemently opposed to the EU and gets to say it in the only way he knows how - straight to their faces. Watch and enjoy!




Huntley's refugee status rejected - fights to stay in Canada

This is a follow-up of the refugee claim by a White South Africa, Brendon Huntley in Canada. He was originally granted refugee status in 2008, but when the South African government heard about it they threw their toys out of their cot. In any case, the judicial review of his granted refugee status was overturned by the Federal Court yesterday. It appears that the pressure that the Black racist ANC government of South Africa put on the Canadian government to revoke the "racist" decision, played a huge role in ensuring his refugee status was rejected. It seems that Canada only takes Tamils from Sri Lanka in as refugees - they have more "believable" stories and are the right shade of brown. Whites from Africa need not apply. Canada was one of the countries that put untold pressure on the Apartheid government to dismantle Apartheid - the result of which is that the country now has the highest rape and murder stats in the world. Shame on you Canada. Oh, and Mr Kenney - how does it feel to be the SA government's b!tch?

Brandon Huntley, a former carnival worker who lives in Ottawa, told immigration officials he was attacked personally six or seven times by black South Africans and that those beatings left him with scars on his stomach, right eye, right side of the body and hands. 

OTTAWA - A white South African who was granted refugee status in Canada after claiming racial persecution may yet be sent home.

On Wednesday, the Federal Court granted immigration minister Jason Kenney's request for a judicial review of the refugee board decision that allowed Brandon Carl Huntley to stay in Ottawa.

In his 2008 application, Huntley said he'd been stabbed three times in seven robberies at the hands of black South Africans. They called him a "white dog," he told the refugee board.

Huntley presented "clear and convincing proof of the state's inability or unwillingness to protect him," the board found. It granted him refugee status in 2009.

Kenney had argued evidence presented on Huntley's behalf was irrelevant. Another woman had testified that black South Africans had tortured and shot her brother, showing the country was powerless to prevent black-on-white violence.

The board decision had also been blasted by South Africa's governing African National Congress as "racist."

Huntley's lawyer, Rocco Galati, told the court the South African government had twisted the immigration minister's arm to review the case, calling the review application an "abuse of process from outside pressure."

Federal Court Justice James Russell didn't buy it.

Russell's decision sets aside the earlier refugee board decision, and sends Huntley's refugee claim back to a "differently constituted" board for consideration.

Huntley first came to Canada in 2004 to work as a carnival attendant. He returned the next year, staying illegally until making his refugee claim.

Source

South Africa: Violent Crime Has Roots in Apartheid, Says Report

Sometimes I wonder if I was asleep during my years living under Apartheid South Africa. 16 years after the fall of Apartheid and the lies told about Apartheid are astounding. Below is an article which sums up the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) report on the reasons for violent crime in South Africa. It should come as no surprise that Apartheid is to blame (oh, no, you don't say?) - due to its brutality and inequalities that gave rise to the demoralising effect of racism! Before steam comes out of your ears and your eyes start to bleed, let me just add that the Executive Director of the CSVR is none other than the liberal Adèle Kirsten who was an "end conscription" campaigner and then a founding member of Gun Free South Africa - you know, that organisation that was responsible for disarming law abiding citizens in South Africa and who now find themselves either killed or at the mercy of the ARMED black violent criminals. A further search of the CSVR website shows a board loaded with liberal Whites and Blacks activists - all ANC supporters. So, naturally they would blame Apartheid for all evils - much easier than to admit that their ANC bosses are clueless and useless as a government. After all, can't forget that the Centre does need to get paid from the mostly White tax payers money - all 40 full timers (the website wants you to know that 26 are women) and the numerous "consultants" and contract workers. BTW Adèle - if you had done actual research you would have found that 74 people died in police custody in 25 years of Apartheid (1963 - 1985) - ummm, that's an average of 3 a year; compared to the 566 this year alone under you Comrade, Bheki Cele - ummmm, that's nearly 2 a day under the wonderful, Marxist ANC - but shhhh, can't let FACTS get in the way of a good yarn. In any case, I wonder how many Black generations are going to be covered by the Apartheid blame-game before the truth is admitted? Maybe the Centre should have done some further "research" - that the Black race has a propensity for violence - the sicker, twisted and more violent the better to soothe their souls. All across the globe the race most incarcerated is the Black race. See, I don't need a fancy PhD behind my name to figure the obvious out. In any case, thanks Adèle for your biased liberal delusional"report" - only Blacks need read.

Adèle Kirsten

Pretoria — It may be a policy of the past but the evils of apartheid continue to haunt the country, emerging as one the key contributors to the high level of violent crime in South Africa.

The brutality of apartheid; the inequalities the policy gave rise to and the demoralising effect of racism are some of the contributing factors responsible for the violent crimes experienced by South Africans, says the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR).

These findings are contained in a report by the CSVR that was recently released for public comment by the Police Ministry.

The report - a culmination of three years of investigation into the causes and nature of violent crime in South Africa - was compiled by the CSVR at the request of government.

While an exceptionally high rate of violence in not unique to South Africa (having also been noted in South American and Caribbean countries) one of the factors that distinguishes South Africa from these countries is the legacy of apartheid and colonialism, the report says.

It refers to research that found that previous state policies exposed millions of boys and young men to humiliating police harassment and a violent prison system during the apartheid years.

The rule of law was also undermined by the state sponsorship of township violence during that time.

These uniquely South African issues nurtured a culture of violence that has reproduced itself ever since, researchers say.

Add to that, the undermining influence apartheid had on families, often leaving children to grow up in single parent families because of the migrant labour system.

The result, says the report, is that many children, particularly those in poorer sections of South African society, have grown up with an absent father or primary care-giver and plagued by problems such as alcoholism and violence.

International research suggests that children who become persistent offenders are those who tend to grow up with more negative family and school experiences, the report points out.

The institutionalisation of racial domination and explicitly racist ideology that followed the establishment of the Union of South Africa and later the coming to power of the National Party, are also to blame.

"It is reasonable to assume that one of the pervasive consequences institutionalised racism in South Africa is internalised feelings of inferiority which might also be identified as feelings of low self-worth," the report says.

Studies into violence carried out by other countries show a link between feelings of low self worth and a propensity to violence.

"The psychological legacy of institutionalised racism in the form of internalised feelings of low self-worth is likely therefore to be a contributing factor to the problem of violent crime in South Africa," it adds.

The lack of proper policing in townships during the apartheid years also gave rise to the culture of violence that South Africans continue to experience to this day, according to the report.

It points out that under apartheid, the criminal justice system focused on protecting white South Africans from crime, while enforcing apartheid laws on black South Africans.

"A major focus of policing was also suppressing resistance to the apartheid government. Investment in addressing crime in township areas was minimal, contributing to the reliance in township areas on informal mechanisms of justice...The result was that criminal groups and a criminal culture entrenched itself in some township areas."

Moving away from apartheid, the report also found that the core problem of crime in South Africa was a subculture of violence and criminality.

This subculture is characterised by young men "invested in a criminal identity and engaged in criminal careers" that involves active criminal lifestyles.

Another feature of this subculture was the common use of weapons.

"The ability to operate and achieve credibility within this subculture is strongly related to one's readiness to resort to extreme violence using a weapon," the report adds.

The importance of weapons in this subculture was identified as a key driver behind the problem of armed violence in the country.

"Violent offenders who engage in armed violence present the most danger to others and are what gives the current epidemic of violent crime in South Africa its most malevolent edge," the report notes.

The high level of inequality in the country also contributed to the violence. Statistics reveal that in 2008, the richest 10 percent of households in South Africa earned nearly 40 times more than the poorest 50 percent.

According to international research, societies with high levels of inequality tend to have high levels of violence - an indication that inequality is also a key driver of violence.

The report also identified ambivalent attitudes regarding crime, law, and the normalisation and widespread tolerance of violence as a critical issue.

"This reflects widely held norms and beliefs which see violence as a necessary and justified means of resolving conflict or other difficulties," it says.

Some of the recommendations put forward by the report, include the Development of a policing strategy to address armed violent crime in metropolitan and surrounding areas for addressing armed violence; investing in research aimed at identifying and publicising good practice in local level policing in addressing armed violence; strengthening evidence based crime investigation and prosecution as well as strengthening measures to ensure police integrity.

The report talks about a need to create public areas that are gun free zones and discouraging violence and bullying at schools and focuses on creating weapon free zones in drinking establishments and improving safety in prisons so that it becomes violence free.

The Police Ministry is cautious about the report, welcoming the debate is it likely to spark, but raising concerns about some of its element.

Secretary for Police, Jenni Irish-Qhobosheane, says nothing "incredibly new" came from the report, questioning whether linking culture or socio-economic conditions to commission of crime, is not a true reflection.

"The report opens a debate on the nature of crime in the country which is useful. However, as a Ministry we need to highlight that we had some serious concerns about some elements of the report," says Irish-Qhobosheane.

The Ministry also says that the concepts of the culture of violence and criminality need to be unpacked and better understood.

The CSVR, on the other hand, believes the report is of considerable value and describes it as ground breaking.

"The overall 'integrated view' of key aspects of the problem of violence is an important achievement of the study and takes the study beyond anything that has been done on the subject in South Africa," it says.

Source

26 November 2010

Failure of South African land reform

As you will realise when reading this article - some of the unskilled Black famers have recognised their mistake in trying to run a farm with no knowledge, and some just blame racism for their failure. Any way you look at it, Africans are not known for their farming skills and to entrust your food production to them doesn't make sense. South Africa is not an easy country to farm in - and many more Black "farmers" will find this out...What many don't realise is that White farmers didn't become successful overnight - it took hundreds of years to adapt and succeed and mostly on their own dime. South Africa now has many once productive farms gone to waste - many of the White farmers murdered on their land.....


Michael Zulu trundles a wheelbarrow along the track to his farm homestead, where chickens peck at the carpet and skinny cats curl sleeping amid the bird droppings.

He's the farmer now, not just a tractor driver for a white farmer named Engelbrecht, like he used to be.

But he has a shirt full of holes, the roofless ruins of a dairy and a stretch of farmland whose only crop is cow manure, bagged up and stacked against a wall as a substitute for firewood.

There's no electricity on his farm, just an hour's drive southeast of Johannesburg. The fences and phone lines have been stolen, along with the dairy's roof and fittings. He has to fetch dirty pond water for drinking and washing and set out rickety rabbit traps for meat.

To him, it comes down to one wrong turn: He applied to get a farm under South Africa's land reform program.

"I thought I'd be much better off. But I think it was better with Mr. Engelbrecht. We lived high with Mr. Engelbrecht. We got money from him and we could look after our children."

The land program had noble intent: redressing the wrongs of apartheid, when blacks were denied access to farmland, and lifting black rural people out of grinding poverty by buying farms from willing white owners and giving them to blacks.

It has done neither.

What went wrong? Ask two neighboring farmers and the answer probably will depend on their race. There's so much bitterness beneath the competing narratives, it's difficult to discern what is fact, what is misinformation and what is just an ingrained disinclination to see the other point of view.

There's no dispute, however, that the government has spent about $4 billion on the effort and that most of the farms have failed, raising the specter of the kind of catastrophic agricultural collapse that Zimbabwe suffered after large white-owned farms were seized and handed to political cronies.

South Africa's target, to give 30% of commercial farmland to blacks by 2014, has been put back a decade, and will cost an additional $10 billion.

The policy was marred by corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency. But the main problem was that, like Zimbabwe's program, land was handed out to people who did not know how to farm.

"The government didn't have a strategy to ensure that the land was productive. If there was a strategy, it was not backed with proper resources," Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said recently.

About 90% of the redistributed farms have failed, leaving idle nearly 15 million acres of once productive farmland, about 6% of South Africa's arable land.

"The whole policy is set up for failure," said John Kane-Berman of the South African Institute of Race Relations. "This is a very tough country to farm in, and you take people without a great deal of experience and without the dedication and commitment to farming and it's not surprising that they fail.

"You can speed up the redistribution of land, but you can't conjure up farmers."

---

Johan Van Dyk purrs along the roads in a large SUV. He drifts by Michael Zulu's farm and another farmhouse where a white family once lived.

"The fellow that used to live there was murdered," he remarks blandly.

Van Dyk, one of the wealthiest men in Zulu's district, drives by the farms now run by blacks, gesturing toward the ruined buildings, the missing tin roofs and tumbledown walls.

"That's a white farmer now," he says, pointing. "All the roofs are on."

It's pretty, rolling country, greened by the summer rains, but resentment and racial stereotypes slither beneath the surface. There's bitterness on both sides, even violence: white farmers' dogs poisoned; break-ins, family photos smashed; farmers slain.

Men like Van Dyk, 56, would rather shoot a prowler dead than hit him in the leg. He calls his son a "bad shot" for doing just that to a robber, armed with a knife, who broke into their house recently. Van Dyk carries a switchblade knife. So does his wife.

And their black farmhands and gardeners never cross the threshold of their home.

Van Dyk's new black neighbors are disturbed by what they call his habit of carrying a gun whenever he turns up, "as if we were enemies." They believe most white farmers are just waiting for them to fail, so they can swoop in and buy the farms back, cheap.

Eight years ago, Michael Zulu joined a group of about 206 blacks who called themselves the Sizanani farming company. A few were farm workers, the rest township dwellers with no farming background.

With government grants, they bought seven farms, elected a committee and planted crops.

Zulu doesn't know anything about the Sizanani farm finances, just that the money ran out after a few bad maize crops.

Then he sold the tractor tires and radiator. He sold chickens. He gave up trying to farm his own land, and hired himself out on other farms, herding other people's cattle or working as a gardener in the nearest town.

"We think we should go to the government again, for more money," he says.


---

From his farm on a low hill, Van Dyk looks down, in more ways than one, on his neighbor Nomvula Maya.

Maya, 50, took over a lease on Van Dyk's chicken farm after he sold it to the government two years ago for about $2.6 million — $850,000 less than an independent valuation.

He was sure that Maya would fail, and she did.

But Maya, an activist with the ruling African National Congress who lives in nearby Balfour, is equally certain Van Dyk is to blame. She suspects sabotage and fraud.

In the apartheid era, Maya left school in the eighth grade to work as a meat packer, in a grocery store and selling sweets on a street corner. She got the chicken farm on April 1, 2009, convinced she was finally going to make some money. Unlike Zulu, under her program she doesn't own the land, she only leases it.

"I knew a little bit, because I had been running my own chickens here at home. I had 150 or 200 in all," Maya says.

But the farm had nine massive chicken houses with 300,000 chickens and strict rules set by the contracting chicken factory on temperatures, sanitation, feed and disease control. Her son, Zakhele, gave up his mathematics studies at Witwatersrand University to help.

"It's this huge operation she needed to take care of," he says. "I could see she needed my assistance."

Without title, banks refused to give her loans to buy hatchlings to get started. So with no money, Maya went into partnership for a season with Van Dyk's son to sow maize, but got no profit.

"Unfortunately, that was a very bad year for us and he had to carry the losses, which were substantial," Van Dyk senior says.

The Mayas see it differently.

"We realized the financial statements were fake," Zakhele Maya says, alleging that the cost of fuel and other expenses were inflated.

"We had an extremely bad relationship with him," he says bitterly, referring to Van Dyk senior. "He was trying to drive us out. Fundamentally, he's a white right-wing supremacist, in my view, and highly racist. And he doesn't believe that black people can farm.

"I told him I'd got to Wits [Witswatersrand University] studying mathematics when people said I'd never do it. I said I didn't think that at this stage of my life farming chickens should be difficult."

Maya used her husband's retirement fund to pay the workers and the electricity bill, but soon ran out of cash. Her workers turned to Van Dyk for work.

"The white farmer is always the bad guy," Van Dyk drawls. "So I wonder. Why do they always come to me?"

Sinking into debt, Maya couldn't pay the power bill or plow fire breaks around the farm. Catastrophe struck this year: A wildfire burned the chicken houses, leaving her dream in ashes.

The fire poisoned relations even more. In fact, the two stories of the fire are so different that it's difficult to decide whether someone is lying or it's just a terrible misunderstanding.

Van Dyk says that when nearby farmers went to help fight the fire, Maya's son refused them entry. Zakhele Maya says the white farmers came just to watch the place burn down.

"I feel too bad because I have got an opportunity to show myself in the economy, but because of these attitudes, I am just looking like a failure," Maya says. "I'm a failure."

Van Dyk says he believes black farmers will succeed only in partnership with experienced farmers, mostly whites.

"And they must learn to farm together," he says. "If the black farmer doesn't want to farm anymore, he must be allowed to sell his part to the white farmer. But that farm must not be redistributed again."

Nomvula Maya says she's had plenty of partnership proposals from whites, offering to run the property for a share of the profits, while she stays home.

"To me, it's a bad attitude. It's an insult to me. You are telling yourself I'm stupid and you are cleverer than me. Some of them are telling me, 'Maybe you should get rid of the farm and maybe you should get a cattle farm, because it's difficult, this broiler farm.' To me, that's an insult."

She's determined to succeed and, like her neighbor Michael Zulu, wants monetary help from the government.

But Zulu's enthusiasm for the farming life has been worn away by years of living in squalor, without power or water or hope.

"I feel bad," he says." My heart's broken. I want to work. I want to go to a job."

Source