Friday, February 28, 2014

Greenpeace Co-Founder: No Evidence of Man-Made Global Warming

By Daniel Greenfield

Patrick Moore has been speaking out about this before and like other skeptics, including Freeman Dyson, has gotten the expected treatment by the left. Now he appeared in Congress to make a point that is backed by science, but denied by a climate science establishment getting fat off Global Warming and Green Energy grants.
A Greenpeace co-founder testified in Congress on Tuesday about global warming. What he said is hardly what anyone would expect.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” said Moore, who was testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.
“If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”
Moore didn’t hold back in his Senate appearance. He quickly zeroed in on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and strongly scolded it for claiming there is a “95-100% probability” that man “has been the dominant cause of” global warming. Those numbers, he said, have been invented.
He also characterized the IPCC’s reliance on computer models as futile; told senators that history “fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming”; and noted that “during the Greenhouse Ages,” a period that precedes our fossil-fuel burning civilization, “there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and subtropical from pole to pole.”
Moore further crossed the line of accepted climate change discourse when he insisted “that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one” and reminded lawmakers “that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way” temperatures “will go next.”
Anyone who has been caught in the snow because the NOAA predicted a warmer winter already knows that. Our ability to predict the weather grows hazier at a distance in time. We can’t predict the weather two weeks from now. We certainly can’t predict the weather two hundred years from now.
Meanwhile James Lovelock, the eccentric figure behind Gaia and a revered figure in the Warmist community, is also being most unhelpful though for another reason.
Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.
Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem – the bigger challenge will be food. “Maybe they’ll synthesise food. I don’t know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco’s, in the form of Quorn. It’s not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it.” But he fears we won’t invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects “about 80%” of the world’s population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. “But this is the real thing.”
Recycling, he adds, is “almost certainly a waste of time and energy”, while having a “green lifestyle” amounts to little more than “ostentatious grand gestures”. He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. “Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam … or if it wasn’t one in the beginning, it becomes one.”
He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all – renewable energy.
“You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”
Mind you, in 2012, Lovelock admitted he was too alarmist about Global Warming.
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
The moral of the story is that environmentalists are basically trolls and should be ignored.

Former British Commander: Amnesty Report Will Incite Even More Hatred (INTERVIEW)

By Joshua Levitt

“Instead of making a meaningful contribution to reducing violence, Amnesty has produced a report that will be exploited as a tool to incite even more hatred,” Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, told The Algemeiner in an interview on Friday.
Amnesty International’s report, Trigger-happy: Israel’s use of excessive force in the West Bank, released on Thursday, was condemned by the retired commander, who served in the British Army from 1977 to 2006 and frequently collaborated with Israel Defense Forces, who he’s credited for instructing British forces on how to defend against suicide bombings.
“The undisguised one-sidedness in this report is a technique reserved by human rights groups like Amnesty for Israel alone,” Kemp said. “No other nation on Earth is singled out for this kind of distortion of the truth, not even the worst human rights offenders, such as Syria, Sudan and Pakistan.”
Kemp said Amnesty’s report was reminiscent of the Goldstone report on Cast Lead, Israel’s 2009 operation in Gaza, produced for the United Nations that was subsequently discredited.
“The flawed methodology of the Goldstone report has been re-cycled by Amnesty,” he said. “Both treated unsubstantiated allegations made by local people as being absolute proof of Israeli heavy-handedness and wrong-doing. Both failed to take any account of the immense pressures imposed on Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank to follow the anti-Israel line of their leaders, irresistible pressures that self-evidently have an effect on what is said to UN and Amnesty investigators, even when witnesses are guaranteed anonymity.”
Kemp said he was also very concerned about Amnesty’s lack of proficiency in investigating and assessing military operations.
“This is another area of similarity between Amnesty and Goldstone, whose team was also notable for its lack of credible military expertise,” he said. “Amnesty’s ignorance of realities on the ground permeates every page of this report.”
“In fact even Salil Shetty, the Secretary General of Amnesty admitted to this glaring weakness just days before the report was published when he said [in a February 10 Al Jazeera interview]: ‘Amnesty International is not an organization with expertise on military situations.’”
As a career military officer with deep expertise in similar regional conflicts, Kemp spoke from real world experience that he said was nowhere reflected in the Amnesty report.
“The report is so dismissive of the seriousness of violent assaults by Palestinian crowds as to imply that Israeli use of lethal and non-lethal force is unprovoked,” he said. “Amnesty suggest that petrol bombs pose little or no threat to the life of Israeli soldiers. Have the report’s authors ever been on the receiving end of petrol bombs? I have and I’ve seen how horrifically a petrol bomb can wound a soldier.”
“Amnesty also ignore the planned orchestration by extremists of violent demonstrations to provoke Israeli troops into a response intended to result in death and injury among their own people. We find such actions unthinkable, but they are designed for propaganda purposes and to stir-up anti Israel hatred.”
Kemp said that was the same technique as Hamas’s self-proclaimed use of human shields in Gaza about which he wrote a monograph in 2009 for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and testified to the United Nations Human Rights Council in response to the introduction of the Goldstone report that accused Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the Gaza War.
At the time, Kemp acknowledged that, “of course, innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.”
He said, “based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare.”
Returning to the Amnesty report, Kemp described it as “often confused and contradictory.”
“For example, Amnesty conclude that Israeli troops use excessive force against Palestinians with impunity. Yet the report mentions the case of a soldier who was convicted and imprisoned by the Israeli authorities in 2013 for causing the death of a Palestinian by negligently firing against his rules of engagement.”
“The report criticizes Israel for an increase in the number of civilian deaths and injuries during 2013. Of course any such rise is a cause for grave concern, but nowhere does Amnesty even acknowledge the sharp increase in violent disorder by Palestinians in 2013 reported by the IDF, which has necessitated increased intervention by security forces.”
On Thursday, the IDF said in 2013 there were 5,000 incidents of Palestinian Arabs throwing rocks at Israelis, equivalent to 75 incidents per day, with half of those along main roads. As a result, 132 Israelis were injured last year, nearly double the count in 2012.
The IDF said, “Sadly, rock throwing and violent demonstrations present only part of the operational challenges posed to the IDF by Palestinian violence in Judea and Samaria. Indeed, in 2013 there were 66 further terror attacks which included shootings, the planting of IEDs, blunt weapon attacks and the abduction and murder of a soldier.”
Kemp said, “An objective and impartial report that gave due consideration to the overall context and examined the actions of both sides rather than an exercise in blatant Israel-bashing, could have made a contribution to easing the plight of the Palestinian people.”
Much of the content of the 85-page report relied mainly on testimonies of the families of young Arab men, such as 22-year-old Muhammad Asfur, whose friends acknowledged to Amnesty staff that he was throwing rocks at IDF soldiers, that he refused their calls to back down and then was undeterred by a round of vile-smelling teargas. The IDF responded by firing rubber bullets at Asfur from 100-feet away, hitting him in the head, causing the wound from which he died from in the hospital later that day.
“Highlighting the youth of those involved in the violence, Amnesty ignores the fact that incitement to hate is a daily feature of their lives at school – much of which is the result of official indoctrination by the Palestinian Authority through textbooks and the local media,” Kemp said. “Instead of making a meaningful contribution to reducing violence, Amnesty has produced a report that will be exploited as a tool to incite even more hatred.”
As to Amnesty’s motivation, which charity watchdog NGO Monitor also questioned, Kemp said, “The anti-Israel agenda of this report is obvious.”
“The timing of its release was both crass and cynical. Publication during Israel Apartheid Week can only have been intended to fuel the demonization of the Jewish state in schools and on campuses,” he said.
“Even the report’s language reveals the political motivation of the authors,” he said. “For example, they throw out phrases such as ‘Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians in 1948′ as if it is an undisputed historical fact.”
“The report’s recommendations expose Amnesty’s support for boycotts of Israel, even going so far as to demand that the US and EU deny crowd control equipment and training to Israel. This proposal is also evidence of Amnesty’s military incompetence as such equipment exists to control disorder while reducing the necessity for violent response.”
Kemp’s own assessment of the IDF’s actions offers a nuanced understanding that he said was absent from the 85-page Amnesty report.
“The IDF has a very tough job and the pressures faced by soldiers confronted with a violent mob are immense,” he said. “They not only have to consider the dangers of the immediate situation, but also the ever-present risk of terrorist gun or bomb attacks, and, of course, the threat of their own kidnap.”
“Soldiers in all armies make mistakes and sometimes over-react – it is impossible to always get it right in such stressful circumstances,” he said. “I am sure there have been occasions when Israeli soldiers have over-reacted and made the wrong judgement calls, as have British soldiers.”
“I know what a high priority the IDF places on preventing civilian casualties, and like the British military in such situations, the IDF will always try to use non-lethal force before having to resort to live ammunition. In my experience of observing the IDF, this need to protect civilian life and to respond proportionately is well understood from the most senior general right down to the most junior soldier.”
Upon retiring from the British Army, after completing 14 operational tours of duty around the globe, Kemp, in 2007, published the bestseller ‘Attack State Red,’ an account of the British campaign in Afghanistan.

Dutch Postwar Artwork Restitution: Wrong and Heartless

Interview with Rudi Ekkart, head of Dutch Restoration Commission.

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

“In 1997, I was appointed by the Dutch government as head of a commission to investigate the post-World War II restitution of art. We did a preliminary study to see whether more data could be found about art returned after the war to the Netherlands, which had been stolen by the Germans, or sold to them under duress.
“This so-called National Art Property (NK Collection) initially consisted of10,000 items. Part of it was gradually returned after the war and another part was auctioned off. Almost half was still managed by Dutch authorities more than 50 years after the war. Our commission had to investigate how many works were stolen from the original owners.”

Professor Rudi Ekkart is a retired professor of art history at the University of Utrecht. He was, until 2012, director of the National Bureau for Art Documentation (RKD). He plays a key role for seventeen years already in the Dutch investigations of stolen artwork, both government controlled and in museum collections.

“A pilot study based on 100 items surprised and shocked me. We came to the conclusion in our April 1998 report that for many works of art in the NK collection, additional information was available. We recommended to investigate the entire collection. In our conclusion, we said that the government’s postwar policy regarding the restitution of art had been unclear, wrong and heartless.

“In 1999, the Deputy Minister of Education, Culture and Science created a second commission named Seeking the Origin. It became popularly known as the Ekkart Commission.

“This new body had a much larger task. We were in charge of ordering research into the origin of all works returned from Germany after the war and still in the possession of the Dutch government. A second assignment was to investigate how the foundation SNK – which dealt with the NK Collection from 1945-1952 – had functioned. We were also asked to recommend to the government what its policy should be concerning the possible return of some works of art.

“In postwar Netherlands, there had been a battle between two interest groups. The Ministry of Finance wanted to sell as much art from the collection as possible, to help the Dutch treasury. On the other side were directors of Dutch museums and the head of the SNK. They believed this was a great occasion to build a national art collection. In the end, they received support from the Minister of Education, Art and Science.

“The third interest group – those to whom the art belonged or their heirs – did not participate in the discussion. Some called for help, like the widow of Jewish art trader Jacques Goudstikker. This story was reported internationally.

“The SNK had to seek out the art and put it in order. They were not expected to deal with claims of those who were entitled to it. However, they often said to these people that they had no chance of recovering the artwork. Some heirs appealed to the Council for Restitution, however, many had been discouraged. The SNK had asked for guidance about restitution, but the government never issued any. It was apparently unwilling to give unsympathetic or even illegal advice. The artworks concerned had been returned to the Netherlands in order to be handed over to those entitled to them.

“A large part of the NK collection had normal origins. We however, reopened a number of claim files which had been closed by the SNK without a decision by, or an agreement with a higher authority. Our commission found that a substantial number of works which had remained in the NK collection had most probably been stolen from Jewish owners, or sold under duress. Some heirs could not be found. We recommended that the items concerned remain in the government collection. If they were to be exhibited in museums, their origin should be mentioned.

“Furthermore, we asked the Dutch government to make a financial grant to Jewish institutions equaling the value of the stolen items remaining in its possession. The Dutch government did so by transferring monies to the famous library of the Portugese synagogue and to the Jewish Historical Museum. It also accepted our other major recommendations.

An exhibition of works whose origins remained unclear was shown in Amsterdam. Two of our employees published a book about the Dutch policy of postwar restitution of art.

“Two cases of restituted works were major. The heirs of the Gutmann family received many stolen pieces back, including silver items from the 16th century. Many works were also returned to the heir of the Goudstikker collection, among which were important antique paintings.

“Our final report published in 2004 said that the Dutch treatment of the restitution of artwork during 1945-1952 had in general been formalistic, bureaucratic, cold and often heartless. The Kordes and Schotten commissions which had investigated other postwar restitution issues came to similar conclusions in their fields.”

UK: Immigration can only be controlled by leaving EU

Immigration figures released for the past year are yet more proof of the damage being done by unfettered immigration from the EU.David Cameron pledged in 2010 to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 by 2015. Net immigration for the past year was a staggering 212,000 and represents a brutal blow to Mr Cameron’s hopes of getting a grip on the problem before the next election. The number of immigrants coming to this country now stands at more than half a million every year and the main cause is our membership of the EU. Immigration from within the EU rose alarmingly in the past year from 149,000 to 209,000. However immigration from non-EU nations – which the Government still has the power to restrict – has fallen by 15,000 over the same period. Mr Cameron has been powerless to stem the tide of immigrants from Europe because of the EU’s barmy rules on freedom of movement. A fortnight ago Jose Barroso, the president of the European Commission, even admitted that limitless immigration has caused “strains” in Britain. He also made it abundantly clear that we can expect no repatriation of border control powers while we’re still under the yoke of Brussels. As this newspaper has repeatedly warned we will be forced to endure the crippling effects of rampant immigration until Britain leaves the EU.

Britain: Islamists Create Climate of Fear to Curb Free Speech

 By Soeren Kern
"My intention was to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death." — Maajid Nawaz, Liberal Democratic Party candidate for Britain's Parliament.
"The media's vaunted concern for minority welfare is at direct odds with its indifference to the minority within Islam that is trying to reform its orthodoxy's disgraceful attitude to blasphemy—a minority that is gravely endangered and in need of friends." — Abhishek Phadnis, free speech activist, London School of Economics.
Muslim fundamentalists in London have threatened to behead a fellow British Muslim after he posted an innocuous image of Mohammed and Jesus on his Twitter account.
The death threats against Maajid Nawaz, a Liberal Democrat Party candidate for British Parliament, add to a growing number of cases in which Islamists are using intimidation tactics to restrict the free speech rights of fellow Muslims in Europe. (Efforts to silence non-Muslims are well documented.)
Nawaz—a former member of the Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir and co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, a London-based counter-extremism think-tank—on January 12 posted on Twitter a cartoon of Mohammed and Jesus greeting one another ("Hey" and "How ya doin'?") with the caption: "This Jesus & Mo @JandMo cartoon is not offensive&I'm sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it الله أكبر منه".
Nawaz's tweet followed a BBC Big Questions program in which the "Jesus and Mo" cartoons, which have been around since 2005, were discussed and Nawaz was included as a studio guest.
Nawaz, who is also author of the book "Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism," said he posted the image to trigger a debate among Muslims about what should and should not be acceptable within Islam.
Not in the mood for debate, furious Muslims responded by bullying and issuing threats of violence—including beheading—and also launched a petition (it quickly garnered more than 20,000 signatures) to have Nawaz deselected as a candidate for parliament.
Labour Party Councilor Yaqub Hanif of Luton, a town situated 50 km (30 miles) north of London and known as the Islamic extremist capital of Britain, said the depictions of Mohammed were "totally unacceptable" to Muslims and called on Nawaz to step down.
"It's appalling that this guy is a parliamentary candidate because this behavior is not conducive to being an MP," Hanif said in an interview with the International Business Times. "If you want to be an MP then you must respect all faiths. He's not doing that."
A counter-petition has now been set up (it has only 8,000 signatures) calling on the Liberal Democrats to give Nawaz their full support. The petition states:
"Islamists and political opponents have mounted a campaign against Maajid Nawaz, resulting in numerous threats to his life. We note that this campaign, rather than being based on legitimate concerns of Muslims, is a political campaign which is being spear-headed by a group of Muslim reactionaries with a track record of promoting extremism. They are seeking to use Muslim communities in order to whip up hatred against a liberal and secular Muslims. We are concerned that this campaign will also be used by anti-Muslim extremists as evidence of Muslim intolerance and incompatibility with liberal values which could, in turn, fuel anti-Muslim bigotry."
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has expressed his support for Nawaz. "We simply cannot tolerate anyone in a free country—where we have to protect free speech, even if that free speech might cause offense to others—being subject to death threats and them and their family being put under extraordinary pressure to recant what they said," Clegg said.
Muslims eventually retaliated by rescinding the Quilliam Foundation's nomination for the annual British Muslim Awards, held in Manchester on January 30. Quilliam had been listed in the "Spirit of Britain" award category, but a statement on the awards' Facebook page reads: "In light of recent activity, the British Muslim Awards, after careful consideration, have come to the decision that it can no longer promote the Quilliam Foundation as a finalist, and thus its nomination has been removed with immediate effect."
More worrisome for the principle of free speech is that British mainstream media have censored reporting of the Jesus & Mo cartoon controversy.
For example, Channel 4 News blacked out a cartoon image of the Prophet Mohammed during a news broadcast on January 28 in order not to cause offense to Muslim viewers. In an open letter to the editor of Channel 4, the National Secular Society wrote that by "making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries—the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr. Nawaz, online."
"By redacting the picture of 'Mo,' you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronize British Muslims by assuming they will take offense at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent)."

In an article entitled, "Why I'm speaking up for Islam against the loudmouths who have hijacked it" (published by The Guardian newspaper on January 28), Nawaz defended his decision to tweet the image of Jesus and Mo.
"My intention was to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death," Nawaz wrote. "Modern Islamist attempts to impose theocratic orthodoxy on us will be resisted."
Others are not so sure. In an essay entitled, "Publish and be Damned," Abhishek Phadnis, a free speech activist at the London School of Economics, writes:
"The media's vaunted concern for minority welfare is at odds with its indifference to the minority within Islam that is trying to reform its orthodoxy's disgraceful attitude to blasphemy—a minority that is gravely endangered and in need of friends. Theirs is a spirited rear-guard against a gigantic global power of untold wealth and influence (namely Islamism, or the "loudmouths who have hijacked" Islam, as Maajid Nawaz puts it) which has a wretched record on freedom of expression, and every intention of exporting it."
"Since 1988, it has suborned the murder of foreign cartoonists, translators, artists, publishers and filmmakers who have offended its sensibilities, and has blighted the life and career of our most gifted contemporary novelist [Salman Rushdie]. Its blasphemy code has been visited upon Western universities, publishers, magazines, museums, art galleries, television productions, operas, independent cartoonists, artists and filmmakers and even Wikipedia, and it has sought to sabotage the economies and wreck the diplomatic missions of democracies that refuse to implement that code."
"It is a damning indictment of the press's confusion that every publication has ended up on the wrong side of its own politics in this matter," Phadnis concludes.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Uganda’s Anti-Gay Laws and Leftist Silence

By Arnold Ahlert

On Monday, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda signed into law harsh, anti-gay legislation. The law includes provisions that would jail repeat offenders for life, outlaw any promotion of homosexuality, and require the Ugandan people to denounce it. In the face of genuine persecution of gay people, of course, the LGBT community and their supporters are conspicuously silent. And while the Obama administration has released a statement criticizing the law, most black activists remain completely MIA as well, including the man leading the charge against the anti-gay marriage agenda in America, Eric Holder. 
This largely non-reaction to the far more serious developments in Uganda stands in stark contrast to the efforts by both entities on the home front. Holder, who wholeheartedly embraces the selective law enforcement agenda that has become the trademark of the Obama administration, has extended that agenda to the gay marriage debate. Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General on Tuesday, Holder advised his state counterparts that they needn’t defend the laws of their states they consider discriminatory. 
Holder cited his own experience with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as the template state attorneys general should apparently follow. ”Any decisions — at any level — not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare,” Holder said at the meeting. “And they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements–hinging instead on firm constitutional grounds.” He then added that his own view is that “we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation.”
One is left to wonder how those constitutional grounds are determined if a state attorney general can simply refuse to defend a challenge to any law they themselves deem to be discriminatory before a trial takes place. Moreover it is hard to see how the refusal to defend the rule of law would be anything but a political act. 
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange of the Republican Attorneys General Association eviscerated this dangerous nonsense. ”A state attorney general has a solemn duty to the state and its people to defend state laws and constitutional provisions against challenge under federal law. To refuse to do so because of personal policy preferences or political pressure erodes the rule of law on which all of our freedoms are founded. A government that does not enforce the law equally will lead our society to disrespect the rule of law,” he said in a statement.
Political pressure is a specialty of the LGBT community whose most recent focus has been a religious protection law proposed by the state of Arizona, which was recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer in light of an enormous public outcryThe purpose of pointing out what happened in Arizona is not to evaluate the pros or cons of Brewer’s recent veto. It is to demonstrate the enormous power of a mobilized LGBT community that apparently feels no similar compulsion to mobilize against Museveni in Uganda. Even as they remained focused on Arizona, the Red Paper, a Ugandan tabloid, published a list of 200 people it accused of being gay under the headline “Exposed!” ”Uganda’s 200 top homos named,” the paper declared. “In salutation to the new law, today we unleash Uganda’s top homos and their sympathisers,” it added, compiling a list of those who had declared their sexuality and those who hadn’t. The list included activists, priests and music stars.
Frank Mugisha, director of the group Sexual Minorities Uganda, illuminated the implications of the new law. ”We’re going to see people getting beaten on the streets, we’re going to see people thrown out by their families, we’re going to see people being evicted by their landlords, we’re going to see people losing jobs, we’re going to see people thrown out of school, because they are  perceived or not as homosexuals,” he warned. “Even the suspicion will get someone in trouble.”
It is trouble welcomed by Uganda’s Muslim leaders. “It takes a courageous leader to defy all the western powers who have gone as far a threatening to cut off aid to Uganda in case the president signs the anti-gay bill,” said Hajji Nsereko Mutumba, the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) Public Relations Officer, in a statement.
Perhaps it takes no courage at all, either for Museveni or the LGBT community and Eric Holder. Forbes Magazine contributor Cedric Mohammed explains that geo-political concerns take precedence over human rights issues. “Despite the strong rhetoric coming from the Obama administration over the signing of an anti-Homosexual law by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, there is no way President Obama will allow the issue to compromise long-standing American military interests in the region and there’s little chance the LGBT political establishment will ask him to….Militarization trumps everything else as evidenced by the influential LGBT-rights group, The Human Rights Commission’s lack of lobbying on the issue,” he writes.
No doubt that decision is made easier by the left’s general contempt for Christian values and Western civilization. Yet the outpouring of vituperation against the “cartoonish” bigotry or “vile” exclusivity of Christians opposed to endorsing the gay agenda stands in odious contrast to the LGBT calculated silence surrounding Uganda’s unquestionably reprehensible — and possibly deadly — treatment of homosexuals. That hypocrisy goes double for Eric Holder, whose sense of outrage for any injustice directed at homosexuals and people of color apparently fails to extend itself beyond the borders of the United States.
Thus, barring a sudden change of heart, the genuine persecution of gays in Uganda will not be impeded by the self-professed champions of tolerance and human rights. In short, if the LGBT community and Eric Holder didn’t have double-standards, they’d have no standards at all.

Muslims Attack Gaza Church: “The Days of You O Worshipers of the Cross”

By Daniel Greenfield

Palestinian Muslim control over territory has always led to the flight of Christians. Ramallah was founded by Christians fleeing Muslim persecution. Like so many other Christian strongholds, it became Muslim. Bethlehem is majority Muslim and its Christians report incidents of persecution and intimidation.
Leftist churches still blame Israel for this, but there is a reason that Christians are vanishing in the Muslim world. And the issue is Muslim intolerance.
Palestine Press Agency reports that two nights ago people attacked a Latin church in Gaza City, and they spray painted slogans against attacks on Muslims in the Central African Republic.
The attackers tried to blow up a car belonging to the pastor, Father Jorge Hernández, but their Molotov cocktail failed to ignite.
Before they left the scene the attackers wrote that they vowed revenge for the Muslims in the Central African Republic, writing “The days of you O worshipers of the cross, in revenge for the Muslims in Central Africa.”
Gaza has about a thousand Christians remaining after a series of attacks in the early days of Hamas rule.
Soon there will be none left.

Court of Appeals Allows Schools to Ban US Flag Shirts to Avoid Racist Mexican Violence

By Daniel Greenfield

Those DREAMERS are doing a wonderful job of changing America… from well America.
which just approved a Muslim heckler’s veto by forcing YouTube to remove the Innocence of Muslims trailer which Obama falsely blamed for the Benghazi terror attack by Al Qaeda elements in Libya, also approved a heckler’s veto for racist anti-American Mexicans in California.
And on the facts of this case, the court concludes, there was reason to think that the wearing of the T-shirts would lead to disruption. There had been threats of racial violence aimed at students who wore such shirts the year before:
On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a year before the events relevant to this appeal, there was an altercation on campus between a group of predominantly Caucasian students and a group of Mexican students. The groups exchanged profanities and threats.
Some students hung a makeshift American flag on one of the trees on campus, and as they did, the group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA.” A group of Mexican students had been walking around with the Mexican flag, and in response to the white students’ flag-raising, one Mexican student shouted “f*** them white boys, f*** them white boys.”
When Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told the student to stop using profane language, the student said, “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. F*** them white boys. Let’s f*** them up.” Rodriguez removed the student from the area….
At least one party to this appeal, student M.D., wore American flag clothing to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009. M.D. was approached by a male student who, in the words of the district court, “shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at [M.D.’s] clothing.
So instead of preventing racist Mexican violence, the school took the predictable course of outlawing America.
Somehow, we’ve reached the point that students can’t safely display the American flag in an American school, because of a fear that other students will attack them for it — and the school feels unable to prevent such attacks (by punishing the threateners and the attackers, and by teaching students tolerance for other students’ speech). Something is badly wrong, whether such an incident happens on May 5 or any other day.
And this is especially so because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed, then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays, the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?
If the United States is no longer able to protect the display of the American flag in California, isn’t it occupied territory?

Arabs Set Police Station on Fire in Jerusalem

Jerusalem Arabs set ablaze a police station next to the Lions' Gate in the capital's Old City on Wednesday.
Aryeh King, nationalist Jerusalem city councilman and member of the municipality's Emergency and Security Committee, was present at the attack and managed to document it. According to King, police officers fled the scene.
"Unfortunately the prime minister is instructing the authorities to avoid eastern Jerusalem, and these are the results," charged King.
"Last night the funeral of a terrorist was held there, they marched from the Mount of Olives towards the Lions' Gate attacking everything in their path and didn't let Jews pass," reported King. He adds that once the group arrived at Lions' Gate they burned the police station.
King, who lives in Maaleh Zeitim on the Mount of Olives, noted that the incident merely highlights an endemic failure of the capital's security.
"The security in eastern Jerusalem is abandoned, women don't dare go to the mikveh (ritual bath) in Armon Hanatziv, in Park Hamesilah next to Beit Tzafafa people are robbed in broad daylight," commented King.
The Jerusalem councilman added that Arab residents "build wherever they want," without enforcement of the building laws.
As for reports that US Secretary of State John Kerry wants to create an Arab capital for the Palestinian Authority (PA) by dividing Jerusalem, King called the proposal "a delusional step that testifies as to how disconnected he is."
"After all, the light rail passes through Beit Hanina, so suddenly the train will pass in a different country?" questioned King. "There are tens of thousands of Jews there, in the adjacent Nave Ya'akov, in Pisgat Ze'ev and also in Beit Hanina."
"The Americans are disconnected from reality," charged King. "Don't they understand the Arabs don't want eastern Jerusalem? They want all of Jerusalem."
King ran for the Knesset in the last elections on Otzma Leyisrael's list, which just fell short of entering the Knesset. At the time, King accused Jewish Home of negative politicking that kept the party out of the Knesset.

Watchdog Group Unveils Anti-Israel Credentials of Amnesty International’s Researchers

By Joshua Levitt

As Amnesty International published an anonymous 85-page report condemning Israel on Thursday, NGO Monitor, the Jerusalem-based charity watchdog, unveiled the names and backgrounds of Amnesty’s researchers, several of whom were full-time anti-Israel activists before joining the human rights group.
Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor’s international legal counsel, told The Algemeiner on Thursday, “We are not sure who wrote the report because Amnesty doesn’t say — in violation of NGO Fact-finding guidelines established by the International Bar Association.”
The only name associated with the report, on its press release, was Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International, who has managed to leave few footprints anywhere online; even Luther’s public LinkedIn profile provides little clue to his experience or credentials.
The cover photography from the report was courtesy of Haim Schwarczenberg, who describes himself as a “photographer and activist in Israel” on the anti-Israel blog Mondoweiss, to which he contributed a report last year. Schwarczenberg’s Facebook account features a stream of hundreds of photos showing Arabs igniting tires to hurl at soldiers, aiming slingshots, and, of course, throwing rocks at the Israel Defense Forces.
Herzberg said that what NGO Monitor has been able to confirm is that Amnesty’s “Israel researcher based in London, Deborah Hyams, acted as a human shield at the Church of the Nativity to protect Palestinian terrorists from the IDF; the Amnesty US Israel researcher, Edith Garwood, used to be a member of the International Solidarity Movement. Also, another one of the researchers, Rasha Abdul-Rahim, describes herself as ‘a ranty Palestinian activist‘ on Twitter.”
“Again, I don’t know if any of these people worked on the report, but their hiring certainly shows that Amnesty doesn’t care about objectivity or the credibility of its reporting,” Herzberg said.
In a 2012 research note, NGO Monitor said, “Amnesty claims that it maintains a policy of ‘impartiality’ and is unbiased in its research of allegations of human rights violations.”
“Despite this claim, Amnesty employs an anti-Israel activist as a researcher in its ‘Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian Authority’ section,” NGO Monitor said.
“This individual, Deborah Hyams, has a well-documented history of radical activism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and, correspondingly, weakens Amnesty’s credibility and claims of neutrality.”
On its website, NGO Monitor elaborated on Hyams’s extensive background in anti-Israel activism. In 2001, Hyams volunteered as a “human shield” in Beit Jala, near Bethlehem, to deter Israeli military responses to recurrent gunfire and mortars targeting Jewish civilians in Jerusalem. In 2002, Hyams stated that some “of Israel’s actions, all the way back to 1948, could be called ‘ethnic cleansing.’” In 2008, she was signatory to a letter claiming Israel is “a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land.”
Prior to joining Amnesty, Hyams worked for “some of the most radical political advocacy NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict,” according to NGO Monitor, including the Alternative Information Center (AIC), Jews for Justice in Palestine and Israel (JPPI), Rachel Corrie Foundation, and Ma’an Network. “Any of these affiliations should have been a red flag for Amnesty,” the watchdog said.
Another Middle East researcher, Kristyan Benedict, was described by NGO Monitor as having “a strong anti-Israel obsession, fueled by global conspiracy theories,” of which it cited several from a 2011 interview with Labour Friends of Palestine.
“Israel is now included in the list of stupid dictatorial regimes who abuse peoples’ basic universal rights – along with Burma, North Korea, Iran and Sudan, its government has the same wanton attitude to human beings,” Benedict said in the interview.
When asked if Amnesty would hold an event to aid kidnapped Israeli Soldier Gilad Shalit, Benedict, according to the UK’s Jewish Chronicle, answered, “Could do, why not? We will also talk about the thousands of Palestinian prisoners as well. We will have to do that if we want to be consistent.”
Described in 2012 as Amnesty’s UK campaign manager, Benedict had to be suspended after a joke on Twitter at the expense of Jewish Members of Parliament, in Britain, backfired, compelling his superiors to even apologize for their employee’s tastelessness.
Outside of the direct Arab-Israeli conflict, NGO Monitor’s Herzberg said that one of Amnesty’s partners, Moazzem Begg, was arrested in the UK on Tuesday “on suspicion of attending a terrorist training camp and facilitating terrorism overseas.”
The former Guantanamo detainee and alleged supporter of the Taliban was one of four people arrested on suspicion of Syria-related terrorism offences, the UK’s Telegraph reported, citing the police.
Begg sparked controversy in 2010 after the UK’s Sunday Times reported that Amnesty had suspended Gita Sahgal, head of its Gender Unit, for criticizing the organization’s alliance with the Pakistani-born activist.
In an official response to the “Global Petition to Amnesty International: Restoring the Integrity of Human Rights,” which garnered 750,012 signatures, Amnesty’s interim Secretary General, Claudio Cordone, defended Begg, stating that “jihad in self-defense” is not “antithetical to human rights.”
The organization had previously claimed it collaborated with Begg because he is a “compelling speaker” and because of its commitment to “upholding the universality of human rights.”
At the time, popular columnist Christopher Hitchens, who has since passed away, described the “degeneration and politicization” of Amnesty as “a moral crisis that has global implications,” urging Amnesty members to withhold their funding from the once stalwart defenders of human rights.

Germany: Seminar with an Iranian Ambassador of neo-fascism

German-Iranian business lobby undermines sanctions and invites anti-Semitic ex-ambassador

For tomorrow Friday February 28, the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce (DIHK) announces a seminar in Hamburg on "Sanction relief and the current state of economic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran." (1) Guest speaker from Iran is the former ambassador of the Iranian regime in France, Seyed Mehdi Miraboutalebi. In Paris, he chose a prominent gathering of right-wing extremists as a forum to agitate against "the Zionist regime called Israel". A Zionist lobby controls the U.S. government, the anti-Semitic ambassador claimed. (2)
In Hamburg, the Chamber of Commerce wants to explain to German companies how to grab “new chances” and “business opportunities” in the Iran business despite continuing sanctions. The seminar is part of a series of events for the promotion of German exports to Iran, partly supported by the Ministry of Economy. Just a few days ago, a German business delegation led by the president of the Hannover Chamber of Commerce Horst Schrage traveled to Tehran. According to Iranian press reports Schrage stated, that German companies are going to continue expanding economic relations regardless of the results of the nuclear talks in Geneva. (3) By contrast, the U.S. government strongly warns against new business and threatens severe consequences for companies engaging in risky deals with Tehran. (4)
STOP THE BOMB spokesman Michael Spaney commented: "An erosion of the sanctions by the German-Iranian business lobby encourages the Iranian Islamists to maintain their nuclear weapons program, causing disastrous effects for the region and the world. The seminar with a prominent Iranian anti-Semite and friend of fascists shows a portrait of manners of a milieu, that wants to do business with Tehran at any cost despite the sad record of executions in Iran and the massive military support of the anti-Semitic terrorist regime for the mass murderer Assad. The German Federal Government must state clearly that the central sanctions against the Islamic Republic are still in effect and that sanction infringements are punished by law. "

French Soccer Player Banned, Fined for ‘Quenelle’ Salute

French soccer player Nicolas Anelka, who plays for the British team West Bromwich Albion, has been banned from five matches for using the offensivequenelle” hand gesture after scoring a goal.
The UK Football Association found the gesture, which is an inverted Nazi salute, to be racist. Anelka was also hit with an 80,000 pound fine, and was ordered to attend an educational program.
However, the association decided that the West Brom striker did not intend the gesture to be anti-Semitic.
He has the right to appeal the decision, and his lawyers said he may decide to do so.
West Brom announced Thursday that it is suspending Anelka. The club said in a statement that while the striker did not intend his gesture to be anti-Semitic, “the Club cannot ignore the offense that his actions have caused, particularly to the Jewish community, nor the potential damage to the Club’s reputation.”
West Brom reportedly lost sponsors following Anelka’s controversial gesture.
The “quenelle” was popularized by anti-Semitic French comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, who is a friend of Anelka’s. It has been described as “nothing more than a Nazi salute in disguise.”
Anelka has vigorously denied that the gesture is racist or anti-Semitic. Dieudonne has backed him, arguing that the gesture is “the gesture of emancipation.”
Dieudonne sought to enter Britain to support Anelka, but was banned by British authorities. He responded by giving his quenelle salute to Queen Elizabeth II.

European Parliament VP reportedly makes drunken scene at German airport, calls guards 'Nazis'

European Parliament Vice President Jacek Prostasiewicz reportedly made a drunken scene at Frankfurt Airport on Wednesday, calling customs officials Nazis and shouting at them "Heil Hitler," according to reports in the German media. According to German daily Bild, the Polish politician disembarked from a plane at the airport, visibly drunk, and then caught the attention of customs officials when he stole a man's baggage cart and sprinted toward the exit. When the officials asked Protasiewicz for identification, he began to hurl insults at them, calling them names such as "Hitler" and "Nazi," asking them, "Were you ever in Auschwitz?" Bild reported. The German daily quoted an eyewitness as saying "the man appeared to be very drunk when he shouted in English that he was from the EU." Police were then called to the scene, forcibly removing Protasiewicz in handcuffs when he refused to accompany them peacefully. The German daily noted that Protasiewicz enjoys immunity as a member of the European Parliament and is therefore unlikely to face prosecution. Polish news portal RMF 24 quoted Protasiewicz as denying being drunk and explaining that he was responding to the rude behavior of a Frankfurt Airport official. Protasiewicz said that he showed the official his documentation upon request. "When he saw my diplomatic passport, he was displeased that he could not demonstrate his power over me, a passenger from Eastern Europe. Giving me the passport he used the word "raus" [out]. This word worked on me a bit like a red rag to a bull. I'm still from the generation that remembers the atmosphere of post-war [Europe] and "raus" in Poland is associated with German arrogance, not with a polite civil servant. According to Protasiewicz, he explained to the customs official that "raus" in Poland has associations like "Heil Hitler." He continued: "This upset the officer. He started to push me, so I said to him that before using force, let him consider Auschwitz. Auschwitz, because it is the best lesson in humility." When asked about reports that he was drunkenly staggering and stammering, Protasiewicz claimed that he has only had one glass of wine on the plane.

Young American & British Muslims

By Paul Austin Murphy

You might have noted that many non-Muslim commentators suggest (or hint) that it's a good thing that Muslims in the U.S. and UK are less 'ethnic' than they used to be. Good for whom, exactly? Well, it could actually a bad thing for non-Muslims because it means that Muslims are more uniform and powerful and therefore more politically dangerous. Indeed this is something that many younger Muslims, especially Islamists, stress.
The ummah is a dangerous thing; as Muslims themselves often say (though not in those precise words). When you have Pakistani mosques and Bangladeshi mosques, or even Deobandi and Barelvi mosques, that is a good thing because there is disunity among Muslims. And that's precisely why Islamists, and other Muslims, stress the ummah. A larger and more uniform ummah will give Islamists more power. That is why they detest 'Muslim nationalism' and the 'un-Islamic' stress on Muslim ethnicity. (Though being politicians Islamists, like communists historically, also sometimes use nationalism and ethnicity when they need to.)
Thus Islamists, and many young American and British Muslims, are like International Socialists ('progressives'/ socialists) in that they downplay nationalism/ patriotism and the nation state itself. Islamists are hoping that an increase in the power of the ummah will increase the power of Islamism.
So non-Muslims shouldn't be at all impressed when Islamists and educated Western Muslims criticise what they, for example, say 'Bengali Islam' and call it 'superstitious'. It is of course younger Muslims who are less ethnic but more ummah-inspired. It is younger Muslims who are more likely to be Islamists than older ones. How, exactly, is that supposed to be a good thing for non-Muslims? It is younger Muslims who are more likely to wear the niqab and burkha than older ones. In fact, in the UK hardly any older Bangladeshi or Pakistani Muslims, for example, wear the niqab and burkha, though they do wear the hijab. The niqab and burkha are effectively the uniforms of Islamism, not Islam. Far from burkhas and niqabs being "traditional Islamic dress", they are quite new in origin. In fact, at least in the UK, they only started to be worn on a frequent basis in the late 1990s or after.

To repeat: rather than the younger generation of Muslims being more moderate than the older generations, it would be easy to argue the opposite case. For example, the infamous East London Mosque, during Ramadan, was attracting between 4,000 and 5,000 people every day in 2009, many of them young. In other words, Islamist groups are doing their best to increase 'Islamic identity' amongst the young in Tower Hamlets (a district of London) and elsewhere. As I said, when the ethnic identity of Muslims was primary in the U.S. and UK, the threat of Islamic extremism was much less. Now that 'Islamist universalism' is a major tune for young Muslims, extremism is increasing and, inevitably, so too will violence and the threat of Islamic terrorism.
To put all this in basic terms: if you look around the word, wherever Islamists are strong and have large numbers, there is political violence, intimidation, and threats towards Christians, non-Muslim women, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews. The recent 'Muslim patrols' in London have just been the most obvious and media-focused aspect of the Islamization of large parts of the capital city and elsewhere. Other aspects of London's Islamization have been 'white flight', the intimidation of drinkers, night-clubbers, women and so on.
And don't be fooled by the increase of Islamic 'peace' conferences either. Islamic peace is something very specific. It is brought about to the degree in which more people become Muslims and embrace sharia law. In other words, Islamic peace will come about when, for example, the whole of Tower Hamlets – and ultimately the entire world – 'submits to Allah'. That is the 'peace' Muslims are referring to.
Take this example: the Baitul Futuh ('House of Victories') Mosque in Morden (London) once acted as the center for what it called the "Loyalty, Freedom and Peace Campaign". Here again they are talking about Islamic loyalty, Islamic freedom and Islamic peace: not freedom and peace as they are usually understood in the non-Muslim West. In other words, a loyalty, freedom, and peace which can only be brought about when an area -- or state, or the entire world -- embraces sharia law. The truth is that Islamic peace is the “peace of the grave”, at least for non-Muslims.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Amnesty shoots itself in the foot over Israel-West Bank report

By Marcus Dysch

Amnesty International’s claims that Israeli forces in the West Bank are “trigger-happy”, shoot Palestinians with impunity and may be guilty of war crimes have been met with outrage and widespread criticism.
A report published by the charity on Thursday highlighted what it said was a “harrowing pattern of unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries of Palestinian civilians”.
The 85-page document, entitled Trigger-happy, Israel’s use of excessive force in the West Bank, also called on the US, the EU and the international community to suspend sales of arms to Israel.
The Israeli Embassy in London dismissed Amnesty’s research as a “stunt” filled with “unverifiable and often contradictory accounts”.
It accused the charity of “skewed logic” and said more than 130 people had been injured by stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank last year.
“Scores” of Israelis who had been stabbed, shot and terrorised were ignored by the report, the embassy said.
A spokesman added: “This obsessive, outrageous report has nothing to offer in the genuine and important discussion about how law enforcement authorities should deal with the complex challenges of demonstrations containing violent and potentially lethal elements.”
Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, the Jerusalem-based research institute, said Amnesty’s accusations were “reckless, blatantly biased, and reflect the lack of a credible research fact-finding methodology”.
He said the allegations were repetitions of “unverifiable Palestinian ‘testimony’” and claimed Amnesty had a “disproportionate and ideological obsession with Israel”.
The report detailed the Israeli use of tear gas, stun grenades, rubber-coated bullets and live ammunition in response to what it describes as “low-level violence, throwing [of] stones and rocks”.
It also considered the social and political impact of what it called “Jewish-only” settlements in the West Bank.
The Foreign Office said there was “no evidence” that British-manufactured weapons or equipment had been used “by the Israeli military forces to commit or facilitate violations of international human rights law”.
A Foreign Office spokesman said the situation would be monitored and called on Israel to “abide by its obligations under international law, including the appropriate use of force by Israeli military forces”.
Amnesty’s Middle East director Philip Luther said: “The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers — and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators — suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy.”
The charity cited the example of 16-year-old Samir Awad from Bodrus, near Ramallah, who was shot and killed near his school in January last year.
He was hit by three bullets while running away from soldiers after protesting against the Israeli security barrier. Amnesty said his death may amount to “extrajudicial execution” or “a wilful killing”. The latter charge is considered a war crime.
Mr Luther said: “The staggering numbers of wounded provide a sobering reminder of the relentless daily danger faced by Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank.
“If the Israeli authorities wish to prove to the world they are committed to democratic principles and international human rights standards, unlawful killings and the unnecessary use of force must stop now.”
Amnesty accused the Israeli authorities of failing to investigate “repeated violations of international human rights law” and called on the Israeli government to open independent, transparent investigations and prosecute personnel responsible for “unlawful killings or injuries”.
Conservative Friends of Israel chairman James Clappison MP said: “Any report has to be seriously considered, but my visit to Israel last week brought home to me the suffering that has been caused on all sides by terrorist actions against Israel in the past.
“Israel is perfectly entitled to take proportionate steps to avert the threat of serious terrorist threats in the future.”
Daniel Taub, Israel’s Ambassador to Britain, said: “Amnesty’s obsessive focus on Israel, and its refusal to recognise the very real threat posed by deliberately-orchestrated violent demonstrations, suggests an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights.”

Protest in Vienna against WKO Iran seminar on Feb 27

No business with the Iranian regime!

Rally & info desk against the Iran seminar of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce (WKO)

Thursday, February 27th 2014, 08:00 AM 

Wiedner Hauptstraße/corner Schönburgstraße

1040 Vienna

In their seminar "Focus on Iran", the Austrian Chamber of Commerce (WKO) wants to teach Austrian companies how to boost their business ties with the anti-Semitic Iranian dictatorship even though most of the sanctions against the regime are still in place. Already in the past the WKO was known for offering this kind of events - and was harshly criticized for it abroad. Also today, the US administration strongly warns against new business with Iran.

Economic cooperation as promoted by the WKO actually supports the most radical and brutal entities of the regime, the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdaran). They control about an estimated 80 percent of the foreign trade as well as the nuclear and ballistic missiles programs. Nothing has changed since President Rouhani took office in August 2013: The "Supreme Leader" Khamenei until today calls the Holocaust a "myth". Israel is being targeted as "cancerous tumor" just as under Ahmadinejad and threatened with annihilation. The number of executions is rising. In Syria, the regime and its ally Hezbollah are responsible for the slaughter of thousands. And in Iran, opposition members, women, homosexuals, religious and ethnic minorities are still being brutally oppressed.

Whoever promotes increased business ties with this regime, just as the Austrian Chamber of Commerce does, helps the ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guards to remain in power. The projects of the regime - be it the nuclear program or the oppression of the population - are mainly financed with the revenues from foreign trade. Companies which now engage in business with Iran clearly risk to be punished and lose their international reputation. Those Iranian citizens, who have been yearning for regime change for years, will not forget who were the biggest supporters of the brutal rulers.

UK Comedy Gold: Judge tells jihad murderers of soldier that they betrayed Islam….

Hilarity mayhem breaks out when an ignorant judge lectures jihad murderers with his own fantasies about Islam.
Judge imam Sweeney is implying that he is too stupid and too ignorant to make his own judgement, instead, he is simply repeating what “has been said elsewhere”
No, this Muslim vermin did not betray Islam, Judge Sweeney. They have exactly followed and obeyed the instructions given to them in the Koran. These are good Muslims killing infidels, like David Camoron and you, Judge Sweeney.

The final insult: Court terror for Lee Rigby's family as his Muslim killers are dragged from dock shouting 'Allahu akbar' while fighting prison guards - before judge tells them life will not mean life

Violence broke out in the Old Bailey dock today after Lee Rigby's murderers began hurling abuse at the judge and fighting with prison guards during their sentencing. Michael Adebolajo, 29, was given a whole-life term, while Michael Adebowale, 22, was jailed for life with a minimum of 45 years - meaning he could be back on the streets by the age of 67. In extraordinary scenes, the two Muslim extremists yelled 'Allahu Akbar' and 'You (Britain) and America will never be safe' during their sentencing at the court in Central London. The British-born extremists mowed down Fusilier Rigby in a car before hacking him to death in the street in front of horrified onlookers near Woolwich Barracks in south-east London in May last year. They both claimed that they were ‘soldiers of Allah’ and were motivated by the plight of Muslims abroad to carry out the killing, and have shown no remorse. After sentencing began, the two men shouted at Mr Justice Sweeney in protest at his remarks and were pinned to the ground by several security guards and taken back to the cells. The judge was forced to sentence the men in their absence after they were bundled out of the courtroom following their violent outburst. The killers had to be pinned to the ground by nine security guards and Rigby's family began sobbing as they watched the incident in horror, being handed tissues by court staff. The relatives were forced to get up from their seats, cowering away from the violence which was happening just feet away, according to reporters in court. Adebolajo shouted Allahu Akbhar, and Adebowale called out ‘that's a lie’ and ‘it's not a betrayal of Islam’ as the judge told them they had been radicalised. The prisoners were dragged down to the cells - one head first – and could be heard banging on the ceilings below after being taken down as the judge condemned their 'barbaric' murder.

Our Weimar Republic

By Bruce Walker

The horror of National Socialism is so profound and universally acknowledged that comparing our current political and social climate with the rise of the Nazis is sometimes too often and too easily done.  The radical left four decades ago observed that Hitler called for "Law and Order," just as conservatives were doing then.  Conservatives have noted that the rise of paganism in American culture and the deconstruction of moral values pushed by the left hearken back to another grim legacy of Nazism. 
There are, however, some chilling suggestions in politics and government today that draw memories of the last days of that failed German republic.  Consider two of the most notorious changes in the German nation as it moved from Weimar Germany to Nazi Germany: the destruction of the sovereignty of state governments and the replacement of the national legislature with unchecked executive power.
A vital but usually ignored part of the Nazi revolution in Germany was the reduction of robust and independent German states to the status of mere appendages of the federal government.  At the time, outside observers found this the most critical aspect of Nazi government.  As early as 1939, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, in his book Hitler's Reich, noted that "[f]ederal Germany is gone.  The Gleichschaltung law disposes of the prerogatives of the separate States, and Nazis leaders have been named Statthalter, with power from Berlin to dismiss State governments should they not prove fully amenable."  Clarence Street wrote in 1941: "One of Hitler's first acts was to abolish the German federal system.  Once he had removed the powerful brake which state rights provide, totalitarianism sped on."  Oswald Dutch, in his 1941 book Hitler's 12 Apostles, wrote: "[The Nazis] systematically set about dissolving the individual provincial governments, eliminating the provincial assembles, and uniting all powers in the hands of the central government in Berlin."  
Obama and his leftist minions approach the relationship between the federal and state governments of America like Hitler and his Nazi goons viewed the relationship between the German federal government and the states of Germany.  Hitler's screams to the masses for "Ein Reich!" had a very specific meaning:  one national German government, and no Saxony or Bavaria or Holstein. 
As Weimar Germany slid to Nazi Germany, another disturbing trend was the reduction of the national legislature to irrelevance.  In the last years of Weimar Germany, President Hindenburg began ruling Germany by emergency decree.  On the pretext that the Reichstag could not operate, the executive branch of Weimar Germany simply began acting without legislative consent.
This is eerily close to what the president of Weimar Amerika, Barack Obama, is doing openly today.  Because Congress is not doing what Obama wants, he is amending or suspending statutory and regulatory provisions by something akin to Weimar presidential emergency orders.  Because he does not like some of the provisions of his signature law, ObamaCare, the president is blatantly ignoring his duty to faithfully executive the laws of our nation.
In both of these cases -- turning state government into bureaus of the federal government and the use of presidential orders to govern instead of legislative action -- the left's goal is to gut the power of  those parts of a constitutional system intended to operate as checks on rogue federal executives, and to destroy the system of checks and balance within that constitutional system. 
Our Founding Fathers, of course, intended our Constitution to limit government.  They grasped that government inaction was often vital, and that government action was often toxic.  By having two branches of Congress, three branches of government, and states with clear sovereignty within our constitutional framework, the Founding Fathers understood that the healthy and necessary brake on government action would have many ways of slowing or stopping excessive government in our lives.
There are differences, of course, between the last days of  Germany's Weimar Republic and today's usurpations of power by the president of our republic.  The principle of diffusing power among several independent parts of a federated system of government, however, remains.  Dictatorships in constitutional systems begin when screeches for the urgent need of collapsing power into the hands of the "national leader" are allowed to prevail. 

“Cow Sex” Pervert Judge Orders YouTube to Remove “Innocence of Muslims” Trailer

By Daniel Greenfield
The great battle against the Innocence of Muslims trailer has finally been won thanks to a ruling by “Cow Sex” Chief Judge Kozinski.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got in trouble for putting up “a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal” on his website, but the moral judge drew the line at videos that offend Muslims writing an absurd opinion that has no basis in copyright law.
Joining the “cow sex” judge in his illegal decision was Clinton judge Ronald M. Gould. Judge N.R. Smith, appointed by President Bush, despite Barbara Boxer’s best efforts, however rightly dissented from the decision, by pointing out that, “the plaintiff did not establish a likelihood that she had a copyrightable interest in her acting performance, nor did she clearly show that the performance was not a work made for hire.”
Judge Alex Kozinski claims that Youssef can’t be considered a filmmaker because he shot a single amateur film, but writing a book or filming a movie is exactly how you become a writer or a filmmaker.
“But if shooting a single amateur film amounts to the regular business of filmmaking, every schmuck with a videocamera becomes a movie mogul,” Kozinski writes trying to claim that amateur filmmakers should have different rules than professional ones.
This distinction is both dangerous and wrong.
Garcia auditioned for a role in a particular film, was paid for her performance and had every reason to believe Youssef would eventually release the film. Without an implied license, the performance for which she was paid would be unusable. Therefore, we agree with Google that Garcia granted Youssef an implied license.
Any such license must be construed broadly. If the scope of an implied license was exceeded merely because a film didn’t meet the ex ante expectation of an actor, that license would be virutally meaningless.
Nevertheless, even a broad implied license isn’t unlimited…  Here, the problem isn’t that “Innocence of Muslims” is not an Arabian adventure movie: It’s that the film isn’t intended to entertain at all. The film differs so radically from anything Garcia could have imagined when she was cast that it can’t possibly be authorized by any implied license she granted Youssef.
If we take the cow sex judge’s argument at face value, then if a movie is marketed in a different way than the actors can sue for copyright violation. This is plainly absurd since movies change dramatically in the process and in the marketing. Comedies can become dramas and vice versa. Plenty of actors have been completely shocked by the film as it was released because it was different from what they thought they were making.
Something a shmuck like Kosinski would know if he had bothered to do the research.Judge Smith quickly takes the cow sex judge to law school.
The majority opinion omits applying the requisite standard of review that is especially pertinent to Garcia’s requested relief. Mandatory preliminary injunctions, similar to the one issued today, are “particularly disfavored.”…
Given this standard, the majority errs in requiring Google to pull the film from YouTube—at this stage of the litigation.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the law and facts did not clearly favor Garcia. Instead, the majority makes new law in this circuit in order to reach the result it seeks. We have never held that an actress’s performance could be copyrightable.
The question is whether Google will appeal. Even if it doesn’t, the decision has all sorts of troubling legal implications for the movie industry that will no doubt lead to further review.

Germany Rejects Greece's Bid For Holocaust Reparations

Germany rejected a fresh Nazi-era reparation claim by a Greek city's Jewish community, according to AFP, but offered the group cooperation on future projects.
"With regard to issues of reparations, there are no new developments and all these questions are answered," a German finance ministry spokesman told a press conference.
The Jewish community of Thessaloniki said Tuesday it had sued Germany at the European Court of Human Rights for compensation over a forced ransom paid to Nazi occupation forces.
It said Jewish residents had paid 2.5 million drachmas to a Nazi commander in July 1942 to secure the release of thousands of Jewish men submitted to brutal forced labor.
Despite the payment, raised from donations and property sales, most of the victims were later transported to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in Poland where they perished.
Current community leader David Saltiel told AP that about 10,000 men were used as slave laborers, building roads and fortifications or repairing railways, and brutal conditions led to 12.5 per cent mortality in the first two-and-a-half months.
Community officials eventually struck a deal with a regional Nazi commander, paying him 1.9 billion drachmas (about 69 million today) for their release. Soon after, however, the city's entire Jewish population was sent to German death camps.
About 96 percent of Thessaloniki's 50,000 Jews were murdered in Nazi camps.
A German foreign ministry spokesman said on Wednesday that Berlin was ready to work on unspecified new projects with the city's Jewish community, independent of the legal bid.
"It's our express proposal to pursue forward-looking projects with the Jewish community of Thessaloniki," he told reporters.
The finance ministry spokesman said Germany has always indicated an awareness of its historical responsibility for World War II crimes.
"In the relationship with Greece, questions about the future play the fundamental role," he said.
Greece has said in recent years it reserves the right to claim more wartime reparations, arguing it was forced to accept unfavorable terms during negotiations with Germany in the 1950s.