Friday, June 30, 2017

‘Model of Integration’ Syrian Migrant Brutally Stabs Female Boss

A Syrian asylum seeker given a job at a hair salon has been arrested after he attacked his 64-year-old female boss with a knife.

Mohammad Hussain Rashwani, 39, was allowed to work at the Herzberg hair salon in September of last year. Local paper Lausitzer Rundschau described him as a “model” for integration of asylum seekers though this week he viciously attacked the owner of the salon, 64-year-old Ilona F. in the neck with a knife Die Welt reports.
The brutal attack occurred on Wednesday evening at around 5:30 pm. So far police have had difficulty trying to ascertain a motive for the attack which left the 64-year-old hospitalised and is expected to make a full recovery.
A 22-year-old Syrian is said to have intervened in the attack likely saving the life of the woman.
Chief Prosecutor Gernot Bantleon said, “According to initial findings, we assume that the motive could be related to the employment relationship,” but gave no further details. “We have applied for a warrant for attempted murder,” he added.
Last year the Lausitzer Rundschau published an article celebrating the 39-year-old as a “model of integration” saying that he had fled Damascus where he had formerly worked as a hairdresser.
The victim of the attack also had high praise for Mohammad last year saying, “Mohammad is a proud man, but very careful and prudent, and he even helps with cleaning up.”
It was also noted at the time that Mohammad had great difficulty learning German and had to use a mobile app on his phone to translate so he could communicate with other staff and customers.
The attack highlights two important topics in Germany in regard to asylum seekers, that of labour integration and of the rising tide of migrant crime.
Germany has had enormous difficulty in integrating the over one million asylum seekers who have come in the last several years into the labour market. Some experts and government officials are pessimistic about the long-term effects of mass migration with some saying up to 74 percent of migrants are only fit for menial labour.
Migrant crime is also on the rise in Germany across the country. The German Interior Ministry said that migrant crime had increased by 50 percent in 2016 and make up a disproportionate number of criminal suspects.
In Munich, it is estimated that close to one-half of all criminal suspects are “non-Germans” with asylum seekers accounting for one-in-five suspects.

Police Arrest ‘Machete-Wielding Man’ Outside Justin Bieber Concert in Cardiff

Police swooped on a machete carrying man Friday afternoon, as thousands of fans gathered nearby for a Justin Bieber concert due to take place at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff.

Officers arrested the man, who was found to be carrying a foot-long blade on Penarth Road. According to reports some 40,000 individuals are expected to turn out for the Justin Bieber concert in the city this evening.
The Daily Telegraph reports the remarks of one witness, who said of the arrest:
“I walked past as there was lots of screaming and shouting as the police were there. I saw a guy get arrested and the police officer hold the knife – it was massive.
“It’s terrifying to think something like this could happen with so many people in town. It was very scary after what happened at the Ariana Grande concert.”
A spokesman for Welsh police said two individuals had been arrested over a “motoring dispute”.
The police alert comes weeks after 22 concert goers at a performance of fellow children’s entertainer Ariana Grande were killed in an Islamist bombing in Manchester.

The report Dutch Police tried to hide: almost 10.000 refugees suspected of (organised) crimes in 2015 and 2016 alone

A Dutch police report that was supposed to remain hidden from the public now unveils that in 2015 and 2016 there are 104 cases of status-holders suspected of serious crimes, like armed robbery and sex offences. Furthermore, 183 are repeat offenders, while 9300 of them are suspected of committing a single offence.
What makes this worse, is that large groups of asylum seekers seem to be part of organised crime groups, that trek from country to country, stealing on order. One case in the files describes groups of ‘refugees’ leaving their accommodations at 03:00 every night, presumably for criminal activities. Police describe finding lists with orders for things to steal. Over the first nine months of 2016, police reported 663 cases of theft, and 302 cases of crimes against personal integrity, ranging from spitting in people’s faces and insults to sexual assault and rape from this particular group of asylum seekers alone. That is disregarding the 200 incidents every month that require police attention, without leading to charges being made.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) often decides not to prosecute, so the deportation process isn’t interfered with by a court-case. But with asylum seekers not getting deported, or only getting deported after a considerable period of time, this means that crimes go unpunished, while the criminal is allowed to stay.
Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf today published a bombshell article about the staggering number of crimes committed by so-called ‘status-holders’, asylum seekers seeking refugee status in the Netherlands(original reports here). The newspaper, which the police had previously attempted to bribeto silence the story, says it now has binders full of crime statistics on this specific group.
Reading the documents, journalist were surprised at what they read. Police officers freely tell how big the problem is – and what groups are mostly responsible.
After a tip-off, it took De Telegraaf months to get this information from the National Police Force. It took a court case to get the police to even acknowledge it had collected this information, or the existence of a special taskforce to deal with the situation.
Just on the national level between 2015 and 2016, disregarding information gathered by local police departments, there are 104 cases of status-holders suspected of serious crimes, like armed robbery and sex offences. Furthermore, 183 are repeat offenders, while 9300 of them are suspected of committing a single offence. These are all people that applied for refugee status in 2015 and 2016, 16% out of a total of 60.000 people.
It turns out, most of these ‘refugees’ are actually originating from so-called ‘safe countries’ and have no actual chance of being given refugee status. Yet, deporting them is difficult, if not technically impossible.
To make matters worse, even if the police are able to catch the criminals – which is not a given – the ‘refugee’ is still not guaranteed a sentence. The Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) often decides not to prosecute, so the deportation process isn’t interfered with by a court-case. But with asylum seekers not getting deported, or only getting deported after a considerable period of time, this means that crimes go unpunished, while the criminal is allowed to stay.
In a report from the end of 2016, the task force writes that
“The question is if not prosecuting the cases is desirable when the suspect cannot be deported immediatly, and will thus freely stay in the Netherlands untill his deportation. “
What makes this worse, is that large groups of asylum seekers seem to be part of organised crime groups, that trek from country to country, stealing on order. One case in the files describes groups of ‘refugees’ leaving their accommodations at 03:00 every night, presumably for criminal activities. Police describe finding lists with orders for things to steal. The numbers point to the size of the problem. Over the first nine months of 2016, police reported 663 cases of theft, and 302 cases of crimes against personal integrity, ranging from spitting in people’s faces and insults, to sexual assault and rape from this particular group of asylum seekers alone. That is disregarding the 200 incidents every month that require police attention, without leading to charges being made.
The article, published early on 30 June, has already gotten the attention of Dutch politicians. MP Maarten Groothuizen (D66) reacted upset:

If there are problems, we need to know that. I don’t see any reason to hide important records, because then we can’t deal with the problem. There is always a place for real refugees in the Netherlands, but we have to be tough on those that cause a racket. Criminals and those causing trouble should always be dealt with.

Farage: Sacking Labour Remainers Shows Corbyn’s ‘True Brexit Colours’

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has sacked three MPs from his frontbench for voting to keep Britain inside the European Union’s Single Market and Customs Union.

 Andy Slaughter and Ruth Cadbury, shadow ministers for housing, and Catherine West, a shadow foreign minister, were booted from the 68-year-old’s frontbench team for backing an amendment to the Queen’s Speech lodged by Remain campaigner Chuka Umunna.
Umunna’s amendment sought to “rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, [and] set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market”, amongst other measures.
Both Corbyn and his Marxist shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, have committed to leaving the Single Market, recognising that remaining party to the Free Movement immigration regime associated with it would be interpreted as “not respecting [the EU] referendum”, and instructed their MPs to vote against the amendment.
Nevertheless, the three ministers joined 49 other Labour MPs in supporting the amendment anyway, as Corbyn had failed to take action following previous rebellions – but this time they paid the price.
The move earned praise from Brexit campaign leader Nigel Farage, who said Corbyn was showing his “true Brexit colours”.
Prior to his election as Labour leader, Corbyn was a fierce opponent of the European project throughout his entire political career. He voted to leave the EEC in 1975, against the Maastricht Treaty which transformed it into the European Union in 1992, and against the Lisbon Treaty which handed it sweeping new powers in 2007.
He told colleagues that Maastricht “takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers” during a Commons debate in 1993.
As recently as 2015, he was denouncing the bloc’s treatment of Greece, musing that if the country left “both the eurozone and the EU, its future would be uncertain, but at least it could be its own”.
He added that, in his view, there was “no future for a usurious Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage”.
He has also alleged that the bloc is “directly responsible” for “the gross abuse of human rights and theft of natural resources” in Africa through its foreign policy, and criticised its trade and agricultural policies as “morally wrong”.
Senior Labour Remainers suggested the Labour leader intentionally held back from making a truly serious effort to canvas support for the EU during the referendum, with leaked emails revealing allegations of  “deliberate sabotage” by his office.
Corbyn did occasionally seem to be at cross-purposes with the wider Remain campaign, with his rubbishing of former Chancellor George Osborne’s claim – later proved false – that a Leave vote would trigger a “year-long recession” appearing particularly unhelpful to its credibility.

Austria: “17 y/o” Afghan migrant and “Austrian man” rape high school girl (18), both men now in custody

On the morning of 9 June, an 18-year-old in her last year of Highschool was sexually assaulted in the Austrian town of Linz. Earlier reports stated that she was on her way to the bakery early in the morning, but new reports now show she was on her way to a petrol station. She was approached by two men, who talked to her. One of them pressed something into her back, which she took to be a firearm. The men forced their intimidated victim into the basement of a house in the Dinghoferstraße. There they overwhelmed the Highschool-senior, raped her and then stole her mobile phone and wallet before fleeing.
While she luckily suffered minimal physical injuries, the assault deeply affected the young woman psychologically. According to police commissioner Karl Pogutter, she was unable to even face their pictures, when she was informed on Thursday 29 June, that two suspects had been apprehended.
One of the attackers is a 17-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan, the other one is only named as a 27-year-old Austrian. The Afghan has been living in a supervised institution as a so-called ‘unaccompanied minor’ since 2016. Both suspects have been in front of a magistrate before, on drugs related charges. They were arrested at their respective homes in Linz on Thursday morning, 07:00.
They have not confessed to the crime, but based on DNA-evidence and video recordings Pogutter reported that he is convinced of their guilt. State Police Director Andreas Pilsl went as far as to speak of “slash- and puncture-proof evidence.

The good result of police investigations does not, however, leave everybody satisfied. The Austrian police are still being criticized for their handling of the media coverage of the case. Pogutter made a point during his press conference of emphasizing that the media silence was in the interest of the investigation. The police had not wanted to warn the suspects by giving the case media attention.

The True Meaning of Socialized Medicine

By Daren Jonescu

(Spoiler Alert: If you find slavery or infanticide disturbing, you may be too squeamish to read further.)
A perfect crystallization of the full heart and soul of socialized or "single payer" health care is on display in the story of Charlie Gard, a ten-month-old infant with a life-threatening genetic condition, and his parents, Chris and Connie, whose desperate efforts to save their child have been diverted, and finally thwarted, first by the British government and now by an entity with the perfectly Orwellian name "European Court of Human Rights."
The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard are ‘utterly distraught’ and facing fresh heartbreak after losing their final appeal in the European Court of Human Rights.
Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son – who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage – to the US to undergo a therapy trial.
Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said they wanted him to be able to ‘die with dignity’.
Charlie Gard and his parents
So in the name of "dying with dignity," Charlie has been denied his last hope of living with dignity, not to mention his last chance to live in the loving care of his parents, who have obviously put themselves through hell -- above and beyond the hell of watching their child die at the hands of a tyrannically impersonal "medical system" -- to try to save him. Meanwhile, his parents themselves are denied the dignity of taking responsibility for their beloved child's well-being and sacrificing everything to save him, as parents are (or used to be) wont to do.
So whose dignity is really at issue here? "Death with dignity" is the health care euphemism to end all euphemisms. What it really means is murder with dignity -- the state's dignity. Death with dignity is Marxist medicine's theoretical self-absolution for committing the ultimate heresy against the traditional concept of health care, i.e., forsaking life in the name of saving money, saving bed space, and saving face.
The doctors in Britain have decided, in their state-decreed omniscience, that "nothing can be done" to save this dying boy. So, having decided to do nothing, they are determined -- and supported in this determination by the full weight of Europe's progressive authoritarian regulatory apparatus -- to make sure no one else gets a chance to prove them wrong by saving Charlie's life after all.
What is the ultimate lesson in all of this, for all of us living under one degree or another of socialized medicine, throughout the allegedly civilized world?
No, it's not that a baby's life is less valuable to progressives than maintaining the necessary illusion of the State's infallibility, although that is true.
No, it's not that the wishes of parents who love their child are less important to the progressive State than the desire of the State's "experts" to make a problem (their failure) disappear, although that is also true.
The ultimate lesson, apparently a difficult one for some people to understand, is that what socialized health care means, above all else, is that the individual human being is property of the State.
The right to property carries with it the right to the use and disposal of what one owns. This is why property rights are so essential to any coherent concept of individual liberty, and why any clear theory of property begins with the right of self-ownership. And self-ownership is precisely what socialized medicine denies outright. If the government determines what can and cannot be done to preserve your life (short of harming others, of course), and furthermore has the final authority to decide when your life is no longer worth fighting to preserve, then all questions of who owns the individual citizen are answered unequivocally: the individual -- his living body, his human existence -- belongs to the State.
Under socialized health care, you are government property. The State may allow you some measure of proprietorship over your daily existence, in order to lull you into the sleepy compliance of the contented slave. But there is no doubt who holds the deed. Socialized or "single payer" medicine, a pillar of Marxist political philosophy, establishes the collectivization of the individual human being more clearly than any political structure imaginable -- exceptcompulsory government-regulated schooling.
Together, those two political transformations -- government ownership of your spiritual development and your physical preservation -- establish the firmest and most comprehensive foundations of tyranny. All the rest of progressivism's panoply of hyper-regulation and micromanaging paternalism are mere baubles once the soul and body have been legally removed from individual and familial control -- removed both symbolically and, as Charlie Gard's unfortunate parents have just learned, removed in horrifyingly literal fact.
Chris and Connie wanted to save their baby's life, and were willing to do more for him than the government thought "worthwhile." That the government should have any place in determining what is worth doing to save this boy's life is absurd. That the government's judgment should be used as a billy club to beat back the parents' desperate efforts to give their last ounce of love to their baby, is as clear an indictment of progressive ethics, progressive politics, and the progressive mind in general, as can be conceived.
Charlie Gard, were he to be saved by the near-miracle his parents are willing to fight for, would probably live his whole life with brain damage. As a result, he would probably never be granted the right to vote. By contrast, millions of Britons and hundreds of millions of their counterparts throughout what used to be the modern world happily walk into voting booths and cede their and their neighbors' lives and liberty to progressive authoritarianism on a regular basis. And almost nobody blinks or wonders whether people that mentally deficient should be granted the vote.
Godspeed, Charlie, Chris, and Connie.

Police Discover Gas Canister with Explosive Detonator Outside Berlin McDonald’s Restaurant

Police in the German capital of Berlin discovered a metal canister of gas with an explosive detonator outside a McDonald’s forcing authorities to evacuate the restaurant.

The device was found at a Mcdonald’s located in the district of Kreuzberg on Wrangelstrasse, known for its large migrant population and also being a hub for left wing activists. Police say the metal canister was found at around 9 am Thursday morning and was treated as a bomb threat, Die Welt reports.
After evacuating the restaurant and the area around it, police explosive specialists arrived on scene to dispose of the device. Shortly after 11 am, police said the situation was under control and the canister had been effectively disarmed by the bomb squad.
On Twitter, authorities wrote that the restaurant had also been ventilated saying that there was a “high concentration of gas” in the building.
Police also noted the device was found with an “ignition” device indicating the canister may have been a potential bomb, though no suspects have so far been named or identified.
A source close to the investigation told German tabloid Bild: “A signal would have been enough to blow the whole restaurant into the air. We assume this was an attempt at an attack.”
A police spokesman said there was currently no evidence the potential bomb had any connection with a police operation against far left extremists that took place in the district of Neukölln at 8:30 am.
Police evacuated an illegal left-extremist shop known as Friedel 54 in which left wing extremists were squatting. Police say the extremists attempted to electrify door knobs in the building to electrocute officers but were unsuccessful as police turned off all electricity to the building beforehand.
German authorities have admitted there is a growing threat of extremist violence from left wing activists in Berlin forcing even the far left party Die Linke to distance themselves from anarchists in Berlin.
“These individuals keep themselves quiet, they ignite cars and throw stones and explosives at people. They’re not neighbourhood romantics, they want to see cops die,” a police spokesman said.
Since the terror attack at the Berlin Christmas market in December, police in Berlin have been on heightened alert. After it was revealed that the attacker, failed Tunisian asylum seeker Anis Amri, had visited several radical Salafist mosques, raids were conducted across the city and elsewhere in Germany.

A Socialized Medicine Death Sentence: The tragic ordeal of Charlie Gard

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Chris Gard and Connie Yates of the United Kingdom, whose 10-month-old child Charlie Gard will be “allowed to die,” a decision supposedly “in his own best interest,” as a British judge put it. According to a timeline in the Daily Mail, here is how Charlie’s story has played out.
Charlie Gard was born a healthy baby on August 4, 2016, but at eight months the child was diagnosed with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. Charlie began to lose weight but in January 2017 his mother Connie Yates found an American doctor willing to offer Charlie a trial therapy called nucleoside.
Connie set up a website and succeeded in raising enough money to cover Charlie’s travel to America by air ambulance and the cost of the experimental treatment. But then the British legal system handed Charlie a setback.
On April 3, 2017, a High Court judge questioned whether Connie and Chris should be allowed to take Charlie to America for treatment, and whether doctors at the Great Ormond Street Hospital should turn off the baby’s life-support system. On April 11, the court ruled that the doctors were in fact permitted to do so.
The decision devastated parents Connie and Chris, from Bedfont in west London and both in their thirties. They vowed to appeal and in late April, more than 110,000 people signed a petition for Prime Minister Theresa May to release Charlie from hospital so he could travel to the United States for treatment. Charlie remained in hospital and on May 25, three Court of Appeal judges ruled that doctors should end Charlie’s life-support treatment.
Connie and Chris appealed but on June 8, three judges of the Supreme Court rejected their bid but told doctors to keep Charlie on life support for another day so the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, could consider the child’s case. On June 13 the ECHR ruled that Charlie should be kept on life support until Monday June 19. On June 27, the European court rejected the parents’ plea to intervene in the case of Charlie Gard.
As the ECHR statement put it: “Today the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority endorsed in substance the approach by the domestic courts and thus declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.”
According to a report by Sophie Jamieson in the Telegraph, “terminally ill baby Charlie Gard will be allowed to die after his parents lost their final legal bid to take him to the USA for specialist treatment.”
A spokesman for the Great Ormond Street Hospital acknowledged that the verdict was “very distressing for them” and promised “every possible support.” The hospital would be in “no rush” to change Charlie’s care and “any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.”
Young Charlie may not have long to live but his tragic case is a timely primer on “single payer,” health care, often mislabeled as “socialized medicine” but in reality government monopoly health care. This arrangement supposedly respects people’s “right” to health care but as it works out, government calls the shots and the people get only what the government wants to give them.
Despite pretensions to compassionate, universal coverage, the British government system did not cover mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Likewise, health care bosses made no effort to facilitate the alternative treatment for Charlie Guard. Connie Yates and Chris Gard did that on their own, devoting themselves to the welfare of their son.
As they found, the system does not hold that the parents are the best judges of their own children’s interests. Government monopoly health care does not allow parents and patients to pursue independent alternatives, even if they are willing to pay for the treatments themselves. Witness the travel ban, the refusal to allow Connie and Chris to take Charlie to the USA for treatment.
Likewise, when Connie and Chris sought the nucleoside for Charlie, health care bosses said it was experimental and would not help. So the treatment was not tried and found wanting. It was found inconvenient and left untried. The victim was ten-month-old Charlie Gard.
As Ian Tuttle observed in National Review, High Court justice Nicholas Francis proclaimed there was no “scientific basis” for the prospect that the American treatment would help Charlie. Since he would not be any better off, the judged reasoned, death was “in Charlie’s best interests” and he should be permitted “to die with dignity.”
The case did not become a rallying cry for leftists warning that “someone will die,” if judges failed to allow the experimental treatment. After all, the left supports the kind of system in which the people get only what the government wants to give them, and independent alternatives are forbidden.
In the United States the case drew little attention and that should come as no surprise. During a furious health care debate, and the attempt to replace the disastrous Obamacare, the old-line establishment media shun any story that might cast doubt on the kind of health care Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want.
On the other hand, legislators can learn a lot from ten-month-old Charlie Gard. They should reject any plan that forces the people to settle for what the government wants to give them. They should establish health care that respects human rights and enables the people to choose the care they need.