Europe waits for Germany to come to the rescue | Anatole Kaletsky: Economic view - Times Online

I heard on TV yesterday, in an interview with a Brit journalist with an American socialite, that the world financial crisis is the fault of the USA – as the presenter put it, “you lot”. It has seemed to me from the start that the EU is a fundamentally unstable construct and my observations overseas has been that they have tried to emulate the conspicuous consumption of the Americans without the elevated productivity of the American economy.

Now, I have finally seen an analysis from within the EU that confirms my beliefs, despite the rhetoric blaming the US for all the ills of the Old World. Apparently:

“Last Friday the European Commission published what were arguably the most catastrophic economic statistics produced by any official institution in the capitalist world since 1945…What these statistics confirmed is that the credit crunch has been a far greater disaster for Germany and most of continental Europe than for the US and Britain. In fact, it is Europe that faces a genuinely unprecedented economic crisis, whereas the recessions in America and Britain are broadly similar in scale to the ones of the past three decades.”

Europe waits for Germany to come to the rescue Anatole Kaletsky: Economic view - Times Online

Essentially, the powerhouses of the EU economy have been buoyed up by bad loans from wealthy Europe to developing Europe. As the fictions of these loans becomes apparent a credit crunch causes crises in many of the European “provinces”. This can usually be dealt with by instituting draconian economic and fiscal policies but that is no longer possible because everyone now uses the common Euro. Unless Germany bails everyone out there will be a crash beyond the memory of everyone alive. The only ones who will be cushioned against it will be Britain because they did not jump headlong into the Euro.

God bless the Euro-sceptics! and thank goodness someone is willing to speak with honesty. Let’s just hope that those who are trying to scapegoat the USA don’t push for revenge for their failed economy.

Christ's Two Great Commands

The Bible is the Word of God:

Mt 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

The only problem is that the Word of God was written by men. Let’s assume that all of the Bible was inspired by God. It was then proclaimed and taught by prophets who were men and who had men’s prejudices and agendas. It was then written down by other men with men’s prejudices and agendas. It was further edited by other men with men’s prejudices and agendas.

In the end, we have a God who “hates” gay people.

You know, I don’t think God “hates” gay people. I don’t think God “hates”. I also think that God made gay people the same time he made straight people. I don’t think God screwed up. I think that people who took the Word of God made it say that God “hated” things that were not conducive to the survival of tribes when there was a pressure to increase populations. Gay people don’t normally do that.

So, how do we figure which parts of the Bible are true expressions of the Word of God? Look at the Two Great Commandments and use them as a filter for the rest of the Bible. Jesus himself gave us the key to this when he articulated the Two Great Commandments. Passages that speak of what and whom God “hates” does not pass that test.

We are told of a lot of things and people that God “hates”. I believe that Jesus’ words have a very significant consequence to such interpretations.

One Small Step for Mankind

Finally!!! The Canadian Ministry of Justice has been directed to review Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This has been used to shut down Freedom of Speech for a long time contrary to its intended purpose. Albertan Reverend Stephen Boissoin has a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality (recall that he is a clergyman supported by scripture). The same post discusses the CHRC's determination that true invective by an Imam is not worthy of censure.

The nature of Section 13 is vile. If people feel the need to spout hatred then it should be the obligation of all people to challenge and shame them. To have the State silence them is an act of political and social laziness and drives them underground where they attract the most violent adherents.

Cudos to Prime Minister Harper. Let's hope it works out.

Democracy in Action

It has occured to me that an election is, primarily, an opportunity for a people to take responsibility for what is done in their name.
It has often been said about the American hypocracy regarding the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Apparently the fact that the Palestinians elected them is supposed to give them legitimacy that overrides their pledge to annihilate Israel. When they declared themselves absolved of all agreements and treaties with Israel the Palestinian people were still supposed to see the benefits that depended on those treaties - like the taxes and tarifs collected by Israel for the PA.
No. When a people elect a terrorist organization that doesn't recognise the right of Israel to exist that doesn't legitimize the Hamas terrorists; it delegitimizes the Palestinian people themselves. They laid down with the dogs and were surprised to find that they have fleas.
I, For one, hope the fleas bite hard and make the Palestinians act like adults next time. I'm not, however, holding my breath.

Sent from my wireless handheld device / Transmis de mon appareil portable

NO!!!!!! Not the UN!!!

Bert Raphael, in the Globe and Mail, praises Lewis MacKenzie for an insane idea:

Finally a voice of reason and logic from someone who has been there and knows the facts on the ground: I refer to the article by retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie suggesting that a solution to the Israeli-Hamas war is the deployment of a strong and armed UN force in Gaza (What Is The UN Waiting For? Deploy A Strong Force To Gaza - Jan. 6). If the United Nations gave the force the power to disarm Hamas and ensure that only humanitarian goods and not guns entered Gaza, the current problems would be solved.

I'm not sure what is more dizzyingly ludricous: suggesting that the UN would pass a resolution to protect Israel against Hamas when their man on the ground is Richard Falk , or anyone with a memory longer than a week would suggest that the son of Oil-for-food would be a good idea.

MacKenzie notes that:

Hamas makes no secret that, aided and abetted by Iran, it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Any idea of a ceasefire in the current fighting leading to a change in Hamas's dedication to Israel's elimination is naive to the extreme.

and he is right but what is also extremely naive that an organization that would put 17 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the 47 Member Hunam Rights Council has no true mandate to represent any solution leading to peace in the Middle East and will certainly not make any effort to guarantee the continued existance of Israel. MacKenzie is right on one point and his article would have been adequate if he had left it at:

"The UN Security Council and member states should be ashamed."

CUPE Ontario Embarasses Themselves Again

Sid Ryan has shown himself, again, to be a true idiot and Arab apologist by proposing a ban on Israeli scholars in Ontario Universities.

"In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general," said Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario.

He further illustrated his bigotry by making the standard Islamist comparison between the Israelis and the Nazis (that one never gets old):

"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan said last night. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did.

What Sid forgot is that the Nazis also banned people from working who did not pledge allegiance to their chosen dogma - which interestingly also included a hatred of Jews. Sid notes that the ban would not include people who were born in Israel and emigrated, just visiting scholars. So, presumably he is not concerned if one of your grandparents on your mother's side was a.... One thing he did not include was if the ban included Israeli Arabs who did not explicitly condemn the university bombing. Hmm...something to think about.

Sid did eventually did apologize for Nazi thing. Apparently, “(i)t was never (his) intention to hurt or cause offence to anyone. (He) was attempting to draw attention to the terrible bombing of a learning institution. (He) got caught up in the emotion and the comparison (he) used was hurtful and completely beyond the pale.” He still wants to ban the Israeli scholars who don't explicitly condemn the Arms Factory Bombing.

Apparently he still feels it is important for Israel to stop trying to prevent Hamas trying to push the Jews into the sea. I suppose that is why Sid was awarded the Canadian Arab Federation's Social Justice Award.

I would fight for his right to believe and say that. I do not, however, believe that Sid has the right to be heard or to continue to be supported as the President of CUPE Ontario. It disgusts me that the people who maintain him there have access to our young people and the ability to pollute their minds with their vile invective.

How Dare the Israelis Bomb a Mosque

Because it was a Munitions Depot!!!!

Islamic University of Gaza

Why would the Israelis target an institution of higher learning in a supposed operation against Hamas?

This is the type of question asked by Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Akram Habeeb, who tells us "that IUG is an academic institution which embraces a wide spectrum of political affinities".

This is where kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl Gilad Shalit spent months before being relocated. Fatah themselves reported that in February 2007 the Palestinian Presidential Guard stormed the university and "confiscated weapons and ammunition. Palestinian TV aired footage of dozens of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, rockets, and assault rifles, as well as thousands of bullets, that Mr. Abbas’s officials said had been found inside the university."

Far from the war crime that it has been painted in The Nation with groups of students being hit trying to find a way home from the University (Note that "There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday" was reported by a BBC Jounalist in Gaza though reference to that statement seems to have disappeared from the BBC Site) the IUG is an established arms factory and depot and is an obvious military target.

And let's talk about that The Nation article by the cretin Richard Falk, but later...

Proportional Response

I have just decided that I need to change my position on "Proportional Response". I have, until now believed that Proportional Response would be a totally irresponsible policy for Israel that would be equivalent to trading death for death until only one side is still standing. I realized today that proportional response is nothing like that and it is reasonable with the following guidelines:

• Base "proportional" on the inverse of Article 7 of the Hamas Charter (related by al-Bukhari and Muslem): "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Cedar tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
• End the "proportional response" when the inverse of the Hamas goal (expressed by Hamas leader Fathi Hammad in Gaza on 2 January  2009) is met: "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity"
  

This was expressed well by (nom de plume) Higgs Boson at Daniel Pipes site (responding to Pipes "Israel's War on Hamas: A Dozen Thoughts" as:

Proportional Response --

• Hamas' stated goal : Total destruction of Israel and death of all Jews.
• Israel's stated goal : Total destruction of Hamas

/ Q.E.D.

There is No Such Thing as "Truce" for Israel

“BY THE time we’re finished, there won’t be a Hamas building left standing in Gaza.”
Israel’s deputy chief of staff, General Dan Harel, to a group of mayors from towns close to the Gaza Strip on 29 December 2008 (The Economist)

There are protests by Palestinian sympathizers, most of them of Palestinian or Arab extraction, around the world against the disproportionate force employed over the last few days in Gaza. DISPROPORTIONATE?!?!?! What the hell is proportionate to the indiscriminate use of Qassam rockets at Israeli towns for years? Every time I have heard a Palestinian or Arab speaker talk of this on the radio the speak of Fireworks being shot into Israel. Bullshit. Qassam may not be Tomahawk missiles but they are definitely not fireworks.
Why would the Israelis agree to a truce with Hamas? Hamas doesn't believe in Truce for any reason other than regrouping and rearming when they are losing. Whenever Israel unilaterally tries to disengage they see a dramatic incease in attacks.
Note that the August 2005 Unilateral Disengagement was closely followed by the highest levels of Qassam activity to date and that has been maintained to the present day. What is the incentive for Israel to make concessions or agree to a "truce".
No. Israel must rebuff calls for a Gaza Truce. The onus is on Hamas to stop firing rockets as a first step to peace and that is unlikely. The only way that they will have a moment of peace is to drive Hamas into the ground. They will then have to take it upon themselves to keep Hamas down because the rest of the world has shown a distinct lack of resolve to do so.

The Loss of Freedom

George Jonas has written a piece on the fate of freedom in the West as we transit from a Classic Liberal to a Modern Liberal society. His post is pretty rambling but his warning is clear - we need to protect basic freedoms and beware of the incursion of false "human rights" that are really individual sensibilities that are rammed down the throats of others.
George has managed to escape from two frightful events in his lifetime - the occupation of Hungary by the Soviet Union and marriage to Barbara Amiel. In the first he became painfully aware of the dangers of the unquestionable sensibilities of the moral elite overriding the rights of anyone to question or debate popular myths and what "everyone knows". We are in serious danger of tredding that path with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The "right" to not be offended masked as being targeted with "Hate Speech" represents a slippery slope to true authoritarian oppression.
I wrote earlier about the Canadian Human Rights Commission inconsistency in a ruling in Montreal recently compared to the gag order issued to Reverend Stephen Boissoin in Alberta. Social misfires, such as statements that offend others, need to be dealt with socially - if someone offends you shun them. But for the State to issue a gag order on otherwise free speech is an abomination in a "free" country. It is only a short step to including criticism of the government as offensive (or "hate") speech. I believe that the argument that homosexuality (or other things) is blasphemous is wrong. I, however, will defend with my life the right of wrong people to say that it is. They may even be right; I only believe that I argue from God's side of this argument.
Just to be clear, the CHRC finding that the writings of imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti do not represent hate speech against identifiable groups is dead wrong. The ruling gagging Reverend Boissoin is also dead wrong. The difference is that imam Al-Hayiti must have the right to argue his hate and that must be vociferously refuted in the same that the view of Reverend Boissoin must be refuted, not gagged.

Opposition Doesn't Like Senate Appointments

"Harper’s Senate appointments called 'obscene'" reports the Juliet O'Neill in the National Post. What she didn't report until well into the story is that the epithet was issued by New Democratic Party MP David Christopherson. To them all Senate appointments are obscene.
The criticism of the appointments is not restricted to the NDP on ideological grounds or by the Liberals on the grounds of lost opportunity. Conservatives have also come out against them on ideological grounds and that is a sad, short sighted position. As idealists both the NDP and the those conservatives have a single-minded view of the governing of the Nation.
The NDP wants to do away with any mechanism of "second thought" so that, at any opportunity they can practise their social experimentation that has always been the goal of Progressivists. This trial and error method, which considers frequent failure as an acceptable means to an utopian dream, is hampered by an Upper Chamber that has to consider the misery that is caused by ill-conceived schemes of social engineering. It must be abolished. In fact, let's make the Canadian Parliament even more unstable and bring in Proporational Representation and give every fringe group control.
The Liberals saw the possibility of scamming 18 seats in the Senate when they were out of power and it made them sick with delight. At least, not being idealists in any sense of the word, they are calm, if disappointed. They can wait and fight another day.
The conservative idealists who think of the appointments as a betrayal are the saddest subset of them all. They are willing to forego the possibility of a duly elected and responsible Senate for decades in order to stick with the ideal of not appointing unelected Senators ahead of a possibly defeat in January. This attitude was well elucidated by Don Martin in his bitter diatribe in the National Post:

Instead of reforming it, Mr Harper has reconfirmed the Senate as the pigpen for party has-beens, cast-offs, party bagmen and political pals with a couple honorable mentions thrown in to make the Conservative rebalancing project go down a little easier.

Now Martin has his own peccadilloes related to Mike Duffy's appointment but this "baby with the bathwater" attitude is why the Reform Party was never able to govern and shouldn't have.
The reason that I have voted Conservative since 2001 is that they approach politics with principles, unlike the Liberals. They don't, however, stick to an ideology and damn practicality just to make themselves feel righteous. When ideologists fail they are able to blame the betrayers and infidels. They are never around to pick up the pieces.

Is Don Martin a Little Bitter?

Don Martin has made a pretty transparent "always a bridesmaid..." diatribe in his "Full Comment" article in the National Post regarding Conservative Senators and, in particular, Journalist Senators.
Apparently,

"(t)here’s always professional squeamishness when journalists are granted a juicy patronage plum from the government they are paid to objectively cover."

Martin goes on to suggest state that,

"Whether real or imaginary, journalist appointments by government are viewed as the reward for obedient conduct, a perception further tainted by having Mr. Duffy’s appointment lumped in with a trough-full of patronage payoffs for Conservative fundraisers, defeated candidates and party toadies."

Mike Duffy is the most - one of the few - balanced journalists in Canadian Broadcasting. This is acknowledged by all parties and for this alone he deserves such an honour. His judgment will be a welcome honour in the Senate. I will comment on the flurry of bitching about the ethics of these appointments in light of Stephen Harper's view on the Senate in another post and Don Martin's comments will figure in that.
It seems to me that Don Martin's greatest real concern about Mike Duffy's appointment is that it did not go to Don Martin.

Mind Boggling Inanity at the CHRC

There is not much I can say about the ridiculous decision by the CHRC to reject a complaint filed by Marc LeBuis regarding hate speech from Montreal imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti against gays, women and Jews that hasn't been said by Firey Spirited Zionist, Mark Steyn, or Ezra Levant except to say that it is wrong to say, as Al-Hayiti says, that:

• Homosexuality is a "perversion"
• Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"
• Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
• "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..."
• "It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..."
• Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth."
• Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing..."

and he should be shunned from polite society for saying these things. I would defend his right to make an ass of himself by saying them - as I would for Reverend Stephen Boissoin who wrote a letter entitled "Homosexual Agenda Wicked" to the Red Deer Advocate. He received a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality. Read the letter at the link. It is nothing like the vitriol of Al-Hayiti.

So the lesson is, if you are Muslim you have a right to free speech. If you are not, particularly if you are Jewish or Christian beware not to dislodge your gag.

Perhaps something positive will come out of it all. Ezra Levant reports that support for the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is getting louder and wider. Perhaps the hypocrisy of Jennifer Lynch and her band of zealots at CHRC should finally be looking through the classifieds.

Coalition playng Spin-The-Bottle with Democracy

In the same vane as I posted earlier, the CPC is definitely concerned with the disregard for democratic due process displayed by the Opposition Parties, particularly the Liberals. This from the National Campaign Chair:

Stéphane Dion has resigned as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and by extension, of the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition. In yet another stunning and unprecedented demonstration of Liberal contempt for our democratic rights, they've decided to appoint a new leader in his place.

Not only was the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition not elected to govern this country , but the person who would become Canada's Prime Minister wasn't even the leader of a federal party during the last election and may not even be elected by the Liberal (or any) party's membership .

The Liberals have decided to parachute Michael Ignatieff into the position of Prime Minister, and one thing is clear: Canadians didn't elect this coalition to form a government , and they most certainly didn't elect Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister .

The Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition would be a disaster for Canada's economy, and for our democracy.

Nobleman vs. Doberman

This is actually the title that Lawrence Martin used to lambaste Stephen Harper about his difficult times ahead with "Sir Michael" (Ignatieff) at the helm of the Liberal Party. Apparently, "Mr. Ignatieff will move cautiously, easing off on any coalition commitment," and "...cannot probably help but move his party's numbers upward."

On the other hand the vile Conservatives will be reduced to "berat(ing) Mr. Ignatieff as an egghead and beat him up for signing the coalition pact. But his being new to politics means the fire-breathing Harper will have less ammunition on which to base cheap attack ads."

How about a lack of concern for the discipline of democracy? Having signed on - once you agree it doesn't matter that you were hesitant - to the failed Socialist/Separatist Putsch Mr. Ignatieff is soon to be annointed by a process that is even a step further removed from the elitist procedure that usually governs Liberal conventions. Following the British model of the Parliamentary Party selecting the leader they have effectively shut out the West in the determination of the next leader.

Let's not forget that the Putsch was about to appoint Stephane Dion as Prime Minister - about the only thing about which there was significant concensus during the election was that this should NOT happen. It seems that reversing the slowly strengthening support that the Conservatives are building is justification for just about any mechanism besides seeking a democratic mandate. It would seem that this is because that is the path that is least likely to accomplish their rise to power. Does this sound like a story from the Russian Court of Tsar Alexander I? Perhaps that is because that is where his family came into prominence. Michael Georgievitch Ignatieff might be the son of the fifth son of a Russian Count but it would appear that this apple did not fall far from his noble tree.

I don't think that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will be starving for issues upon which to criticize the New Liberals.

What is Freedom

What does freedom mean in a real context? Most thinkers trace the development of the idea, in modern times, from Thomas Hobbes, through John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and others. These fellows approached freedom from a highly theoretical direction and, with the exception of Hobbes, considered "freedom" to be from Government interference. Only Hobbes considered that freedom might be from an external influence other than the sovereign government and he considered only the threat from a chaotic anarchy.
It seems to me that there are numerous agencies who can threaten our freedom and a strong government is as likely to be our protector as our oppressor. That is why it was developed.
I will post ideas and arguments here on this subject. I hope for lively debate.

Liberal Collapse

I just watched Martha Hall-Findley talking on CTV about the exciting events in the Liberal Party. They have decided that it is too important that they be able to meet the challenge of tearing apart the elected government to elect their next leader by a democratic process. They are going to do the British model of election by the "parliamentary party".

Of course, as an anti-Liberal, I think I should be celebrating this. There are almost no Liberal MPs from the West so this will further isolate the Libs from the West and make it a truly regional party of Ontario.

The rhetoric of "Harper is a dictator who will face the wrath of the people" is getting pretty tiresome and is quite contrary to the polls. They suggest that a Harper-led Conservative Party would win a majority if there was an election now. I don't think that would be a likelihood soon. The way the Libs are going I am pretty sure that they would want to assume power without the inconvenience of a general election. They have demonstrated their distaste for that inefficient technique already now, haven't they?

Sent from my wireless handheld device / Transmis de mon appareil portable

The Failed NDP/Bloc/Liberal Putsch

It would seem that, in the interest of getting into government or disrupting the responsible operation of government, Jack Layton and Stephane Dion will stop at nothing.
While it is true that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did not get a majority to govern a few weeks ago they did get, by far the largest number of seats and the country sent the Liberals a resounding message:

"We do not want the Liberals in government and we definitely do not want Stephane Dion to be the Prime Minister."

Apparently, the three amigos (Jack Layton, Stephane Dion, and Gilles Duceppe) are wiser than the people of Canada and are willing to override the error to put Dion in the chair - not the driver's chair exactly because both Jack and Gilles (I like that) would have veto authority on all government decisions.
Really can't blame Duceppe. He is very honest about the fact that he is not in place to look out for the best interests of Canada. Dion is a Dupe who is punch drunk and should be put away in a confortable room to convalesce. Jack Layton is the evil driver behind this one - I'd bet on it. He looked like a teenage boy with his first boner in the news conference where they signed their pact.
I read somewhere that Jack Layton is evidence that the Devil exists and is sowing mischief in the world. A truer statement has not frequently been made.
Stephen Harper has been criticised for not being cooperative with the Opposition and doing things their way. He is a bully for governing like he has a majority because the Liberals don't have the courage to defeat him. This assumption has been very accurate for quite some time and Harper has been able to work his way through his entire agenda of promises fromt the 2006 Election. For him to govern otherwise would have been to negotiate from a position that was not as strong as he was in. That would be not only stupid but incompetent.
Harper was elected because Canadians had had enough of crooked Liberal management and the fiscal policies of the NDP would be utterly disasterous. It would be utterly irresponsible to use policies that he believed to be untenable when he had the option not to. He didn't and he was right.
Stephen Harper is the right man to be the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Challenge of Kosovo

Well, they have done it. And three permanent members of the Security Council have recognized them. Kosovo is one of the worst candidates outside of Africa to become a viable state. It is unbelievable that the disastrous consequences to a world order that depends on nation-state stability are not recognized by these countries upon whom that order depends. The message of such a successful manoeuvre is that every ethnic minority on the planet can declare themselves sovereign with no consideration to their ability to manage as mature states. In the case of Kosovo (from Caroline Glick):

• Its forty percent unemployment is a function of the absence of proper economic and governing infrastructures.
• In November 2007, a European Commission report detailed the Kosovo Liberation Army's failure to build functioning governing apparatuses. The report noted that "due to a lack of clear political will to fight corruption, and to insufficient legislative and implementing measures, corruption is still widespread... Civil servants are still vulnerable to political interference, corrupt practices and nepotism." Moreover, "Kosovo's public administration remains weak and inefficient."..."The composition of the government anti-corruption council does not sufficiently guarantee its impartiality," and "little progress can be reported in the area of organized crime and combating of trafficking in human beings."
• The prosecution of Albanian war criminals is "hampered by the unwillingness of the local population to testify" against them. This is in part due to the fact that "there is still no specific legislation on witness protection in place."
• In 2006, John Gizzi reported in Human Events that the German intelligence service, BND confirmed that the 2005 bombings in Britain and the 2004 bombings in Spain were organized in Kosovo. Furthermore, "the man at the center of the provision of the explosives in both instances was an Albanian, operating mostly out of Kosovo...who is second ranking leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, Niam Behzloulzi."

As Glick points out, supporters of Kosovo claim that as victims of "genocide," Kosovar Muslims deserve independence. But if the Muslims in Kosovo have been targeted for annihilation by the Serbs, then how is it that they have increased from 48 percent of the population in 1948 to 92 percent today? Indeed, Muslims comprised only 78 percent of the population in 1991, the year before Yugoslavia broke apart. In recent years particularly, it is Kosovo's Serbian Christians, not its Albanian Muslims that are targeted for ethnic cleansing. Since 1999, two-thirds of Kosovo's Serbs - some 250,000 people - have fled the area.

There have been clearances and massacres in that area ever since the Ottomans moved into the neighbourhood in 1389, taking over in 1455. What is needed here is a period of healing and normalization, supported by the international community, not a demonstration of the principle of the Wakf, the belief that any land that has been in Muslim hands belongs to Islam into perpetuity. Ask Spain. They know that they are on the Radar for the loonies to re-establish Andalusia. God help us if this goes much further.