Quote of the Day

Let me explain the system to you: grass is pretty and it's green; cows, sheep, and horses eat the pretty, green grass. Generally speaking, we then eat the cows and sheep, and on the rare occasion, the horses.

Now, it might seem more efficient to simply bypass the cow and sheep, and go straight to eating the grass. The problem is as far as I can tell every culture who went to eating the grass was wiped out by the cultures who continued to eat grass-eaters.

Relayed by America's 1st Sgt. over at Castra Praetoria

Secret, dark debates

The indefatigable Mary Ellen Synon shares with us, some observations made by Jean-Claude Juncker, permanent president of the eurogroup and prime minister of Luxembourg. He made these at a meeting organised by the European Movement.

Juncker was, Synon writes, talking about 'economic governance', EUrocratese for 'government'in the euroarea and the EU. He started with the non-sequitur that 'There are no such things as domestic affairs in a monetary union, the affairs of one are the affairs of all'. Using Greece as an example, we could just as soon state that even if it isn't, the EUnion will make sure it damn well will become 'the affair of all'. Remember this?

But then Juncker really gets into his own, and reveals just how scary, little a man he is, and how scary the whole EUnion project really is. As he and his fellow euro-bosses are steering the EU towards centralised economic and fiscal policy, he admits:
'Monetary policy is a serious issue, this should be discussed in secret.'
He said that by discussing each and every monetary-policy issue in public 'you are inspiring those who are players in the financial markets.' Yes, Synon observes, like the people who have to invest our pension funds, for a start.

Juncker doesn't like giving the markets information:
'I am for secret, dark debates between a few responsible people.'
Now, a national government can and should be able to discuss monetary, economic and fiscal policy in secret. Certainly there are some ideas that could rock markets if they became known too soon. But when it is a national government acting in private, and they come to the wrong decisions, the national electorate can then throw them and their bad decisions out of office.

But how do we get rid of Juncker and his ilk when they make a mess? Or, make an even larger mess then we already have? The misery of the EUnion is, that we cannot. We have no say, no vote.

Juncker added: 'I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic'. Mrs. Synon notes indignantly the arrogance of the man, that he finds the destruction of democracy amusing. But Juncker should count his blessing that for now he has only to worry about insults. He should start worrying that we can knit. And that we have noticed him.

(h/t ATW)

Faeces fly into the ventilator

Gawain Towler invokes the dreary Hans Brinker imagery and at the same time pays homage to the late, great Wim Duisenberg, who led the ECB before that lowlife and Chirac henchman Trichet took over. All that to convey to us the delightful news that the shit has hit the fan: EU official says Greece knows it must restructure.
Greece has accepted that it cannot avoid restructuring its debt, a Greek newspaper cited a senior European Commission official as saying on Tuesday as market fears of such a move persisted despite denials by Athens.

Financial markets are increasingly convinced Greece will have to renegotiate the terms of its public debt, recognising that its economy cannot grow fast enough to service a burden that is set to swell to 160 percent of national output.

"The Greek government has realised that there is no other way and has accepted a mild debt restructuring," daily Eleftherotypia said, quoting a senior Commission official speaking on condition of anonymity.
This has some implications, all of them not good if you pay your taxes. Those 'guarantees', or at least an important part of them are gone. We, sad little inhabitants of this damp corner of the world just lost 4.8 billion of OUR money and who knows how much more to save banks exposed to Greek bonds. Just to remind you: the Netherlands holds 244 billion euros in PIIGS junk bonds, equal to some 60% of the annual budget of Dutch government (national, provincial AND local!). How much of that will be left after the a bout of restructuring (Greece may be the first, but it sure as hell will *not* be the last) is anybody's guess. I for one will put my money on a number close to zero...

It all kinda, sorta plays out as we predicted almost exactly a year ago:
As soon as Greece gets its money, the banks will be paid off. And then, all of a sudden, the 'colleagues' will decide a restructuring of Greek debt is in order. Restructuring debts is a euphemism for not paying the debt (partly or in whole). Which would mean the money handed over by Merkel and our own Finance minster Jan-Kees de Jager, your money, will disappear into the black hole that is de Greek government budget. The markets won't give a damn because no party, other then the IMF and EUnion member states are affected. The only thing that will have gone missing is tax money. But hey, tax money is free money, isn't it?
Be that as it may, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end here. Over on ZeroHedge we find a guest column by Chris Martenson arguing that 'The Breakdown Draws Near'.
The IMF, the World Bank, the BIS, and numerous other institutions with access to $2 calculators have finally arrived at the conclusion that there's still 'too much debt' and that it cannot all be paid back. And they are now alert to the idea that the predicament only has two outcomes: either the living standards of over-indebted countries will be allowed to fall, or the global fiat regime will suffer a catastrophic failure.
All this on the day when the EUnion published a draft budget that is increased by 4.9% over the previous budget.
The draft budget for 2012 represents € 132.7 bn in payments amounting to a 4.9 % increase on 2011. Commitments amount to €147.4bn (+3.7%). The key objective of the 2012 Draft Budget is to fully support the European economy and EU citizens.
We remember this, don't we? At the suggestion of EURef I am learning to knit. But my hands are itching for some more productive measures against these utter, utter cretins.

[UPDATE001] ZeroHedge: Going...
[B]ack to reality, where Greece apparently has about 48 hours before it sets off a domino effect whereby bank asset writedowns are about to escalate and result in the same shadow banking system "Ice-Nine" effect that nearly destroyed capitalism back in September 2008.

[UPDATE0012] ... going ...
The deficit in the Greek government's budget amounted to 10.5pc of GDP in 2010, EU statistics agency Eurostat reported on Tuesday, putting it significantly above February's 9.6pc estimate from Brussels.

The continued flight from Greek sovereign debt pushed the yield, or return, on the 10-year government bonds to new highs of 15.5pc.

The European Central Bank, the only major potential buyer, "won't buy whilst [some eurozone countries such as Germany] continue to speak and put pressure on Greece to restructure", said one trader.

A story to keep an eye on

Props to Gates of Vienna for their daily tracking of the goings on with regard to the immigration crisis on Lampedusa. It is beginning to look like the Camp of the Saints will become the focal point of either the demise of the EUnion, or the demise of Europe.

From the latest at GoV: Camp of the Saints: A Strategy for Surrender:
Over the last few weeks it has become obvious that this containment effort is unsustainable, and some other method of dealing with the migrants must be found. Representatives of the EU member states that border on the Mediterranean met yesterday in Nicosia to discuss their common problem. They made it clear that they expect help from the rest of the European Union (...)

It isn’t clear whether the following initiative from Brussels was announced before or after the Nicosia meeting, but there’s no doubt that European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström and the other European commissioners were well aware of the sentiments expressed by the delegates in Cyprus yesterday.

What’s extraordinary about this latest response from the bureaucratic heart of the European Union is that it includes the declared intention of deliberately and pre-emptively importing the North African refugees into Europe.

That is, the Commission intends to surrender to the “Camp of the Saints” invasion before it is fully underway. (...)

So, in order to “avoid human trafficking”, the European Commissioners will become human traffickers themselves. And their low, low rates will drive all the other traffickers out of business.

And the model for the “redistribution proposal” is the recent resettlement of 10,000 culture enrichers from Iraq. Notwithstanding the fact that the “success” of the Iraq asylum program is debatable — ordinary Swedes and Finns may have a somewhat different opinion on the matter — the European Commission acknowledges that forty-seven times as many refugees are currently waiting to come to Europe.

And this is before the rest of the impoverished residents of North Africa learn about this golden opportunity and pack their bags to head for the coast.

And all during the worst global recession since 1933, with the Eurozone teetering on the brink of fiscal collapse.

How does Ms. Malmström envision this proposal turning out? How will all this cultural enrichment affect the financial well-being of the European Union? Where’s the upside?

Really, are these people that stupid? Or simply barking mad?
It may be a small island far away form our damp little corner of the world. But the implications are rather far reaching and potentially disastrous for the entire continent. If you find you're not that interested in Lampedusa I would suggest it nay be time to start getting interested.

Check this link on a regular basis. The more people know how the EUnion is plotting to elect a new people Europe wide, the more chance we have of resisting it.

A completely disinterested warning

Our new, Danish-style cabinet vowed to reduce the size of the corps of civil servants. From a report (NL) we learn that more then half of 1809 civil servants interviewed about the budget cuts expect a reduction in FTE's between 10 and 20%.

You'd think that would neatly decrease the amount of tax money payed out in salaries and benefits. But you'd be wrong: Civil service: Budget cuts counterproductive (NL):
The cabinets plans to cut budgets of the civil servant corps will maybe show benefits on the short term, but in the longer term they will produce extra costs. This was said by civil servants interviewed for an investigation commissioned by [civil servant magazine] Binnenlands Bestuur.
Aha, so we have civil servants selflessly arguing against the planned reduction in the number of civil servants. There's a shocker...

How many of those interviewed feel Damocles' sword suspended over their desks, do you think?

Video: Islamophobophobia explained


This video is from Acts17 by Nabeel Qureshi (ex-Muslim) and David Woods (ex-Atheist).

Europe: Koran burner is jailed for 70 days!

If it was not all over the papers, I would not have believed it (Daily Mail, The Sun, NY Daily News, BBC, etc):

Andrew Ryan was shocked when he saw Muslim activist Emdadur Choudhuryin on television burn a poppy during the 2 minute silence on Armistice Day in front of horrified service families in London. He and the other Islamic activist also shouted during the silence: "British soldier’s burn in hell". For this he was taken to court and the judge gave him the lightest possible sentence: a 50 pound fine.



In a response Ryan decided to take a Koran from the local library and burn it publicly. For this he was arrested, but not fined like the Muslim activist; instead he was sentenced for 70 days in jail.

70 days!

70 days! for burning a book!

70 days! for burning a book! In Europe!

A mindless bit of fun

I got this from the Anchoress. Watching, with growing bemusement, the bordering-on-hysteria hype of the coming royal wedding across the small pond (though the masses seem less inspired), I really liked the healthy dose of relativism this video brings. Enjoy!



BTW, are we sure that isn't the real Rowan Williams, Bishop of Canterbury making a cameo?

Quote of the day

Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere.

'If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem...' he added, trailing off.
Charles Manson in a phone interview with the Daily Mail.

If I were a greenie, I would probably ask myself a few very searching questions about how it is that my beliefs resonate so deeply with someone whose grasp on reality is a matter of scholarly debate. It would seem to me that an ideology that finds on its side an utterly deranged individual like 'Helter Skelter' Manson, is an ideology whose time has come and gone, wouldn't it?

But I'm not a greenie, so I'll just note the fact and hold my peace... For now...

Wilders Trial day 17: Judges stay

The court of substitution has today ruled against the defense. Thus Geert Wilders and his defense keep the same court, with judges Geert Jansen, Marcel van Oosten and Judith Boeree, who remarkably enough appeared today not in robes but in casual clothing.

The substitution court argued as follows: all grounds for substitution would have to be appear immediate before the appeal for substitution. On these grounds the defense argument that the court did not react to a defense request was rejected. The argument of not doing an investigation into the lying witness that was called on the initiative of the court was rejected because the defense could request an investigation themselves. The substitution court also argued that the court of substitution was not meant for replacing the appeal procedure.

Thus now Geert Wilders has a court that has declared that it "feels used" by him and/or his defense lawyer.

Update:
Wilders tweets his response: Disapointed about this ruling. The bigwigs protect each other again. The circus continues.

Wilders also announced that he will press perjury charges against Bertus Hendriks (NL) later this week as he persisted in an inconsistent testimony that was also inconsistent with both other witnesses, of which one is a judge.


Other reports:
Dutch News: no new judges says legal panel

See also:
Wilders Trial: Judges feel used
Is it a conspiracy?
Wilders Trial day 16
Wilders Trial day 16 : Judges dismissed AGAIN?

Wilders Trial: Judges feel used



Last Friday defense lawyer Moszkowicz again requested for substitution of the court. His request is supported by an argumentation that could be split-up into two main arguments: first, the failure of the court to react to a request of the defense and second the courts rejection of a perjury inquiry into a witness that made inconsistent statements in which the witness kept persisting even after been confronted with the inconsistency of his own statements.

The first part of the argument, the failure to respond to a request of the defense, was also the reason for the first court in the Wilders trial to get substituted. Amazingly, this time again Mr. Moszkowicz could use a identical argumentation against the court as he had successfully used against the earlier substituted court. Again the court had failed to respond to a defense request for hearing Mr. Hans Jansen and by doing that the court had again deprived the defense of its rights.

But the argumentation was not identical, as the current court had not rejected to hear Mr. Hans Jansen, nor did it rejected to hear the new witness judge Schalken. But the court simply did not honor the defense request because they made it the courts sovereign decision to hear these witnesses. Also took the court the liberty to add an extra (hostile) witness. This in itself is a strange decision, as these witnesses are pre-trial witnesses, they are not part of the trial itself (they are only heard to determine the legality of this trial) and they were on the request of the defense only, the prosecution had no interest in hearing any of these witnesses.

By not honoring the defense request and making it the courts sovereign decision in hearing the witnesses it has deprived the defense of certain rights. Most importantly the defense lost the right to take the lead in the questioning of the witnesses. But key in this argument seems to be, that the court failed to respond at all on the request and thus never brought any arguments for their decision.

The second half of the argument, that gained it straight from the first half, was that the witness the court introduced was lying and that the court has rejected a perjury inquiry without sufficient argumentation. Salient detail is that the witness in question, Bertus Hendrix, has during his testimony on his own initiative declared to be a friend of Amsterdam judge Schalken (this is an Amsterdam court). He also declared that he would never tell things about Schalken that could reflect badly on him, if he was not bound by the oath. He made those statements after he had already told the court that the self-incriminating testimony of Schalken earlier that week was just not true and a result of the long questioning. But the reason for the perjury inquiry was that Hendriks had declared repeatedly in court that he had invited court witness Hans Jansen for a dinner with the Amsterdam judges for speaking about Islam in general and certainly not for talking about the Wilders trial. But that lead to inconsistencies with earlier press remarks by him, in which he had said that he had invited Hans Jansen because he was a witness in the Wilders trial. But during the questioning by Mr. Moszkowicz he kept persisting that both statements were truthful.



After Moszkowicz presented his case in substitution court, the president of the court, Marcel van Oosten, responded with these words (video):

"Dear president, I first like to note that we, all three of us, feel used and we don’t rest and that’s why we here. I also notice a considerable inequality of arms at this moment, I have to sit down because I have a fixed microphone although the defense lawyer can do his plea standing, as it should be, so I request the court if I can stay seated as otherwise I don’t have a microphone."


The body langue of the court president didn’t make his statements any better and he continues his plea with praising Moszkowicz because he often needs weeks of preparation for a plea and that he had prepared this elaborated plea in no time at all. He also told the court that in his "humble opinion" Moszkowicz took a too wide a scope of argumentation for requesting the rejection of his court, but nevertheless requested elaborate preparation time for giving a response. The substitition court rejected that request.

The substitution court will rule this Monday. But it seems quite difficult for the substitution court to still rule that Marcel van Oosten his court is still an impartial court for Mr. Wilders after van Oosten has claimed his court has hurt feelings because they "feel used" by the defense.

See also:
Wilders Trial day 16
Wilders Trial day 16 : Judges dismissed AGAIN?
Wilders Trial day 15

Is it a conspiracy?


This week trial testimonies in the Wilders trial exposed new facts about dinner club Vertigo that invited trial expert witness Hans Jansen only days before his court testimony. As reported earlier, one of the Vertigo members is Judge Schalken who ordered the trial against Mr. Wilders. Another member is also an Amsterdam judge and yet another is a Haarlem district justice. An other new fact revealed is that the dinner club, during its eight year history, never did invite guests and that it’s only other invited guest was also invited for discussing the Wilders trial with the Vertigo members.

Today, a day after trial day 16, Hans Jansen published a blog on Dutch group blog Hoeiboei wich is a response to these latest trial developments:

Is it ignorance?


If I had known before the May 3th 2010 dinner, that the members were not only a Haarlem district justice, but also a judge from the Amsterdam court, I would never have accepted the invitation. But nobody told me, I just heard about it a few days ago.

If I had known before the May 3th 2010 dinner, that I was only the second guest speaker from outside the Vertigo club, and that the first speaker also had talked about the Wilders trial, I would never have accepted the invitation. But nobody told me, I just heard about it a few days ago.

If I had known that I was the second guest speaker ever in this club, that both guest speakers had to speak about Wilders and his trial, that two members of the club were judges at the Amsterdam court, then the invitation would have triggered me to contact the justice department and Wilders his defense lawyer. Although I just don’t know if they would have ridiculed me for it.

I think it could be very instructive if the Justice department would also question the first speaker, Paul Scheffer, about his activities at the Vertigo dinner club. What has been discussed that evening about the trial? How did they portray to him the focus of that evening? How far did the judges go? On the other hand, Paul Scheffer is of course also a member of the leftwing church.

"I am not influenced" can mean that nobody has managed to influence my opinion, but it can also mean that nobody has spoken to me to try to influence my opinion. I have not always been aware of the ambiguity of this.
[note: this is a reference to press accusations that Hans Jansen has been inconsistent about his allegation of being influenced by Schalken]

The Wilders trial will keep producing blunders and incident for years if nobody puts a stop on it. The cause is clear: Dutch law is currently not well equipped for handling opinion crimes. Maybe the PvdA (Labour Party) can take the initiative for drafting a new law book for these opinion crimes? Together with D66 (Left Liberals) and the GroenLinks (Greens) they surely can find a majority in support for this.


See also:
Wilder Trial day 16

Wilders Trial day 16

Moszkowicz at Wilders trial
Today was the 16th trial day in the Wilders trial. Unfortunately I was not able to see last Wednesdays proceeding with the testimonies of Hans Jansen en Judge Schalken about that infamous dinner that caused the earlier Wilders trial to collapse. Because during the dinner judge Schalken, the judge who ordered the Wilders trial, tried to convince Hans Jansen about the rightfulness of his order during a dinner just days before Hans Jansen himself had to testify in that trial (see: Judge Schalken).



Today, on the sole request of the court, dinner organizer Bertus Hendriks, a well-known leftist Palestinian activist, took the stand. In his testimony Hendriks described Hans Jansen his testimony about Schalken and his overbearingly behavior when he tried to convince Hans Jansen as hogwash. He has seen no such thing that evening, apparently Hans Jansen had visited another dinner that he had. Claiming Hans Jansen had made it all up. And it was not Schalken who intimidated Jansen. It was rather the other way around; it was Hans Jansen who had intimidated the judge. While Hans Jansen was having a good time at the diner, it was Hendriks his friend Schalken that was silent for nearly the whole first half of the evening, still shocked by the events at the start of the dinner. Because when Schalken had arrived and was introduced to Mr. Hans Jansen as the judge who ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, Hans Jansen had said he wanted to leave and did not want to talk about Islam if he could be arrested and prosecuted by this judge. But after lots of talk and the promise that he would receive immunity, Jansen agreed to stay.



Hendriks claimed that in The Netherlands nobody has to be fear for expressing his views and thus Hans Jansen must have some sort of problem and must be paranoid with his wild claims about witch trials, Eurabia, Soviet trials and his complaints about the Dutch judicial system. After Hendriks kept repeating that Hans Jansen was paranoid, defense lawyer Moszkowicz complained to the witness that Wilders was really sitting right next to him and that that was certainly not a paranoid delusion. But that dismayed the court, the president of the court insisted that Mr. Wilders was sitting there as a free man. Apparently the judge thought Wilders was free to visit his 16 trial days and counting, free to participate in the uncountable more preparation days, and also that having a 24 hour security detail, just to stay alive was not taking away his freedom.

Thus Bertus Hendriks can be best described as a hostile witness to Mr. Wilders, but he made good on that by being very talkative and making all kinds of interesting (unasked for) remarks. For example, he did not only claim that Mr. Hans Jansen made an incorrect testimony, according to him also judge Schalken made false claims. It started with the number of bottles of wine judge Schalken claimed to have been served during dinner: 6 bottles. Not true says Hendriks. Also the fact that Schalken acknowledged of bring papers with the court ruling of the Wilders trial was incorrect, clearly this was the result of long questioning of judge Schalken. Hendriks had seen no papers, this was just not true. But then again, he also described himself as a close friend of Schalken, such a close friend that he would never tell anything that would make him look bad, by that implying he would lie about facts, if he was not under oath.



BTW this is a part of Wednesday testimony exchange between judge Schalken and Moskowicz (NL):
Moskowicz: Did you have it (the court ruling of the Wilders trial) with you during the dinner?
Schalken: No.
Moskowicz: Not even a part?
Schalken: hmmmmmm…No, I don’t think so?
Moskowicz: Didn’t you take something out of your pocket during the dinner?
Schalken: hmmmmmm… No, well, I don’t know.
Moskowicz: Didn’t you read parts of the court ruling?
Schalken: Oh, yes, I did indeed.
Moskowicz: How?
Schalken: I brought it with me?
Moskowicz: What did you bring with you?
Schalken: Parts of the court ruling?
Moskowicz: What parts?
Schalken: The parts were we said that the comparison between fascism and Islam are not covered by the group offence article.
Moskowicz: Why that part?
Schalken: Because there are many misunderstandings about the court order and this part would interest Jansen.


Hendriks also declared that after Hans Jansen published his blog article that he had sent around an e-mail in which he described the evening so that all remembered the events correctly (amazingly no further questioning followed on this point). Hendrix also described conversations between other Vertigo members, they all agreed about the rudeness of Mr. Jansen of publishing about events that they all had agreed upon to keep private (although Mr. Jansen claimed never to have committed to such thing). Judge Schalken even complained to Mr. Hendriks of being not angrier about what Jansen had done.

There were also new facts around the nature of dinner club. The Vertigo dinner club has always been portrayed as a dinner club who invited mystery guests and who just happened to have invited arabist Hans Jansen as one of their guest. But as it turns out, Hans Jansen was just the second dinner guest in the 8 year history of the dinner club and believe it or not, that other guest was also about the Wilders trial.

The first and only other mystery guest of the dinner club was Paul Scheffer who was invited by judge . He is a known publicist and prominent PvdA (socialist party) member. Scheffer wanted to debate judge Schalken on his court order that ordered the prosecution of Mr. Wilders. Schalken agreed on the dinner discussion on the condition that the entire dinner group would read the complete ruling he and his co-judges had written.

This of course put a whole new light on the reason why Hans Jansen was invited to the dinner party. But according to Bertus Hendriks they just wanted to talk about Islam in The Netherlands and not about the court case. Hans Jansen was just invited because he was a known authority on Islam who had contrarian opinions compared to the groups. The talkative Hendriks had already defined his difference with Mr. Jansen on his own initiative at the beginning of today’s trial:

I’m more a people person and Hans Jansen is more a theology/book person. For example if people go to the mosque every day and thus hear every day the Koranic verse that describes the unbelievers as the enemy that you are at war with, Hans Jansen claims this must have some sort of effect, I beg to differ, I say people are different.




When I write mr. Hendriks was talkative, I actually meant the first part of the trial day, as that was when the court questioned him. Or questioning is not really the right word, they were just letting the witness flow; they didn’t ask too many critical questions and did not really focused on inconsistencies. That all changed when Moszkowicz started his interrogation of the witness.
After Hendriks again repeatedly claimed that Hans Jansen was just invited because they talked about Islam in The Netherlands and that it had nothing to do with the trial, defense lawyer Moszkowicz confronts him with statements he made earlier in the press in which he claims Hans Jansen was invited because he was interesting because he was a witness in the trial. To the dismay of the judges Moszkowicz warned Bertus Hendriks he was under oath. And after Hendriks kept claiming that both his statements were true, the defense lawyer requested a perjury inquiry.

Unfortunately I was not able to follow the afternoon developments, but the court decided to reject Moszkowicz his perjury inquiry on grounds that let Mr. Moszkowicz the impression of a possible prejudiced court, and thus he again requested a disqualification of the court. The disqualification court will rule Monday April 18, 2011.



See also:
Trial day 16 : Judges dismissed AGAIN?
Wilders Trial day 15
Wilders Trial day 14
Wilders Trial day 13
Wilders Trial day 11
Wilders Trial day 10

Wilders Trial day 16 : Judges dismissed AGAIN?

From DutchNews.nl: Wilders' trial: lawyer again calls for judges to be dismissed
The trial of anti-Islam campaigner Geert Wilders on inciting hatred charges took a new twist on Friday as his lawyer again applied for the judges to be dismissed.

This week, the three-strong panel of judges have been hearing evidence about a dinner, during which a senior court official is alleged to have tried to influence a witness.

That incident led to the previous judging panel being dismissed last October.

Lawyer Bram Moszkowicz now claims that one of the people at the meal last year - Middle East expert Bertus Hendricks - has lied in court about the alleged attempt to pressure the witness and the reason Arabic professor Hans Jansen was invited to attend.

Moszkowicz also says Hendricks should be charged with perjury. The judges on Friday rejected this request, leading Moszkowicz to call for their dismissal.

That demand will now be looked at by a special legal panel. They are due to report back later on Friday.
At issue is a discrepancy between what Hendriks testified in court and statements he made in the press earlier. In court today he testified that the intended topics of conversation did not include the Wilders trial and Hans Jansen was invited in his capacity as a scholar and critic of islam. He also claimed he did not know Jansen was to testify in the Wilders trial before inviting Jansen to dinner.

Yet,  last October, Hendriks stated in an interview with De Pers, that Hans Jansen was invited exactly because he was expert witness in the Wilders trial and that including Jansen ' seemed interesting to us'. This would imply that the Wilders trial did feature (high) on the list of discussion topic for that infamous evening.

For Bram Moszkowicz, this was reason to request of the court that charges of perjury against Hendriks be drawn up and an investigation started. The court refused to grant the request, a decision which Moszkowicz qualified as 'unsound, incomprehensible and arousing the appearance of prejudice' on the courts part. Hence the motion to dismiss this court of judges as well.

I'll update if more news comes out later tonight. Stay tuned!

(Part of this text is based on the VK liveblog for today, here; NL)

[UPDATE001] Via Elsevier (NL): Public prosecutor sees no reason for dismissal. Ruling postponed until Monday. The judges against whom the motion to dismiss were filed wanted the case tried a considerable time after the weekend to have the time to formulate an answer to the motion made by Wilders' lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz. The panel judging the motion did not agree and treated the case immediately. The ruling is set for next Monday, 16:00 hours.

[UPDATE002] Gates of Vienna is covering here.

Wilders Trial day 15

Today saw the 15th day of trial in the suit against Geert Wilders. This session was all about that infamous dinner party, that ultimately led to the dismissal of the previous court of judges, on suspicion of prejudice.

The key players, in order of appearance were:
Prof. Hans Jansen, arabist and student of islam
Prof. Tom Schalken, author of the order to prosecute Wilders
Bertus Hendriks, host of the dinner party at which the previous two met.

Ferdy is unfortunately AWOL and I don't have a lot of time, so I'll just give a quick run-down, based on what I gathered from following twitter and the liveblog carried by De Volksrant (NL).

The day started with prof. Hans Jansen in the witness stand. And we were off to a flying start, as prof. Jansen refused to give testimony.This on account that a well-known nutcase, who has threatened Jansen (and Wilders) and has openly called for prof. Jansen to be 'slaughtered like a pig', was seated right behind Jansen. Said Jansen: "I'd rather be in a cell than sitting here unarmed with my back turned to this gentleman". After some to-ing and fro-ing, this man (what was he doing in the courtroom to begin with?) was escorted out of the room.

According to Jansen, Hendriks knew he was to appear in court a few days after the dinner party, when Hendriks extended the invitation. Going to the dinner party, Jansen said, he just knew the topic of the evening would be the Wilders trial. He arrived early and was seated alone at the dinner table, when Tom Schalken appeared, who Jansen did not know at the time. After exchanging some pleasantries, Hendriks came in and introduced Schalken as 'Do you know that this is the man who wrote the order to prosecute Wilders?'. At that Jansen wanted to leave, for fear of being prosecuted for anything he might say about islam and the koran in the course of the dinner.

Jansen testified that he learned only a few days ago, that a second judge form the Amsterdam court was present at the dinner, deputy-judge Wooldrik. At the party, Wooldrik had introduced himself, but had not mentioned he was deputy judge. Jansen said he would have ruthlessly left the party had he know there were not one, but two judges from the court that was prosecuting Wilders at the party.

At the party, Jansen decided to rethink his planned contribution to the discussion on islam and various verses in the koran. It would have been an unequal contest, with judges there who'd proved themselves capable of 'grabbing by the neck' anyone with views not to the liking of these judges.

At the end of the dinner, Tom Schalken revealed from his coat pockets a couple of sheets of paper, with the words 'This is an important and well written piece'. According to Jansen, he regrets not taking the papers. 'I cannot say for certain that it was the order, but I expect it was'. Schalken tried to convince Jansen that he 'as an intellectual' lowered himself by getting involved with Wilders.

Schalken insisted on the 'scientific interest' of his piece. Schalken seemed to seek Jansens approval and respect, 'an annoying quality to be confronted with'.
He wanted my approval of his magnificent scientific achievement. I thought it was rather pathetic.
Jansen added that Schalken was talking about the order 'as if it were his love baby'.

During the night, here was some considerable consumption of wine. Jansen, who didn't drink during the party, estimates 7 or 8 bottles were killed by six people. According to Jansen, Schalken managed to influence him 'a couple of times'. Jansen says he assumed all those present that night knew that he was to play an important part in the Wilders trial. It was 'common knowledge' after all, Jansen said.

The session adjourned for lunch and was resumed at 13:20 with the testimony of Tom Schalken. During his testimony he accused Jansen of starting the discussions of the Wilders trial. Jansen hadn't read the order, said Schalken, but had a very clear opinion on it. 'I found that sub-par, scientifically speaking'. Schalken first denies having the order with him, but later admits to having had 'a part of it' with him during dinner. But his memory starts to fail as to why and how he arrived at the decision to take it with him.

Schalken maintains he did not know Jansen was about to appear in court, until he sat down for dinner that night. At least, he doesn't remember knowing it before the dinner party. According to Schalken, the topics of conversation were 'islam, the koran and islamization'. The order was not to be a topic of discussion, which prompted the question, why Schalken thought it necessary to take a copy of the order with him to the party. According to Schalken, he could not rule out the possibility of this discussion, hence his decision.

It is running late and the court decides, after consulting with Jansen and Hendriks, that all witnesses will return for the next session (coming Friday) at which time Hendriks will give testimony.

Schalken doesn't remember how he reacted when he learned that Jansen was going to publish about the dinner party. Quotes from a police investigation report, of statements made by Schalken, he also does not remember. At the close of this session, Wilders is allowed to pose a question to Schalken. Wilders asks if Schalken understands that many Dutch think he (Schalken) has conducted himself unprofessionally and scandalously, by sitting down to dinner with Hans Jansen, while Schalken is the author of the order to prosecute Wilders? Schalken admits he understand the perception and regrets things have gotten so far out of hand. He states that Jansen was to be heard about islam during the trial, a topic that did not feature in at the dinner party.

Session adjourned at 18:42. Next session will be Friday, April 15th, 09:00.

See also:

GoV: Hans Jansen on the Witness Stand

The Iceland view

Ms. Helen draws our attention to a piece written by Hjortur J. Gudmundsson, an Icelandic free-marketeer, journalist, blogger, academic and opponent of the EU. In a short and concise piece in the EU Observer he explains the Icelandic view on the Icesave debacle and the outcome of the most recent referendum held in Iceland on whether or not Iceland could use government money (tax money, money that belongs to Icelanders that have nothing to do with Icesave) to repay the money Icesave owed the Dutch and British.

Almost 60 percent voted 'No' to an agreement that would have seen Icelandic taxpayers shouldering the responsibility of these debts, estimated at €11,875 for each of Iceland's 320,000 inhabitants, Gudmundsson writes. The result of the referendum was decisive with a turnout of 75 percent.

What is noteworthy, according to the author, is the fact that the British and Dutch governments have refused to solve the dispute in a legal fashion and have instead insisted on a solution through political negotiations. This refusal may lie in the fact that many legal experts have claimed that Iceland would most likely win using the legal route. In any case, the Icelandic people have always wanted the Icesave dispute to be dealt with in the courts. And now its looks as though they might get their wish.

But no matter how such court cases should go, it is highly doubtful that the results would serve the interests of London and the Hague or the EU, says Gudmundsson. If Iceland wins, the UK and the Netherlands quite simply will not get their money back. Well, not all of it.

If the UK and Holland do win, they still wouldn't get the money. But the jurisprudence thus created would carry the added 'bonus' of every single country in the European Economic Area (EEA) – which includes all the EU member states – would be responsible for all deposits in their private banks, both domestically and in foreign branches within the EEA, and would have a clear obligation to step in with their taxpayers' money if necessary. Even if this can be squared in a legal sense, it would wreak economic havoc.

Additionally, Gudmundson argues that more embarrassment may lie in store for the Dutch and British government, as well as the EUnion, as a series of court cases would inevitably shine a spotlight on how badly funded and insufficient deposits guarantee schemes in most European states really are as a result of EUnion legislation. The two governments as well as the EU would probably also have to make public a significant number of sensitive official documents related to the dispute and some of their other economic decisions.

And in the end, no matter the outcome, the EUnion would lose. Or, as Gudmundsson phrases it: "No matter how badly Icesave court cases could possibly go for Iceland, it would not be Reykjavik that suffers the biggest defeat".

No, that would ultimately be us, EUnion taxpayers, paying for the folly of our masters. 't Was always thus, and thus 't will always be. But too much of it has, historically, led to an ill, bloody fate for the rulers of the day. And history has a habit of repeating itself every so often

A measure of contempt

Our intrepid members of parliament have come up with the grand solution to the problems that beset this troubled word. A ban on all ritual slaughtering.
A majority of MPs is now opposed to Jewish and Muslim ways of killing animals following the Labour party’s decision to support a ban.

Both religions demand that slaughter is carried out with a single cut to the throat. In ordinary abattoirs, animals are usually stunned before being killed.

The proposal to ban ritual slaughter, drawn up by the pro-animal party PvdD, will be debated next week.. It claims there is evidence ritual slaughter causes animals unnecessary pain and suffering.

The three religious parties in parliament oppose the ban on freedom of religion grounds. The ruling VVD has not yet made up its mind.
Right from the bat the recriminations of secular religious intolerance and religion-mandated backwardness flew hither and yon.

As with the headscarf debate, unfortunately, both sides the debate have merit while simultaneously missing the central point spectacularly. We have atheists defending animal rights, passionately arguing that this civilized part of the world no animal deserves to die in a manner that causes undue suffering. And we have the religiously inclined arguing the libertarian view that government has no role in defining what is, and what is not, acceptable religious practice. Does the government really have a role in regulating the way animals are butchered? What vital national interest is served by the government stepping in and banning all forms of unstunned ritual slaughter? If, (and I would argue strongly against that) it is a core task of the government to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for animals, then why this ban, and not a ban on the sometimes appalling conditions under which our pigs and poultry are bred and raised?

The proximate cause of this proposed ban is the silent but whole-sale adoption of halal certification by the Dutch and European food industry (covered here and here, for instance). Since no MP wants to appear discriminatory in his or her views (our constitutions forbids it, after all), the whole halal issue is turned into an animal welfare issue, making it an issue about butchering animals without first stunning them. Lost in all the noise is the fact there is a marked difference between kosher and halal butchering.

Halal butchering means the throat of the animal is cut in a way that severs the arteries and windpipe, but specifically NOT the spinal cord, leaving the animal conscious through the whole process. The animal is quite aware (if not being allowed stunning), causing huge amounts of stress. This is intentional, as islam prescribes that an animal must die of blood loss and/or asphyxiation and nothing else.

By contrast kosher butchering includes severing the vagus nerves, making death near instantaneous. The animal still bleeds out, making for some gruesome viewing, but the animal itself isn't conscious throughout the process. Additionally, kosher butchering involves some pretty strict rules regarding the knife used: It must be razor-sharp and without nicks or serrations. No such rules exist in halal-butchering, leading to agonizing scenes of sheep being 'butchered' on a balcony by sawing of the throat with a blunt hacksaw.

However, these finer points are lost in public and political debate. The discussion has been narrowed down to the acceptability of all unstunned methods of slaughter. Hence the reason why the ban on unstunned slaughtering misses the mark in this one key aspect: Halal slaughter does not necessarily mean unstunned slaughter. What makes a slaughter halal is the islamic prayer spoken by a certified imam over the animal during its death-struggle. A ban on unstunned slaughter will only hamper the orthodox Jewish minority and the more purist muslims in the Netherlands. It will not curb halal butchering in the least. And it will do nothing to halt the creeping halalification of our own, Western food industry.

This ban will not stop halal slaughtering by the big abattoirs. It will not bring back regular (non-halal) beef and mutton back in our supermarkets and restaurants. It does pretend to address that, though. Which leads to a conclusion: This proposed ban on unstunned slaughter is a pacifier. It is a fake teat our intrepid MP's are popping into our mouths. It will produce nothing worthwhile, nothing of substance, but will hopefully shut us up for a while. This is a lack of respect we do not deserve. It is a measure of contempt that we should repay in full. Twice over.

Meanwhile, over at the WSJ

In The Wall Street Journal, we find a lengthy op-ed by the man himself: European Free Speech Under Attack by Geert Wilders. I urge you to read the whole thing. But for those in a hurry, here's the punch line:
My trial is a political trial. It is tragic that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, political trials in Europe were not cast onto the ash heap of history. Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has previously referred to the European Union as the "EUSSR." One of his arguments is that in the EU, as in the former USSR, there is no freedom of speech.

I should be acquitted. My trial in Amsterdam is not about me, but about freedom of speech in Europe. As Dwight D. Eisenhower, Europe's liberator from Nazism, once warned, freedom "must be daily earned and refreshed—else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die." Today in Europe, freedom is being neither earned nor refreshed.
I think this is the first time Wilders referred to the EUnion in terms of "EUSSR". That will probably not endear him to our masters abroad and at home. But 'Yay!' for him for doing so.

Unexpected thought of the day

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

From the NYT about a Dutch study three years ago. I don't remember seeing or hearing much about this study back then. But given the results that shouldn't be all that surprising.

Thanks to Tim Worstall, who has a thought or two on the matter here.

A liquidation

Three days on, and your intrepid blogger is still hopping mad about the deconstruction of the Dutch military to save a lousy 1 billion euros. Given the amount that is nominally saved, this destruction of capability, of experience and tradition, is wholly unnecessary. To give just one example: Immigration alone costs the Dutch tax payer 7.2 billion euros every year. On the face of it it should not be too much of an exercise to get the billion needed by curbing this a little, now would it?

But the point of the exercise evidently has little to do with saving money. Evidently, because there are several ways (one of which is migration, others include the infernal 'social programs' that throw money at the Moroccan scum making our cities less enjoyable to live in then they should be) this 1 billion euros could be saved without destroying our national army.

Defence minister Hans Hillen, in the wake of furious reactions both from within the armed forces and of public opinion, said (NL) "The armed forces will remain of Champions League level. We will still matter". This immediately received the scepticism it deserved. But here the minister may have inadvertently indicated the true nature of the cuts.

For all intents and purposes the UEFA Champions League is a pan-European League, where the elements of national competition have been removed as much as possible. Yes, there are Dutch teams, as there are British, German, Spanish and Italian teams. But teams are overridingly identified with the city, and specifically not the nation, they hail from.

As far as I'm concerned, that is quite okay, and it has given us some spectacular matches to watch. But it is an entirely different matter, when our armed forces are thrown out into a 'European league'. Minister Hillen is confirming exactly what we were suspicious of. The parts of our armed forces that will be left after the cuts are effected will be stationed in Holland, will be funded by the Dutch government. But they will no longer be Dutch.

Instead they will be minor units, battalions, regiments and squadrons, in a European Army, in a EUnion army. After the cuts, there will only be Dutch units under foreign command. But a Dutch army it will not be. Minister Hillen is overseeing the liquidation of the Royal Dutch Armed Forces.

Does that make minister Hillen a traitor? Presumably his ultimate defence will be that his hands are tied. Buried deep in the Lisbon Treaty are the requirements and measures to create a EUnion army, with a EUnion command structure, wholly subservient to the EUnion. Post-Lisbon our government is beholden by the terms of the treaty we affectionately call the Turnip. So, on the face of it Hillen is right.

But this is where the nefarious character of the EUnion becomes clear. It was after all the Dutch government (led by Jan-Peter Balkenende, a past recipient of the Annual KV Anton Mussert award), who ratified the Turnip. Even when fully 63% of the Dutch had said 'NO' to the Turnips predecessor, that infernal European Constitution. The hands of our government are tied because it wants it that way.

His Grace also understands this. And he puts it more eloquently then I ever could. So, I will quote him verbatim:
The EU is one great quango: it is a democratic scam which permits the politicians of each member state to promise the earth to get themselves elected, and then blame "Europe" that their manifesto pledges could not be fulfilled. This then permits each political leader to stare their electorates in the face and say, quite truthfully, "Our hands were tied; we could nothing about it; we were bound by our treaty obligations, etc., etc".

Reacting to this new-found clarity, Richard North elaborates:
This is the point which the Little Englanders and the dyed-in-the-wool UKIPites simply do not get. The European Union is not a conspiracy of foreigners, to take over and rule Britain. It is a conspiracy of the ruling élites, on a European scale to by-pass democracy. Our leaders are part of it, it is them, the British political élites, doing it to us. (...)

In our book, The Great Deception, Booker and I wrote of the slow-motion coup d'état - which is precisely what has been happening – and why the book is routinely ignored by the "great and the good". Slowly, slowly, almost imperceptibly, the organs of states, and the most important institutions such as the BBC, have been taken over. Our democracy has been stolen from under our very noses, not by those ghastly foreigners or the filthy Hun, but by our own élites.

Still, I find it hard to put into words the depths of my disappointment, anger and grief with this government. Up to now I lived under the impression that is was mainly the left that was in love with the EUnion project. I always thought the right, conservative sliver of our political establishment, would remember the traditional place and role of politics and government.

But the brazen attempt to rob us of a believable armed forces, by this, OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!, and the strangely subdued, tacit agreement by the opposition, proves that the entire political class in the Netherlands is wedded to the ideas and principles of the EUnion. It is actually no wonder our 'NO' from 2005 was swept under the rug so effortlessly. There is nobody in our political scene that actually wants to make good on that vote. The EUnion is just too convenient for that.

Dr. North once wrote: "We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy". At the time he first wrote this, I thought he was coming on a little too strong. But now, finally, a little sadder, a little wiser and a whole lot angrier, I realize Dr. North was right all along.

Even before our armed forces, our political class ceased to be Dutch. It is of the EUnion, in its entirety, from left to right. We may be allowed to colour a red dot every four years, but there is actually only one choice: The EUNion. In a very real sense, we live in a one-party state.

And so it is our own elites, that continue to hollow out the natural principles of just government, of freedom and of democracy, using the EUnion as the perfect excuse. And when we protest, they throw up their hands: 'It wasn't us. It's that damn EU'. But in their ante-chambers, where we don't see them, I bet they're sniggering in their little fists about the joke they've played on us.

If you take anything from this angry vent, this should be it: The EUnion is not some nebulous bureaucracy in Brussels, that makes our lives miserable. The EUnion, that is our own elites, fellow Dutch, making our lives miserable. They are the enemy. We should start treating them as such.

Gutting our defences

This week the Dutch armed forces were hit with the stiffest cuts in budget and capabilities in recent memory. DutchNews has the short version: One in six defence workers to go within four years.
Over 6,000 military service personnel and defence ministry civil servants are facing compulsory redundancies, ahead of Friday’s cabinet decision on how to make savings of €1bn in the defence budget, NOS television reports.

In total, 12,300 defence ministry jobs will go as part of the savings package, NOS says. Some 2,300 vacancies will not be filled and a further 4,000 people will not be replaced when they leave.

The ministry currently has a workforce of almost 69,000.

The job losses will affect all ranks in the defence ministry, according to government sources quoted in the Volkskrant.

Defence minister Hans Hillen also plans to scrap tanks and Cougar helicopters, to cut the 87 F-16 fighter jets by around a third and to sell off a number of naval vessels.

The controversial purchase of a second JSF fighter jet for €100m will go ahead to protect the participation of Dutch firms in its development and production.
The reporting makes it sound as if 'some' tanks are scrapped, but in actuality all Leopard MBTs will we stricken from the inventory, as will all Cougar transport helicopters and, astonishingly, all minesweepers. The Navy alone will lose a quarter of its capability. That in a time when piracy is rampant and Dutch shipping companies are turning to the Navy for support.

This gutting of our armed forces is necessary, according to our government, to realize a budget cut of 1 billion euros.

Let me put this into perspective. From the website of the Central Bureau of Statistics I gleaned the following overview of defence spending from 2003 to 2009:

2003 7.404 bln
2004 7.551 bln
2005 7.693 bln
2006 8.145 bln === Start of Uruzgan mission
2007 8.388 bln
2008 8.488 bln
2009 8.733 bln

Definitive numbers for 2010 and 2011 are not yet available from the CBS website, but the budgets published on the ministry of defences website seems to indicate these numbers are between the spending of 2008 and 2009.

What this shows is that heading the Taskforce Uruzgan if Afghanistan increased the Dutch defence budget by 1.1 billion euros. Since the Dutch withdrew from Uruzgan late last year, one would think the cuts needed would or could restore the status quo ante, when we also has a functioning and capable armed services.

I am not in a position to argue whether the status quo ante is desirable, nor am I arguing that we should. I am just making the observation that even with the budget reduced by a cool billion, we were entirely capable to field a believable army, navy and air force.

So, what changed? What is going on here? Why does a budget cut of 1 billion euro make a gutting of our armed forces imperative? I get the uncomfortable feeling that there is something more at play here.

The cuts made are so deep and wide that hardly a single arm of our forces will, after the cuts are effected, be able to operate independently. In a conflict high in the violence spectrum, the Dutch can operate as recon for those armed services that have tanks, while Dutch infantry in such a conflict will have to depend on tanks from foreign services for back up. The same goes for the navy and the air force.

These cuts, the way they are being made, give the distinct impression that this government is out to ensure that Dutch armed forces will of necessity have to co-operate with the services of other nations to operate safely and effectively.

And why is that a bad thing? Because any national defence capability that is dependent on the active cooperation and involvement of another nation before it can be deployed is, by definition, not sovereign. The Dutch government is actively abdicating one of the key areas, one of the most important core businesses, of any government anywhere: To protect the people and the country it serves from threats, from without or from within.

The most infuriating part of it is that these measures are taken by a government that is supposed to be right-wing. Moreover, PM Mark Ruttes own party, conservative liberal VDD, made it an election promise to halt the slow decay of our armed forces. Indeed, they did. They stopped the decay by quickly, allright, and are actively tearing our army, navy and air force down now. That's progress, I guess (!).

That ugly head you see rearing goes by the name of van Rompuy, the little troll pretending to be president to all Europeans. Earlier we saw a same gutting of the armed forces in the UK. This has been used as a pretext to boost the "Anglo-French military co-operation" amply documented by Dr. Richard North here, here and here. At the time Dr. North observed: 'Anyone who thinks that Anglo-French military "co-operation" isn't a Trojan Horse for the EU Army needs their brains examined'. It isn't overly paranoid to suspect the same type of mechanism being deployed by the Dutch government to hand over our armed forces to the EUnion. And typically, this angle is completely ignored by what passes for our independent main stream media.

Once again we are betrayed by those we entrusted with looking out for our interests. These new cuts in our military are as clear a sign as any that even this new right-wing government is hell-bent on destroying Dutch sovereignty and delivering us into the hands of that alien power, the EUnion. The feeling of being let down, of once again being betrayed by persons I thought, I was assured, I could trust, is all the more jarring, compared to the hope the installing of a right-wing, Danish-style cabinet engendered in those heady days last fall.

This much is now clear: Even a nominally right-wing government will not defend us. We are on our own. Our government is unwilling, as far as it is still able, to look out for our interest.

And beyond the current defence cuts, we have our MPs similarly abdicating their responsibilities. By and large they are representing not our, but their own interests. Our MSM is actively engaged in feeding us propaganda and preventing us from finding out what is really going on. Even THE symbol of our nation, the royal family, have left the Dutch to fend for themselves, while they actively promote the tranzi cause.

We are alone and have only ourselves to turn to for the defence of our freedom, our sovereignty and our prosperity. And it is time to start being seriously angry about this state of affairs.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...