From the city of Malmö, via Gates of Vienna. 40% of the city’s population is immigrant ;

“The number of cases involving rough violence against individuals on public property has risen sharply since the beginning of the ’90s, when I started my work in Malmö. The perpetrators of robbery and bodily harm on public property are almost always immigrant youngsters. This is well-documented, but the authorities responsible prefer not to report it. It would be against the country’s integration propaganda, so they prefer to remain silent.
“The fact that also the number of rapes in Malmö has grown sharply is related to the fact that 40% of Malmö’s inhabitants have a different ethnic background, and where the men’s power over the women is total. Their view of women is so totally alien to us Swedish men, and they continue to live according to their culture without regard to the fact that they are in a different country with different laws. Unfortunately, this attitude is being reinforced by Swedish authorities and courts who show regard for the suspect’s culture when making decisions.”
This police officer confirms also the negative reception which police and emergency services encounter in Malmö’s immigrant suburbs.
“Many immigrants have not the slightest respect for Swedish cops. You’re often treated like a trashman. Immigrants have so far only met representatives of the immigration and social services. They have been treated very friendly and seen all their demands met.
“Certain routine matters, such as a driving license check with an immigrant in Rosengård, get easily out of hand and develop into a major incident, where all patrol cars must intervene to re-establish order. Thanks to cellphones, many ‘supporters’ gather when we intervene in Rosengård. If we stop a car for a routine check, the entire clan shows up to work against the police.

Stanley Kurtz;

Will same-sex marriage open the door to still more radical redefinitions of the family? The argument against a “slippery slope” has largely come down to the claim that there is no constituency for family radicalism. Logically and culturally, the notion that “love makes a family” opens the door to an infinite variety of family forms, polygamy and polyamory included. Yet consider the massive cultural and political effort that’s been required to bring civil unions to several states, and formal same-sex marriage to Massachusetts. Now imagine how much more effort it would take to finally secure same-sex marriage in the nation as a whole. How could a few college professors and radical family activists hope to equal that “mainstream” effort?
So goes the argument against a family-structure-slippery-slope. Yet the argument is flawed. As I showed in “The Confession,” and “The Confession II,” the core constituency for a radical deconstruction of marriage (polygamy and polyamory included) will be largely the same activist community that is pushing for same-sex marriage right now. After all, until a moment ago, same-sex marriage was itself considered a radical idea pushed by a bunch of college professors and marginal activists. That was before gay marriage was taken up as a cause by weighty mainstream institutions like The New York Times.
Well, The New York Times has once again placed itself on the cutting edge of family radicalism, with a Sunday magazine cover piece on the three- and four- person extended families created when gay men donate sperm to lesbian couples. (See “Gay Donor or Gay Dad?”) These families are at the center of the radical agenda put forward this past summer in the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto. (For more, see my “Confession” articles, linked above.) It will be next to impossible to recognize such families without also opening up the way for heterosexual polygamy and polyamory, which is exactly why all of these family forms, and more, are on the menu put forward by the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto.

Just as skeptics are beginning to note that the troublesome “global warming” mantra is being quietly replaced by the more meteorologically inclusive “climate change” – along comes a new catch phrase. Remember where you heard it first.

But the meeting has delayed until next year a decision on who should run funds to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
“Rich countries should have achieved more at this conference and made more firm commitments to combat climate injustice,” said Sharon Looremeta of environmental group Practical Action.

Climate “injustice”.
To my friends concerned with the legitimate environmental debate: that’s code that even you should be able recognize.
“Justice” is an construct of human social interactions. No scientist with a sliver of intellectual self-respect would be caught dead using the word in that context – it suggests that a natural climate unmolested by mankind’s activity would be more considerate in how it applies its effects to human populations.
When someone promotes concepts like “climate injustice” they’re not talking about the environment. They’re talking about your money and mine, and how to get their hands on as much of it as possible.
Remember: socialism isn’t a political ideology – it’s a pyramid scheme.
The rich get richer, and the poor end up in unmarked graves and re-education camps.
“Environmentalism” was hijacked by the hard left at least a decade ago, and some of us are starting to wonder what it’s going to take for you to figure that out. And the Kyoto Protocol? Just more UN-brokered “politics of envy” in hemp and Birkenstock disguise.
Related.