Netherlands: Government-funded watchdog says it’s ok for Muslims to send death threats to gays
December 3, 2016
“The disgraceful stance came to light when a member of the public complained about death threats posted to an online forum which called for homosexuals to be ‘burned, decapitated and slaughtered.’” Yet this “anti-discrimination watchdog” refused to pursue the case, writing: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character.”
In their globalist ardor to appease and accommodate Islamic supremacists, there seems to be no absurdity that is out of bounds for the political elites.
“Fury as watchdog says it’s OK to send gay people death threats – but only if you’re Muslim,” by Nick Gutteridge, Express, December 3, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
FURIOUS Dutch MPs have demanded an immediate public inquiry after a government-backed watchdog said it was acceptable for Muslims to send gay people death threats.
In a shocking move, the taxpayer-funded hotline said it would not pursue a criminal complaint over horrific messages from radical Islamists because the Koran says gay people can be killed.
The disgraceful stance came to light when a member of the public complained about death threats posted to an online forum which called for homosexuals to be “burned, decapitated and slaughtered”.
Dutch MPs today reacted with horror to the revelations, demanding an immediate inquiry into the remarks and calling for the hotline to be stripped of public funding.
According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression.
They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.
In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character.”
They concluded that the remarks were made in “the context of a public debate about how to interpret the Quran” and added that “some Muslims understand from the Quran that gays should be killed”.
And they went on: “In the context of religious expression that exists in the Netherlands there is a large degree of freedom of expression. In addition, the expressions are used in the context of the public debate (how to interpret the Koran), which also removes the offending character.”
The death threats had been made in the comments section for an article about a Dutch-Moroccan gay society, which had been posted to an online platform for Holland’s large Moroccan community….
Washington Post: “6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008… Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens”
Could non-citizens decide the November election?
October 24, 2014
Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.
In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.
Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.
There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.
Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalist to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalist could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.
Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.
Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.
Now that a Republican will soon be in the White House, liberals can go back to PRETENDING that they are against war
Although the U.S. still has 5,000 troops in Iraq during the last year of Obama’s presidency, the protestors who demanded that we “bring the troops home” when Bush was president haven’t made the same demand on Obama.
On the contrary, the Democrats tried to elect a candidate who wants to start World War III.
Here’s a nice satire of these “anti-war” hypocrites.
Thank goodness for the electoral college, which prevented Hillary Clinton from starting World War III
Hillary Clinton admitted in 2013 that a no-fly zone would “kill a lot of Syrians” — but still wants one
A no-fly zone in Syria could lead to a U.S. war with Russia — but Hillary Clinton keeps on calling for one
October 21, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton continues to call for a no-fly zone in Syria, insisting it would save lives. Yet, just three years ago, she acknowledged in a private paid speech to Goldman Sachs that a no-fly zone would “kill a lot of Syrians” and lead to “American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”
In numerous presidential debates, Clinton has proposed creating a no-fly zone or so-called safe zones in Syria, areas in which planes piloted by the Syrian government or by its Russian allies could not operate. If planes were to fly in these zones, they would be shot down.
Clinton repeated her call for a no-fly zone in the final presidential debate on Wednesday night. “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria,” she said, adding that it would be “not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”
What Clinton did not acknowledge is that a no-fly zone would likely lead to war with Russia — the world’s largest nuclear power.
Chris Wallace, the moderator for the debate, alluded to this in a follow-up question. He noted that, while Clinton has called for no-fly zones in multiple debates, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that imposing a no-fly zone could potentially kick off a war with Russia.
Moreover, “President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it’s going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict,” Wallace added. “How do you respond to their concerns?” he asked. “If you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”
Clinton conceded that she is “well aware of the really legitimate concerns that you have expressed from both the president and the general,” yet avoided directly answering the question, doubling down on her policy. Instead of identifying a no-fly zone as a military strategy, she spoke of it as a diplomatic one, claiming, “I think a no-fly zone could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict.”
This argument, however, is undermined by what Clinton herself privately acknowledged just three years ago. An excerpt of a June 2013 paid speech Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs, recently released by the WikiLeaks, shows that Clinton is well aware of how dangerous a no-fly zone could be.
“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas,” the former secretary of state explained in the 2013 speech. “So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk — you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”
“So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians,” she added.
Clinton also noted that Syria had “the fourth-biggest army in the world,” along with “very sophisticated air defense systems” that had gotten even more sophisticated because of Russian imports.
The quotes from this speech were included in a list of excerpts of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street, which was attached to a January 2016 email to John Podesta, a close Clinton ally who now serves as the chair for Clinton’s presidential campaign. WikiLeaks has published thousands of emails to and from Podesta.
In the same 2013 Goldman Sachs speech included in this document, Clinton pointed out that a no-fly zone in Syria would be different from the no-fly zone that was imposed in Libya in 2011, which ultimately led to the violent overthrow of the government.
“The air defenses were not that sophisticated” in Libya, she said. Clinton also noted that there would be many more civilian casualties in Syria than there had been in Libya.
“And then you add on to it [that] a lot of the air defenses are not only in civilian population centers but near some of their chemical stockpiles,” Clinton added, referencing Syria. “You do not want a missile hitting a chemical stockpile.”
The no-fly zone imposed in Libya paved the way for the toppling, and brutal killing, of former leader Muammar Qadhafi. The U.N. Security Council first established the zone ostensibly to protect civilians, yet it quickly led to a NATO bombing campaign.
In fact, every time a no-fly zone has been imposed, it has led to regime change.
Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, used NATO’s own materials to show that, despite the humanitarian rhetoric behind the call for a no-fly zone in Libya, Western governments planned to pursue regime change in the oil-rich North African country from the very beginning.
A September 2016 report by the U.K. House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee also detailed how the war in Libya was based on an array of lies.
Ignoring huge amounts of medical and scientific evidence, Mike Pence falsely said “smoking doesn’t kill”
The Centers for Disease Control states:
Tobacco use remains the single largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. Cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year, with more than 41,000 of these deaths from exposure to secondhand smoke.
The National Institutes of Health states:
Cigarette smoking is regarded as a major risk factor in the development of lung cancer, which is the main cause of cancer deaths in men and women in the United States and the world….
… The Surgeon General’s report in 2004 concluded that in the United States, cigarette smoking has caused 12 million deaths since 1964…
… An analysis by European health experts determined that in developed countries as a whole, tobacco is responsible for 24% of all male deaths and 7% of all female deaths; these figures rise to over 40% in men in some countries of central and eastern Europe and to 17% in women in the United States. The average decreased life span of smokers is approximately eight years…
Despite this, Mike Pence said:
“Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”
Starbucks offered Mark Dice money to remove one of his videos from YouTube. He turned them down. Here’s the video.
This is Mark Dice’s recent video from November 18, 2016. It’s called “Starbucks Tried to Buy Me Off”:
And this is the video that Starbucks tried to get him to remove. It’s from November 12, 2015, and it’s called “STARBUCKS RED CUPS and the TRUTH about the WAR ON CHRISTMAS 2015”:
Hillary supporter Jonathan Pie gives a brilliant explanation for why she lost the election (six minute video)
Video shows Hillary supporters praising her actions in Benghazi, her plan to repeal the Bill of Rights, and her plan to adopt Sharia law in the U.S., as well as criticizing people who hunt endangered Triceratops
Authorities Investigate Mom Who Kicked Out 7-Year-Old Son for ‘Voting’ Trump
November 13, 2016
HOUSTON, Texas — A Houston area mother is under investigation after posting a video of her kicking her seven-year-old out of the house. She told him, “Since you voted for Donald Trump, you can get your s*** and get out.”
The young boy starts to sob and his mother responds, “Uh-Uh, the suitcase is packed by the door. Been packed since this morning. Bye!”
She then hands him a sign and says the sign will tell people why he is standing out at the curb. The sign says, “my mom kicked me out because I voted for Donald Trump.”
The little boy’s crime – he voted for Donald Trump in his elementary school’s mock election.
The mother shouted at her son, “You want to vote for him, I’m gonna show you.” She keeps telling him “Bye!”
“We don’t do Donald Trump here, get your suitcase.” “Bye, Donald Trump lover,” she says sarcastically.
She tells the little boy he is going to be out at the curb from now on.
The video, posted on Facebook, has caused shock and anger among those who have viewed it. At least one woman said she notified the police. Those viewing it have spread what they think is the name of the mother, and, have even posted what is supposed to be her address and phone number. They have also posted what they think is the grandmother’s name.
On the video, the mother asked her son why he voted for Trump, and he replied “because I see him on TV a lot.” His sibling, still in diapers, starts to cry as the mom yells at the boy, and kicks him out the house.
The poor boy is crying hysterically but she leads him to the street curb with his suitcase and the sign saying he had been kicked out and why.
The video has gone viral and received over 10 million views in 24 hours after Friday, reported KHOU TV in Houston.
The YouTube video has received over 870,650 shares as of Sunday morning.
The boy is now in the possession of Child Protective Services after the video came to the attention of the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department.
KHOU reported that a detective said that the mother has apologized for the video but also said she was just joking.
Law enforcement authorities were reported to say that the video is disturbing but her actions are not a crime under the penal statutes.
Michael Moore says Trump voters not racist: ‘They twice voted for a man’ named Hussein
November 11, 2016
Michael Moore on Friday rejected the liberal narrative that Donald Trump voters are racist, pointing out that many of the people who voted for the president-elect also voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012.
In a wide-ranging interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mr. Moore disagreed with another panelist’s claim that Mr. Trump’s election victory came from “deep racial animus” in America.
“You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama, some of them once, some of them twice, changed their minds this time,” Mr. Moore said, the Daily Caller reported. “They’re not racist. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America you live in.”
Co-host Joe Scarborough called the racial narrative “maddening” and cited data from Nate Cohn of The New York Times.
“That ‘deep racial animus’ elected Barack Obama twice,” Mr. Scarborough said. “The very people who helped elect Barack Obama president of the United States twice just elected in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Donald J. Trump. It’s the data.”
Mr. Moore said voters are more concerned about jobs and putting food on their tables than race.
“People are trying to get by,” the liberal filmmaker said. “They’re living from paycheck to paycheck.”
Mr. Moore suggested that Bernie Sanders’ success in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, where Mr. Trump also performed well, was a sign that progressives needed to “take over the Democratic Party.”
“We are going to resist. We are going to oppose,” he said. “This is going to be a massive resistance. There’s already — women are calling for a million woman march on the Inauguration Day. There’s going to be the largest demonstration ever on Inauguration Day.”
“I’m going to be one of the people leading the opposition to him, that’s going to stop him. It will be a mass movement of millions that will dwarf Occupy Wall Street,” he said.
Mr. Moore also predicted that Mr. Trump would be impeached before his first term is over.
“I don’t believe anyone in the media who says we’re going to have four years of Trump,” he said. “He doesn’t support any ideology except the ideology of Donald J. Trump. And when you have a narcissist like that who’s so narcissistic where it’s all about him. He will break laws. He will break laws, because he’s only thinking about what’s best for him.”
Hillary sending John Podesta to speak for her at 2 a.m. on election night reinforces my belief that she has Parkinson’s
At 2 a.m. on election night, Hillary stayed home, and sent John Podesta to speak in her place.
Has any other major party presidential candidate in modern times ever done something like this?
The medication that Hillary takes to prevent her Parkinson’s tremors only lasts for a short period of time, which is why her campaign appearances were so limited.
What other reason could there possibly be for her absence?
This video explains why her recent public appearances have always been so limited:
This guy is a Bernie Sanders supporter who voted for Jill Stein. In this awesome video, he explains why Hillary is worse than Trump:
This article from Reuters shows that Wall St. loves Hillary, not Trump. It says:
Employees of the 17 largest bank holding companies and their subsidiaries have been sending her $10 for every $1 they contributed to Trump, according to a Reuters analysis.
In addition, Goldman Sachs paid Hillary a combined total of $675,000 for three speeches.
Also, While Senator, Hillary voted for the $700 billion TARP Wall St. corporate welfare bank bailout bill.
And finally, as last night’s election results came in, Salon published this article, which is called “Global markets plunge as prospect of Trump winning the presidency becomes more plausible.”
I really don’t see how anyone who voted for Hillary can honestly say they support the Occupy Wall St. movement.
Before the election, Newsweek sent bookstores advance printed copies of its magazine declaring Hillary the winner, but no such advance printed copies declaring Trump the winner
With major sporting events, like the World Series or the Super Bowl, companies that manufacture t-shirts will manufacture separate shirts delcaring both teams as the winner before the event takes place. As soon as the winner is declared, they immediately start selling the shirts with the winner, and put the shirts with the loser into the trash.
Before yesterday’s election, Newsweek printed up advance paper copies declaring the winner and sent them to bookstores. But they only printed and sent to bookstores advance paper copies declaring Hillary the winner. They did not print and send to bookstores any advance paper copies declaring Trump the winner.
Here is a photograph of an advance paper copy declaring Hillary the winner, which was photographed by a bookstore employee before the election. I got this photograph from this source:
Newsweek tried to defend itself by showing this other image, which it claims proves that it had advance covers for both Trump and Hillary. However, these covers are just computer images, not printed paper copies. I got these computer images from this source:
Newsweek even admitted that it only printed and sent to bookstores advance paper copies declaring Hillary as the winner, and not Trump, before the election.
1) In January 2001, Clinton stole $28,500 of furniture from the White House.
2) In 1980, Clinton cheated on her taxes by not reporting $6,498 in income from commodities trading.
3) In 2010, 2011, and 2012, Clinton lied to the IRS by falsely saying that her foundation did not get any money from foreign governments.
4) It is illegal for cabinet members to accept gifts from foreign governments. However, when Clinton was Secretary of State, she accepted first class flights that were paid for by foreign governments.
5) Clinton illegally stored classified spy satellite data on North Korean nukes on her private email server.
6) In August 2015, Clinton signed a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, saying that she had turned over all of her work related emails. The statement was later revealed to be false.
7) In October 2015, Clinton admitted that she had broken U.S. law in Benghazi.
8) Clinton illegally gave classified material to people who not been cleared to have it in their possession.
9) Clinton illegally ignored 237 of the 240 Freedom of Information Act requests that she had received when she was Secretary of State.
10) Clinton illegally withheld Benghazi related emails from the State Department.
11) Clinton illegally continued to keep and email classified information after she quit her job as Secretary of State.
12) After Clinton received a subpoena ordering her to turn over her work related emails, she illegally ignored the subpoena and used BleachBit software to delete those emails.
Elementary school cancels mock election after kids chant ‘Trump’
November 3, 2016
A New York elementary school has canceled its traditional mock presidential election after kids chanted “Trump” and repeated “negative rhetoric about minorities,” according to the school principal.
Children at Jericho Elementary School in Centereach will be voting for their favorite school lunch instead of their favorite presidential candidate after their mock campaign season got too heated.
“Some people were getting angry because some people like Trump and some people like Clinton,” fifth-grader Miranda Waters told a local ABC News affiliate. “Some people think Clinton’s not good. Some think Trump’s not good. So there’s a lot of arguments going on, and I don’t like that.”
School officials decided to cancel the mock election to prevent minority students “from feeling uncomfortable,” according to Glen Rogers, the school’s principal.
“Teachers have said they’ve heard some kids in the cafeteria chanting ‘Trump! Trump! Trump!’ or saying they don’t want Muslims here,” Mr. Rogers told ABC News.
“I mean, kids often repeat what they hear on the TV or the news, but it doesn’t mean it’s OK,” he said. “We have a diverse community here. We want all our students to feel valued.”
Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK
July 10, 2015
As we watch the Confederate flag being brought down in South Carolina (and being brought up by Nancy Pelosi, in a characteristically cynical and underhanded ploy), it’s worth taking a look at the racist history of the Democratic Party. They own that stupid flag, which is why they keep trying to pin it on the Republicans.
Courtesy of the great Bill Whittle:
Ahhh, facts. Lefties hate those things!
Yeah, the Great Party Switch of the 1960s is horsecrap. The Democrats have always been the party of racism. Now they’re just better at lying about it.
The Civil War was just a dress rehearsal. Now the Democrats have figured out how to really tear America apart.