VIDEO NYT Positive Article on Roy Moore – AL Gov – Judge Jeanne – Threats to Refuse to Seat Moore Unconstitutional

Shocker: New York Times Writes Positive Article on Roy Moore

Nov 17, 2017 by  


The New York Times’ motto “All the news that’s fit to print” long ago became “All the news that fits our slant.” Thus is it perhaps shocking that the paper is running an article today painting GOP Senate hopeful Roy Moore in a positive light.

Maybe it wasn’t meant that way. From the Times’ piece’s title, “In Sex Crimes and Other Cases, Roy Moore Often Sided With Defendants,” readers may assume the implication is that Judge Moore exhibited the common human tendency to go soft on that of which one is himself guilty. (As with seemingly everyone now, Moore currently faces sexual-misconduct allegations.) Instead, however, the Times paints a picture of a moral, principled judge who often sided with the little guy against the powers that be.

Judge Moore is no stranger to principled stands against the swamp. For example, he has twice chosen to sacrifice his position as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama rather than submit to unconstitutional federal rulings. In 2003, he defied a federal judge who decreed that he must remove a granite carving of the Ten Commandments from in front of the state judicial building; last year, Moore ordered his state’s probate judges not to comply with the federal ruling mandating that same-sex couples be issued marriage licenses.

What may surprise many, however, is that judge Moore’s principles, as true principles will, extended to areas that his passions didn’t. As the Times reports, “‘He consistently was more interested in the arguments of the criminal defendants than many of his colleagues,’ said Matt Lembke, an appellate lawyer in Birmingham who has argued several cases in front of Mr. Moore. ‘And I think that stemmed from a distrust of government power reflected in his judicial philosophy.’”

As for Moore’s empathy, the Times provides some striking examples:

When a man on death row missed a filing deadline with a lower court, and when most of the Alabama Supreme Court opted not to review his case, Mr. Moore was one of two justices who voted the other way and said some of the evidence used to convict him seemed deficient.

In another instance, Mr. Moore wrote that a man’s “sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a nonviolent, drug-related crime reveals grave flaws in our statutory sentencing scheme.”

And in another case, Mr. Moore dissented and said a man’s unpaid meal at a Waffle House should have led to a theft conviction, not a 35-year sentence for robbery. He called the case, which the majority voted not to review, “a serious miscarriage of justice.”

Two lawyers who worked with Moore told the Times that the judge sought to protect those wronged by the system. “‘He had no love for criminals, but he believed that every defendant was entitled to due process of law,’ one of the lawyers, Matthew Clark, said in an e-mail. ‘He saw many cases where the defendants, especially young black men, would be convicted solely on very weak circumstantial evidence.’”

Unsurprisingly — to those acquainted with the soul of a dutiful judge — Moore’s constitutionalism extended beyond social issues and to all areas of his jurisprudence. A good example was the case of a black 17-year-old named Eric L. Higdon, who received 23 years’ incarceration for sexually assaulting a younger boy at a daycare center. Moore dissented from the majority opinion in Higdon’s appeal, reasoning that “while Mr. Higdon was guilty of one form of sodomy, another sodomy law used to convict him was never meant to apply to abuse ‘of children by other children,’” the Times informs. “Mr. Moore wrote that ‘sodomy is an abhorrent crime and should be strictly punished’ but that ‘I am concerned the court is stepping into the shoes of the legislature in this case.’”

This dissent was used against Moore in the Republican primary by his opponent, Luther Strange, who accused the judge of being soft on child molesters. Yet Moore was merely exhibiting discipline, a quality required for a judge to rule contrary to his own will, feelings, or agenda. And without discipline there is no rule of law.

This is precisely the problem we have today, mind you, with a usurpative, de-facto judicial oligarchy that ignores the Constitution and imposes its own biases on from the bench.

Whatever the validity of the sexual misconduct allegations against Moore, the Times’ piece underlines his professional record’s impeccable character. As the aforementioned lawyer Matthew Clark put it, Moore “does what he believes is right, both morally and legally, even when he has to pay a price.”

This brings us to the main reason the establishment seeks his destruction. Like the Founding Fathers, who birthed the Constitution, Moore is a rebel with a great cause: standing by it. And, like the Founding Fathers, Moore understands that man’s law has to have a basis in something other than man’s law itself — namely, in God’s law. In a secular time where the Constitution has become an inconvenient document and God an inconvenient reality, this makes him the odd man out.

Photo: By Haxorjoe – Own workCC BY-SA 3.0Link

Are Threats to Refuse to Seat Moore Unconstitutional?

Nov 17, 2017  by  


Are Threats to Refuse to Seat Moore Unconstitutional?

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government,” wrote James Madison in The Federalist, No. 52.

Yet the threats emanating out of the U.S. Senate to not allow Roy Moore to be seated should he win the Senate race in Alabama pose a serious threat to our republican form of government, particularly its federal character. If Moore is duly elected by the people of Alabama, and senators refuse to seat him, a huge step has been taken in transforming our form of government from a republic, or rule by law, into an oligarchy, or the rule by the few.

This has nothing to do with what one thinks of Roy Moore’s politics or the serious allegations that have been lodged against him.

The argument made by those who would deny Moore a seat is really about denying the voters of Alabama the right to elect the person of their choosing to represent them in the Senate. Proponents of the position that the Senate should be able to deny the franchise to Alabamians rests on their dubious interpretation of Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

“Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members,” and “[Each house may] punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member,” are the two relevant passages.

If the Senate were to deny the seat to the person who wins the election in Alabama, they would not be judging the election returns, they would be instead telling the voters of Alabama they do not like their choice. The purpose of giving each house the right to judge election returns is clearly in case there is a dispute as to who actually won the election. No reasonable person can interpret that portion of the Constitution to say that the framers, including Madison, intended for the Senate to rule on the merits of the person the people of a state chose.

So what were the framers concerned about?

In The Federalist, No. 59, Alexander Hamilton argued for why a house of Congress should have this power to judge election returns. In this article, Hamilton explained that it would stop any “conspiracy to prevent an election.” Certainly, the state of Alabama is holding an election to fill the vacancy left by Senator Jeff Sessions when he left the Senate to become attorney general.

In The Federalist, No. 60, Hamilton said the purpose of the provision was not intended to “promote the election of some favorite class of men in exclusion of others.” Clearly, denial of the post to Moore would indeed be promoting the Senate leadership’s “favorite” over a person they did not want, even before the ugly accusations against Moore surfaced.

The other argument used to give the Senate the power to simply deny Moore the seat is that the Constitution gives each house the right to determine the “qualifications” of its members. Actually, the required qualifications to be a member of the House or Senate are explicitly stated in the Constitution. For the Senate, Article I, Section 3 says, “No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”

Writing in The Federalist, No. 52, Madison alludes to the qualifications for membership in Congress found in Article I, Section 3, adding, “Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”

Note that Madison says nothing about any additional qualifications other than those found in the Constitution. Moore has clearly been a U.S. citizen for nine years, is at least 30 years old, and he certainly lives in Alabama.

The 17th Amendment altered the method of electing senators. Originally, the Constitution gave that power to the respective state legislatures, but during the “progressive era,” in which more popular elections was advocated, this was changed to direct popular vote, making it an identical process to choosing members of the House of Representatives. According to the amendment, senators were to be elected by the people of the state they would represent.

No indication whatsoever was given that the present membership of the U.S. Senate would be given the authority to deny seating a person who has been duly elected by the people of his state, and who has met the qualifications, as stipulated in the Constitution.

Allowing the Senate to refuse to seat a person who meets the qualifications and has been fairly elected is a dangerous idea. While some might argue that Moore, if guilty of the allegations made against him, is unfit to serve, one must ask the obvious question: Is that not a decision for the people of Alabama to make?

Finally, some might argue that Moore could be expelled by two-thirds vote for “disorderly behavior.” After all, they contend that seeking a romantic relationship with teenaged girls, even it occurred 40 years ago, is an example of “disorderly behavior.” The history of Congress, however, indicates that their standards have never been all that high. In the past, the House of Representatives refused to oust members who had proven, not merely alleged, sexual relationships with minor pages; the Senate refused to oust a member (Ted Kennedy) who left a young woman for over nine hours to drown in a car; and the Senate did not expel a member (Robert Byrd) who had been a kleagle (recruiter) for the racist Ku Klux Klan!

The truth of the matter is that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell simply does not like Moore’s political views. Of course, I don’t like the views of Nancy Pelosi, and a large number of other members of Congress. But I should not be allowed to dictate to the people of those districts and states what person they send to Congress. And neither should McConnell, or any of the other 99 members of the Senate.

The only people who should have that choice are the qualified voters of the state of Alabama. McConnell has as much right to express his opinion about Moore as anyone else, but neither he nor any other member of the Senate holds any right to deny the people of Alabama their right to choose whatever person who meets the constitutional requirements they want to select to represent them in the Senate.

Photo: AP Images

Sean Hannity 11/17/17 – Hannity Fox News Today November 17, 2017

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey plans to vote for Roy Moore

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO 264 Staffers Paid $17 Million In Congressional Harassment Hush Money – CNN Meltdown

Report: 264 Staffers Paid $17 Million In Congressional Harassment Hush Money

17 Nov 2017 by Michael Patrick Leahy

The 264 Congressional staffers and other legislative branch employees who were paid more than $17 million over the past two decades, according to a report released on Thursday by the Office of Compliance, to settle harassment claims are just the tip of the iceberg of the total number of harassment incidents that have taken place on Capitol Hill, sources tell Breitbart News.

The reason so few incidents of harassment, sexual and otherwise, of Congressional staffers by members of Congress have ended up in financial settlements is because Congress passed a law designed to protect itself from such claims – prohibiting their employees from having the same rights of redress that more than two million other federal employees and tens of millions of private sector employees have.

More than two decades ago, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) of 1995, which established what Elizabeth K. Newman, an attorney with The Jeffrey Law Group, a Washington based law firm that represents Congressional staffers subjected to sexual and other forms of harassment, says is a “a terribly inefficient process and it takes forever,” in dealing with those allegations.

“What staffer in his or her right mind is going to sit through that?” Newman asked Breitbart News in an exclusive interview.

The CAA established the Office of Compliance, located right on Capitol Hill, which has the administrative responsibility for handling harassment incidents brought to it by Congressional staffers.

Employees of private companies with fifteen or more employees can file a harassment claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), regardless of whether they have gone through their private company’s internal procedures.

Federal employees who are not employed in the legislative branch can also file a harassment claim with the EEOC.

“If you are a federal employee or job applicant and you believe that a federal agency has discriminated against you, you have a right to file a complaint. Each agency is required to post information about how to contact the agency’s EEO Office. You can contact an EEO Counselor by calling the office responsible for the agency’s EEO complaints program,” the EEOC website states.

But Congressional staffers and employees of the other agencies that are part of the legislative branch–the GAO, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Library of Congress–are prohibited by law from filing harassment claims with the EEOC.

“They [Congressional staffers]” should have the same rights to go to the EEOC as their federal employee brethren,” Newman tells Breitbart News.

But Newman says they do not have those same rights now, because the”EEOC does not have jurisdiction” over complaints of sexual harassment filed by employees of the legislative branch against their employers.

The authorizing legislation for the EEOC “expressly does not extend jurisdiction to the legislative branch,” Newman notes.

Breitbart News asked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if a Congressional staffer – or any employee covered by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 – files a sexual harassment claim with the EEOC without first submitting to “counseling” and “mediation” with the Office of Compliance.

“EEOC has no jurisdiction over Congress, so we suggest you check with the Office of Compliance:,” a spokesperson for the EEOC tells Breitbart News.

“We would inform the individual that we can’t take the charge and have no jurisdiction,” the EEOC spokesperson told Breitbart News when asked what EEOC would do if a Congressional staffer attempted to file a sexual harassment complaint with the EEOC against a member of Congress that took place on Capitol Hill.

As for the Office of Compliance process to deal with incidents of sexual and other harassment by members of Congress against staffers, attorney Newman says, “For all intents and purposes it’s an internal administrative process.”

“The CAA provides a mandatory dispute resolution process of counseling and mediation for the settling of disputes,” the Office of Compliance Handbook states, adding:

If the parties involved are not able to resolve their dispute through counseling and mediation, an employee may either pursue a non-judicial administrative hearing process with the Office of Compliance or file suit in Federal court. The administrative hearing process offers speedier resolution and greater confidentiality than a Federal civil suit while still offering the same remedies that a court can provide.

The dispute resolution process is a multi-step process. All employees, including district office staff, must follow established dispute resolution procedures in order to process their claims under the CAA. Only after an employee has engaged in the required counseling and mediation can a remedy be granted. The failure to follow these procedures or to meet established time lines may jeopardize any claims raised under the CAA.

Surprisingly, Step One of the process, “Counseling,” is mandatory for the complaining employee, but not the individual who is has allegedly engaged in the harassing behavior against the employee, a highly unusual requirement when compared to the EEOC process. Here’s how the Office of Compliance Handbook describes Step One:

Step One: Counseling

The first step in the dispute resolution process is to file a written request for counseling with the Office of Compliance.

A request for counseling must be made within 180 days after the date of the alleged violation. The counseling period normally lasts for 30 days. . . .

During the counseling period, an Office of Compliance counselor will discuss an employee’s concerns and inform the employee of his or her rights under the law. The counselor does not serve as a representative or advocate, only as an advisor to help an individual understand how the law works and to clarify facts and issues. A covered employee may retain representation at any time during the dispute resolution process. [emphasis added]

The Second Step of the process, “Mediation,” is also mandatory for the complaining employee:

The Second Step: Mediation

If an employee chooses to continue with a claim after the counseling period, the next step is to request mediation with the Office of Compliance. Mediation must be requested within 15 days of receiving notification of the completion of the counseling period and lasts for 30 days unless both parties request an extension of time.

During mediation, the Office of Compliance appoints one or more neutral mediators – professionals at dispute resolution – who will meet with the parties to the dispute to seek a solution to the problem that is acceptable to both parties. The goal of mediation is a voluntary resolution acceptable to all. Mediated settlements are always voluntary and can never be imposed by the mediator.

Mediation is intended to provide a confidential, informal means of settling disputes. Mediation permits both employees and their employing office to come together with a neutral third party to attempt to resolve a dispute under mutually acceptable terms. Mediation also permits the parties to resolve a dispute promptly and avoid a formal
adversarial complaint process.

Only after the complaining employee has gone through the cumbersome and potentially intimidating first two steps of the process–counseling and mediation–is the employee allowed to go to the the Third Step, “Civil Action or Administrative Hearing.”

It is only after the Fourth Step, “Review by the Board of the Office of Compliance” that the complaining employee has an opportunity to receive a financial settlement, “If an employee prevails in a case.”

When that happens, “the Hearing Officer, Board of Directors, or Federal court may order monetary awards and other appropriate remedies. Attorney’s fees, expert fees, and certain other costs may also be awarded.”

Notably, “No civil penalties or punitive damages may be awarded for any claims under the CAA,” another marked contrast to how such claims are handled throughout the rest of the federal government and in the private sector.

“They [the Office of Compliance] encourage and push cases to mediation during that process,” attorney Newman says.

“It’s more counseling them on an exit strategy,” Newman says when asked how the firm deals with CAA complainant clients.

“More of how can we help our clients get through the process.”

If not satisfied with the results of the lengthy four step process, a Congressional staffer who says they have been harassed can then take their claim to federal court, but as attorney Newman  notes, “They have to exhaust the administrative process” before they could get their day in federal court.

“During testimony before the Committee on House Administration on Tuesday, Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) stated there are two current members of Congress, one Republican and one Democrat, who have sexually harassed people,” Breitbart News reported:

Speier said, “In fact, there are two members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, right now, who serve, who have been subject to review, or [have not] been subject to review, but have engaged in sexual harassment.”

She continued, “These harasser propositions such as, ‘Are you going to be a good girl?’ To perpetrators exposing their genitals, to victims having their private parts grabbed on the House floor. All they ask in return as staff members is to be able to work in a hostile-free work environment. They want the system fixed and the perpetrators held accountable.”

Speier and former Congressional staffers are calling for reform of the process.

“The CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, which is dedicated to supporting Congressional offices and staffs, has stated that “we have no doubt that sexual harassment is underreported in Congress, just as all workplace infractions are underreported in Congress,” a letter circulated and signed by more than 1,200 former Congressional staffersnotes, adding:

The OOC is charged with adjudicating workplace disputes, as required by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (P.L. 104 – 1). The same CQ/Roll Call survey found that nine in ten staffers were unaware of the OOC. This is consistent with our experience, as most of us were not aware of the OOC during our time in Congress. Although the OOC has urged Congress to require mandatory staff training to deter sexual harassment since 1996, this training has not been required.

Furthermore, the dispute resolution process at the OOC may actually discourage victims from filing a grievance because of the excessive waiting period it imposes on victims. The OOC requires an individual to wait at least 90 days from the alleged incident before the filing of a sexual harassment complaint. This includes requiring the complainant to undergo 30 days of mandatory counseling and 30 days of mandatory mediation between the employee and his or her employing office. Only if mediation is unsuccessful can the staff then pursue legal action.

We believe that Congress’s policies for preventing sexual harassment and adjudicating complaints of harassment are inadequate and need reform.

We urge the House and the Senate to change current policy to require mandatory in-person harassment training for all Members of Congress and Congressional staff, and to make counseling and mediation voluntary for individuals wishing to file a complaint with the OOC.

It is unclear what, if any, action the House Administration Committee, the House Leadership, including Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), and the Senate Leadership, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), will take to address the problems of sexual harassment identified in this testimony.

Breitbart News contacted Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell for comment, but has not received a response.

CNN Panel Goes OFF THE RAILS After Guest Mentions What Hillary Did To Bill’s Accusers

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Ruthless Denial, Why Libs Repeatedly, Incessantly FAIL – Fully Triggered

Ruthless Denial, Why Libs Repeatedly, Incessantly FAIL

nancy pelosi stupid

When tragedies like the recent slaughter of 26 defenseless worshiping Christians in Sutherland Springs, Texas and the mowing down of 58 country music fans at a Las Vegas concert occur, the American Left ostensibly cannot comprehend how or why such things happen. Nor can they understand why they cannot be instantly arrested. Then, as predictably as day follows night, they jump to their standards, “Impose gun control; Abolish the Second Amendment!”

Liberals do not and cannot solve problems, because they simple-mindedly misinterpret symptoms as the essence of every problem. For example, wherever there is an economic disparity among groups of people, the Left seeks to equalize it by artificial measures usurping someone the freedom of others. Where poverty is found, subsidies are the knee-jerk answer, and when sexual promiscuity results in unwanted pregnancy, abortion is the only acceptable course offered. Personal responsibility is rarely a significant component of liberal policies.

This fatally-flawed mechanism of the liberal mind-set stems from the persistent belief–either genuine or feigned–in two or more fallacies that are widely held as true. First, is the notion that people are basically good. Despite the infinite number of illustrations to the contrary, godless liberal theology deifies humanity and the human intellect in stark opposition to objective reality.

Second, liberals stubbornly hold that policies that are obviously doomed to fail and persistently do so on every occasion, will one day succeed if only the right person or group is given total control over the lives of those they seek to rule. Unintended consequences, clearly forecast by critical thinkers always catch them by surprise and are reflexively excused as insignificant or irrelevant. But it must be understood that the ordinary and legitimate rights of the many will always be the price of special rights for the few.

For the past two or three generations, America has raised children who have been deceived into believing that difficult struggles confront them only because they are victims of someone else’s malice, negligence or oppression. As adults, many of these people cannot effectively deal with disappointment because every challenge is misinterpreted as the evil result of some sort of personal or systematic unfairness.

When children are awarded “participation trophies” regardless of whether or not they strive, and when they are not permitted to fail, get back up and try again until they ultimately succeed, they eventually refuse to persevere. Young people are now convinced that personal happiness, empty social causes and meaningless efforts to “make a difference” are the highest goals of life. Fulfillment evades them and frustration is the logical end.

When adults believe that the cause of every personal failure is an injustice which must be eradicated by any means necessary, the result is often deadly force. Such was the case with Texas shooter, Devin Kelley.

For the past twelve months, Democrats in Congress and liberals in the dishonest network news media have launched an endless barrage of malicious false charges and distorted implications against the duly-elected president and his supporters, inciting rage and hatred in Washington D.C. and in our city streets. Their radical minions are unable to accept defeat and unwilling to move on with their lives.

Deadly violence is a natural reaction in this environment.

Personal liberty is irreconcilably incompatible with liberalism, and the American people are beginning to recognize the multitude of dangerous and costly consequences of its requisite godless worldview. Monumental policy failures are expected to be met with absolution simply because liberal Democrats claim, “We care.”

Scripture describes the ungodly thusly, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” His personal failings notwithstanding, John F. Kennedy may have been the last Democrat president who was not fully devoted to liberalism. Upon his death, Kennedy was said to have claimed, “Some men see things as they are and ask, ‘Why?’ I see things that never were and ask, ‘Why not?’” In the intervening years, the Democrat party has devolved into a culture of corruption in which its members see things that are and declare, “They are not.”

Complex social problems can never be solved or even mitigated when people adamantly deny their root causes. Liberal policies persistently punish the righteous for the deeds of the wicked in order to gain political advantage. As troubling and ugly as the past twelve months have been, the recent upheaval we have seen can yet be redeemed if the result is a certain and lasting end to the massive social and political corruption and resulting national betrayal that liberal Democrats have wrought upon this great nation.


Nothing like assaulting someone in a chicken outfit to make your point

Fully Triggered: Antifa Chicken Man Attacks Owen Shroyer & Gets Arrested

Nov 18, 2017

Why did the chicken cross the road? To assault Owen Shroyer for triggering him at a protest.

Meanwhile, Millie Weaver is also at the scene in Austin, TX covering the anti-Trump hysteria.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GE sued for Fukushima disaster

Lawsuit alleges unsafe design, cost cutting

November 18, 2017 by Brian Dowling

FILE - In this March 11, 2012, file photo, tsunami-crippled four reactors, from left, Unit 1 to Unit 4, are seen at Fukushima Dadi-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima prefecture, Japan. (Kyodo News via AP, File)

Japanese property owners and businesses near the Fukushima nuclear plant that melted down after a devastating 2011 tsunami filed a $500 million class-action lawsuit against General Electric for negligently designing the doomed plant.

The lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court in Boston, claims the explosions and release of radioactive material at the Fukushima reactors — likely the most costly industrial accident in history at $200 billion — were caused by GE’s unsafe design of the reactors and further efforts to cut costs that also undercut safety during the construction of the plant.

As a result, the area around Fukushima, according to the lawsuit, became a “ghost town.”

“There are no people. Roads are guarded by men in hazmat suits. And no one will ever live there again,” the lawsuit said.

GE said in a statement it became aware of the lawsuit today and is “thoroughly reviewing the matter.”

The company pushed into the nuclear industry in the 1960s and offered a “cheap reactor … with a significantly smaller, but less safe containment than industry standard” that safety experts repeatedly raised concerns about, the lawsuit said.

GE designed all six reactors at Fukushima — building two on site and advising on the construction of the rest. Original designs for the power plant called for it to be built near a bluff 115 feet above sea level. But GE — to save money — lowered the bluff to 80 feet, court papers say, “dramatically increasing the flood risk.”

Backup systems in the event of a problem at the nuclear plant were also woefully lacking, causing the cooling system to fail, the suit states.

All this was done in an earthquake-prone region, the Japanese residents and business owners say. Fukushima was built on a 13-foot bluff with a plan to handle 101⁄2-foot waves, the lawsuit said.

The March 2011 earthquake that crippled the power plant unleashed a 45-foot tsunami.

The lawsuit follows the conclusion of two others this year in Japan against the power plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the government, resulting in payouts of $335,000 and $4.4 million for residents who were forced from their homes.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mao Tse-Tung and Trans Stampede – Former Trans Exposes The Lies – Destroying Women – Win For Sanity In Trans Sports

What Two Former Trans Men Want You To Know About All The Lies

‘I seem to be either a de-sexed monstrosity, or I’m a damaged, mutilated male. I’ve been alone a long time. I’ve been forced into celibacy. I yearn for mere conversation and cuddling.’
 What Two Former Trans Men Want You To Know About All The Lies

Oct 11, 2017 By 

Paul, a computer programmer who is currently unemployed, is 38 years old and in the process of “detransitioning,” undoing steps towards the sex change he began a decade ago.

Before “transitioning” from male to female, Paul struggled with dysphoria for years. He remembers his high school days filled with shame over his “girlish” interests and peer groups and struggling with gynecomastia (swollen breast tissue in males), isolation, and confusion. When Paul first learned about transgenderism from an article in his student newspaper, he felt he had found the missing piece.

“I wasn’t deranged or simply gay, but instead I misunderstood what a ‘woman’ was, that the term was entirely social, and that my failure to be accepted as a man was because I was really a woman,” he said. Paul never viewed his transformation as a sex change, but as an escape from his gender.

After moving to San Francisco in search of community and acceptance, Paul, uninsured, stumbled across a community health clinic. Upon his first visit, he was prescribed male-to-female hormones, given very little information on the risks and potential side effects, and told “not to worry” whenever he expressed concern about drugs or long-term side effects.

From Hormones to Surgery

After five years of transitioning, Paul sought a way out. Following a poor experience on hormones and wanting to sever his dependence from medication, his doctor suggested an orchiectomy, the removal of one’s testicles, which he was told would allow the hormone intake to stop. With hopes of a life independent of medicine and dysphoria, surgery seemed a saving grace.

“On the day of surgery, I was surprised at how it was suddenly unfolding into something larger than I expected. I tried to stop them, but I was then anesthetized. After surgery, I went into shock at how thoroughly I’d been altered in both appearance and function,” Paul says. “I was a sex addict, and sex was now disrupted. I also now found myself in a constant, low level of groin pain. A year later, the bleeding began. I was told to wait it out, see a specialist, and not to get a lawyer.”

After a painful recovery, Paul was told that, despite having been told otherwise before surgery, he couldn’t actually stop hormone treatment. He confronted his doctor, whom Paul says admitted to lying, claiming “rules were broken for his benefit, to increase access to care.”

Despite Dropping the Hormones, Paul Can’t Go Back

Paul quit the hormones anyway and his detransition took place over the next three years, but not easily: “I became sick and suicidal. The groin pain increased sharply, and my mirror reflection changed. I attempted suicide, and I then began reaching out for help. I saw several therapists. I quit wearing women’s clothes, and I began changing my name and ID docs.”

When asked what Paul’s biggest worries are during his detransition, he tells me: “I feel and look awful. What pains and horrors await me in middle age? Will I live to old age?”

He also fears the future of his romantic endeavors. “I seem to be either a de-sexed monstrosity, or I’m a damaged, mutilated male. I’ve been alone a long time. I’ve been forced into celibacy. I yearn for mere conversation and cuddling.”

Paul has been officially diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and learned that he falls on the autism spectrum.

In an era where transgender rights are at the forefront of social politics, media does its part to selectively inform people about the realities of transition. Transition guides tailored to teens are made up of cartoons and glittered chest binders. Stories on detransitioners are written off as “uncommon” or “myths,” and those who dare tell the stories of those who regret their transition meet repercussions.

When a Man ‘Becomes’ a Woman

Taylor is a student who began transitioning at the age of 23. It started simply.

“All it took was self-declaration. The first thing I did was change my name,” Taylor said. “I wore makeup and committed to growing my hair out and wore more feminine clothing. All of the changes were superficial and followed pretty basic stereotypes of how women appear to the male gaze.”

After a year of living with a feminine name and pronouns, Taylor began hormone therapy. His choice to transition seemed obvious to him: “I wanted to be a woman. Badly. My mental health was very poor at the time and I was very much socially isolated. I felt I could either try living as a woman or else I wanted to kill myself.”

Not finding satisfaction in his new identity, Taylor began the detransition process after a year, quitting hormones and reverting back to a masculine expression of self. He described to me his disappointment in the system.

“I wish I had been challenged by a doctor,” he says. “I went to an endocrinologist, who gave me a prescription on the first visit, before my blood work results even came back. ‘It’ll be fine, congratulations!’ was his attitude. The doctor should’ve challenged me.”

What Former Trans People Advise Potential Trans People

Taylor’s advice to those questioning themselves is ominous: “Our physical bodies, with genitalia and chromosomes, exist in reality, and part of having a body is hating your body. You are taught to hate your body no matter who you are, male or female, and you are falling for it.”

It isn’t all rainbows and book deals. Trans teen idol Jazz Jennings speaks freely about the glamour of embracing one’s self, but little has been published on the complications regarding Jazz’s bottom surgery. His doctors said there wasn’t enough “raw material” to work with due to Jazz’s early consumption of puberty blockers, which stunted genitalia formation.

Undergoing gender reassignment is regarded as the Holy Grail for those struggling with their sex. When the potentially fatal outcomes are not adequately tracked, however, shouldn’t honesty be the priority when speaking about the lifelong effects of the transition process?

Paul’s advice to children looking to transition? “Don’t.”

Some names and identifying details have been changed to protect individuals’ privacy.

Taylor Fogarty is a Brooklyn-dwelling freelancer who writes about feminism, politics, and anything else she has an opinion on. She also tweets a lot: @theloudlesbian.

Every so often, there is a moment of sanity that pushes back against transgender activism in the sports world, although the reaction to the sane decision is often anything but sane. And so it happened in Australia, where “a male-female transgender athlete has been blocked from taking part in next year’s Australian Rules Football professional women’s league,” according to the BBC.

“Callum Mouncey, who calls himself ‘Hannah,’ stands 6-foot-2 and weighs 15st 8lb [218 pounds]. And [he] wears size 15 shoes, according to his Twitter account.”

Did you get that? A biological male who identifies as a female will not be able to play for the female branch of Australian Rules Football. As the league explained, it took into consideration “transgender strength, stamina, physique, along with the specific nature of the AFLW.”

Good decision! After all, this is not rocket science. Football is a dangerous, physical sport (not just the NFL, but Australian Rules Football, too). Just look at some of these collisions and hits in the men’s league, as well as the hits and fights in the women’s league in the video below. Is it fair or safe to allow a 218-pound male to play side by side with these ladies?

Obviously not, and thankfully, this time around, sanity and reality prevailed. But that is not always the case.

In the last few years, a male weightlifter who identifies as a woman has broken records in women’s weightlifting; a teenage boy who identifies as a girl has been winning girls’ races; and a man who identifies as a woman has mauled female opponents in MMA.

While some have been critical, others have celebrated these accomplishments, which are anything but praiseworthy. What is there to celebrate when a biological male is stronger or faster than a female peer? How is this a breakthrough for equality? To the contrary, it is a breakthrough for inequality, penalizing the other female athletes and making for unfair competitions.

And the more physical the sport, the greater the danger to the female competitors. That’s why there was no small outcry when Fallon Fox, a MTF (male-to-female) athlete, began to fight in the very dangerous sport of Mixed Martial Arts.

Yet, despite the obvious threat to the health and safety of the other female competitors, there were those who defended Fox’s right to fight, stating, “MMA Fighter Fallon Fox Is a Woman, Get Over It.” The medical claim is that “male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males.” Consequently, it’s not unfair for a MTF athlete to compete with other women.

Why, then, is the aforementioned MTF weightlifter smashing records? And why, then, did a female fighter defeated by Fox say she never encountered such strength in a female before? And what if a 7-foot-2-inch NBA player felt that he was really a woman, transitioning to female and wanting to play for the WNBA? Would anyone really care if, after hormone treatments for several years, he no longer had his full male strength? Would it be fair for a 7-foot-2 biological male to compete with other women?

As always, I’m not attacking these trans-identified athletes as if they were evil people. And God alone knows the ultimate reasons for their gender confusion.

I’m simply saying that: 1) it’s not “transphobic” to argue that biological males should not compete against biological females; 2) it’s not fair to the female athletes; 3) it’s sometimes dangerous to the female athletes; and 4) this is nothing to celebrate.

Not surprisingly, there has been an outcry of protest that Callum Mouncey cannot play football with the ladies. As Bill Muehlenberg notes, “Sadly, the reaction from the loony left was as predictable as it was pathetic. Many are calling this an outrage and are demanding that the decision be overturned.”

Specifically, “One opinion piece actually had this headline ‘AFL’s shameful fear of Hannah.’ The commentator wrote: ‘Inclusion it seems is not for everyone and frankly that is a disgrace. It is a confusing and sad situation because Mouncey has basic human rights. You have to feel for her. She doesn’t want to be the face for transgender people. All she wants to do is play footy.’”

Really now? The football league has a “shameful fear of Hannah”? Perhaps it is a healthy fear of Callum.

On a different but related front, Georgia Love, an Australian celebrity, has spoken out against gender-neutral birth certificates, saying, “I have absolutely no issue with people who become transgender or don’t associate with a particular gender as they grow up and become the human adult that they are. But I think on a birth certificate, this is going way too far.”

She added, “You are born with genitalia of a female or a male; that’s how you’re born.”

So, even someone like Love who has no problem with an adult “transitioning” has a problem with saying that a child clearly born male or female can somehow be labeled “gender-neutral.” Yes, “this is going way too far,” just as it’s going way too far when a man who identifies as a woman wants to play women’s football.

Once again, sanity has prevailed, at least for the moment.


Israel Miss Trans Screen Shot

How many articles must one pen to alert us to the fact that the West is now but a shadow of its former self? It is so far down the mental and moral sewer that one wonders if it is any longer redeemable. And leading the way here is the utterly bizarre freak show known as the transgender revolution.

Everything it touches it destroys. Anyone foolish enough to run with this gender bender apocalypse will find their mind turning to mush. They will quickly find themselves with feet planted firmly in mid-air. The mind boggles just to witness this dark cloud of madness sweeping away everything in its path.

One thing we know for sure: you can choose one of two options here, but you can NOT have both. You can either side with reason, logic, reality, biology and even DNA, or you can side with the trans-sanity agenda. But you cannot cling to both simultaneously.

They are mutually exclusive. And the evidence of this is everywhere to be found. Consider just for a moment the land of fruit and nuts – California. The trans madness there is at fever pitch. The most recent bit of madness concerns some new bills that basically declare gender to be a fiction:

  • SB 179 changes the definition of gender, and creates a third legal gender: non-binary.
  • SB 310 simplifies the process for inmates to change their names and gender while in the custody of state or county prisons.
  • SB 396 gender identity sensitivity training: Businesses with over 50 employees will be required to provide at least two hours of training and education regarding harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Misgendering will be considered harassment.

As the California Family Council explains:

At the last possible moment on Sunday October 15, Governor Jerry Brown signed a series of bills that fundamentally change the definition of gender on government documents. The state of California no longer believes in the dictionary definition of a man or a woman, which says someone’s sex is determined by certain physical characteristics. Now in California any man can declare themselves a woman, and any woman can use the word “man” for self identification, no questions asked, no physical proof required.

The words “man” and “woman” now legally describe feelings, and those feelings don’t have firm definitions. Consequently, the words “man” and “woman” are meaningless. And if you don’t think the binary gender choices describe your subjective feelings, you can pick a new legal gender choice called “non-binary.” Feelings, not facts now determine reality.

This will not be the end of our journey into irrationality. It is just the beginning. Just watch what happens now that state leaders have established that feelings are more reliable than physical facts when determining what is real and what is true. God help us. Here is a brief description of the gender bills.

This is above all a war on women. Feminism has now gone full circle. The radical feminists told us decades ago that women are identical to men, that women can do anything a man does, that there are no differences between the sexes, and that a radical androgyny should be the way forward.

Well, all that hardcore social activism has now come back to bite them – big time. We are indeed witnessing the extinction of women. They are being assaulted in their own bathrooms by guys who identify as being females; they are being sent to hospitals by guys who identify as being females in sporting contests, and so on.

Scott Yenor speaks a bit more to how all this came about:

The transgender movement originates in the radical feminist project begun after World War II. The founding mother of radical feminism is French thinker Simone de Beauvoir, whose book, “The Second Sex,” was published in America in 1953.

Beauvoir begins her book by asking, “What is a woman?” Her answer sets the stage for subsequent feminist thought: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Society makes or constructs a woman’s identity, not nature or God.

That socially constructed identity would eventually be called “gender.” If society would just stop pigeonholing girls into artificial feminine roles, second-wave feminists argue, they would no longer act as if they were “the second sex” and subordinate to men.

Now many feminists groups have declared war on the trans movement for undoing all they sought to achieve over the past half century. Consider just a few indications of this:

A 60-year-old woman was pushed to the floor and punched in the face during a row between feminists and trans activists at Speakers’ Corner. Police are investigating the incident which saw two groups, the Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) and Trans Activists, fighting in Hyde Park on Wednesday. TERFS believe that trans women aren’t real women and should not be given the same rights. Maria MacLachlan, a ‘gender critical feminist’, was attacked at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park at about 7pm on Wednesday.

Leading feminist icon Germain Greer has of course lashed out at the very idea that trans women are in fact women. She said: “What I’m saying is it doesn’t make them a woman. And apparently people have decided that because I don’t think that post-operative transgender men, i.e., M-to-F transgender people, are women, I’m not to be allowed to talk.”

And feminists in Canada have recently condemned trans activism there:

Two feminists have charged that Liberal transgender “rights” bill will jeopardize women’s rights if it allows biological men into spaces that are for “female-born” women only.

Hilla Kerner, who spoke on behalf of a Vancouver rape crisis centre, and Meghan Murphy told the senate committee studying Bill C-16 that men who choose to be women are not the same as women.

Bill C-16 adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Human Rights Code as prohibited grounds of discrimination, and to the hate crime section in the Criminal Code.

The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter is “worried that well-intentioned legislation will be used to undermine the rights of women and the crucial work of women’s groups to serve and organize with female-born women,” Kerner said.

In the UK we just had this insanity. Consider the headline, “It’s not women who get pregnant — it’s ‘people’”. The piece begins:

The government has said the term “pregnant woman” should not be used in a UN treaty because it “excludes” transgender people. Feminists reacted with outrage to what they said was the latest example of “making women unmentionable” in the name of transgender equality.

The truth is, the status of women is now being threatened by the attempt to redefine sex to mean gender identity. As the Family Policy Alliance puts it:

Worse than enabling men to help themselves to women’s bodies and women’s remedial or protective programs, that redefinition poses a truly existential threat: An administrative ukase decreeing that there really is no such thing as a woman. When the law requires that any man who wishes (for whatever reason) to be treated as a woman is a woman, then “woman” (and “female”) lose all meaning.

With the stroke of a pen, women’s existence – shaped since time immemorial by their unique and immutable biology – has been eliminated by Orwellian fiat. Women, as they have been known forever, will simply be no more.

Katy Faust offers us a telling summary of where all this is heading:

  • Goodbye scholarships that encourage women to enter science and tech.
  • Goodbye female sports teams.
  • Goodbye protections for women in locker rooms, changing rooms, and bathrooms.
  • Goodbye to protections for women in prisons and homeless shelters.
  • Goodbye parental rights when you and the state disagree about whether or not your child should chemically or surgically “transition”.
  • Hello to the most practical expression of misogyny the world has ever known.

It is time to transcend the trans madness, before women disappear altogether.


transgender mother and son

I have come to believe that the transgender movement is the worst thing that has happened in my lifetime—with the possible exception of Mao Tse-tung’s Great Leap Forward, which killed at least 40 million Chinese in just five years.

But the transgender push has only just begun, and the whole ruling class of the Western world is behind it as if their very lives depended on it. Not just politicians, but movie studios, TV executives, teachers’ unions and other—ahem!—educators, judges, lawyers, and business corporations: all are guilty.

Furthermore, the push has advanced with terrifying speed, so much so, just to report it has become a challenge. One is reminded of a herd of cattle, dying of thirst, stampeding toward a water-hole. Why this folly should seem like a water-hole to anyone is a thing beyond conjecture.

Even churches have leaped aboard the bandwagon. Recently the Church of England ordered all 4,700 of its schools, serving over a million pupils, to “allow children to experiment with their gender identity.” No more “Be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). No more “[M]ale and female created He them” (Genesis 1:27). We can’t even say “Boys will be boys” anymore. How the church squares this with God’s Word is more than I can understand. Maybe they don’t bother to try.

Last week the New York City Transit Authority forbade its employees to say “Ladies and gentlemen”, lest some “transgendered person,” Heaven help us, among millions of subway riders, be offended. “Ladies and gentlemen” is taboo because it is not “inclusive.” That little word has done a great deal of damage to our culture.

A recent Pew Research poll found that 77 percent of Democrats with four or more years of college now believe that “sex is not determined at birth”. True, that’s Democrats for you, we can expect no better—but what hath “college” wrought? Do people really wind up believing whatever pure crapola that they learn in college? Is it really that powerful? Imagine if it were ever used for some constructive purpose. But that may not be possible.

And note the language creep. Throughout the poll, Pew employed the formula “gender assigned at birth.” Assigned by whom? If there’s any assigning going on, there must be an assigner. Some of us have always thought that was God, but now we’re told we’re wrong. We are not told who does the assigning, but it seems we’re expected to do it ourselves—as if we were God: as in Satan’s everlasting con job, “Ye shall be as gods.” Whatever we say we are, we are. We “self-identify” as muskrats, so that makes us muskrats.

Now this is both madness and abomination. It is a rejection of reality, a revolt against God’s created order. And it’s come so far, so fast, like a runaway train, that we have no time to predict where it will carry us.

Do you want to live in an order created by charlatans and idiots?

But we are not gods. Our inane and foolish words do not define reality. Why is it even necessary to point this out? Say you can fly, jump off the roof, and see what happens. There is no way this will turn out well for us.

God will eventually carry out His plan of regeneration and salvation mo matter what our worldly rulers say and do. I don’t think He listens to the New York City Transit Authority. But because of what these imbeciles say and do, and because of the mindless multitudes who follow them, it’s going to be an unimaginably rough ride. Whether it ends with a thunderous crash or a soft and sickening plop doesn’t much matter.

© 2017 Lee Duigon – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Lee Duigon:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO TAKEDOWN! Fan Confronts Muslim Athlete Who Shot Hoops During National Anthem

Nov 17, 2017  by TODD STARNES



Jim Howard, of Garden City, Kansas is a red-blooded, American patriot and a faithful supporter of the athletic program at the local community college.

For 32 years he’s volunteered with the booster club – keeping scorebooks, holding fundraisers, running the chain gang for football – and even providing a place for players to have a Thanksgiving meal.

He was in the stands on Nov. 1 for the season-opener of the Garden City Broncbusters basketball team. And when the announcer asked everyone to stand for the national anthem, he dutifully joined the crowd and stood at attention.

That’s when he noticed a lone player seated on a bench at courtside – Rasool Samir, a 19-year-old Muslim red-shirt.

PODCAST: Click here to listen to the patriotic American who confronted the anti-American Muslim basketball player!

It was unusual because there’s a team rule that the entire basketball team was supposed to stay inside the locker room until after the national anthem had concluded.

But as the crowd began singing about the bombs bursting in air and the rocket’s red glare, the Muslim basketball player grabbed a ball, walked onto the court and began shooting baskets.

“It was an ‘in your face slam,’” he said.

Mr. Howard decided enough was enough. He was tired of people disrespecting the national anthem. So at the conclusion of the song he walked onto the court and confronted Samir.

“I walked onto the floor and I told the guy he should respect the flag and if he’s not going to respect the flag, he should get off the court and get out of the gym,” Mr. Howard told the Todd Starnes Show.

“You should respect the flag. If you don’t respect the flag, just stay seated. Don’t make a big scene,” he said. “At least respect the people that paid for your scholarship to get you on this campus – like myself and everyone else in that gym.”

The Garden City Telegram reported that a police officer broke up the confrontation – telling Mr. Howard to return to his seat and escorting the player off the court.

When that happened, a number of people in the stands gave Mr. Howard a standing ovation and some fans even came over to shake the man’s hand.

It seems, they too – had had enough.

“Everyone around town was patting me on my back and saying thank you,” he said.

The following day Samir was dismissed from the team.

However, there are two versions as to what happened. The local newspaper says it was Samir’s decision to leave. But the American Civil Liberties Union claims the young man was kicked off the team.

The Kansas chapter of the ACLU fired off a letter to the community college demanding answers and claiming that Samir’s constitutional rights were violated.

“He refrained from participating in the national anthem because he is a Muslim and his faith prohibits acts of reverence to anything but God,” the ACLU wrote in a letter to the school.

Well, if that’s the case, why didn’t Samir stay inside the locker room with the rest of the team during the national anthem?

“Samir was engaged in protected First Amendment activity when he declined to observe the national anthem,” the ACLU wrote. “Moreover, Samir’s objection was motivated by his religious beliefs and thus, was protected on free speech exercise grounds.”

If, in fact, Samir’s Muslim faith prohibits him from honoring America and our flag, perhaps he might feel more comfortable playing basketball somewhere else? I hear the Iran and Saudi Arabia are quite lovely this time of year.

As for Mr. Howard, I’m not surprised to hear that many folks around town are giving him a pat on the back and shaking his hand. He did what every patriotic sports fan in the country has wanted to do.

Muslim Basketball Player Gets Massive Dose Of Karma After What Team Caught Him Doing During Anthem


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Europe Revolts Against EU, Austria vs Immigration, Merkel Faces Ouster – Sweden Mics – Muzzie Husband


Globalists hit road block as Europeans reject mass migration

Europe Revolts Against EU: Austria Tackles Immigration, Merkel Faces Ouster

Nov 17, 2017  by  

The tide is turning in key parts of Europe as the issues of immigration and national security have reached critical mass, prompting political upheaval across the continent sparked by backlash against open borders.

Austria’s Interior Ministry is reporting that applications for asylum have decreased by 43% this year, while the rate of deportations has increased by over 50%.

Applicants admitted to the asylum program in 2016 nearly maxed out Austria’s cap of 37,500 as over 36,000 were accepted. However, only half of this year’s capacity of 35,000 has been filled – a sharp decline.

The future is even more promising for Austria, as two anti-open borders parties – the dominant People’s Party (OVP) and the surging Freedom Party (FPO) – are working to form a new governing coalition, which could see the admission of migrants drop even more sharply.

If the Freedom Party, led by Heinz-Christian Strache, had their way, Austria would move towards zero or negative immigration flow by way of eliminating its ‘asylum’ program, while deporting many of the tens of thousands of migrants who have settled in the country in recent years.

“We do not need an upper limit, nor a halving of the upper limit – we need a zero-migration, in fact, a minus-migration, because of all the illegals and criminals who are in the country,” Strache said earlier this year. “Let us put an end to this policy of Islamisation… otherwise we Austrians, we Europeans will come to an abrupt end.”

In Germany, Angela Merkel – upon whom many place the most blame for the flood of millions of illegal immigrants into Europe from Africa and the Middle East – is facing the possibility of either being ejected as Chancellor, or the prospect of a second election after her party’s failure to form a coalition, with immigration quotas being a central issue of contention.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union missed a critical deadline yesterday while trying to stitch together a three-party “Jamaica coalition,” which could force new elections – or her ouster.

“It’s not just the chancellor’s fourth term that depends on the success of Jamaica, but her entire political career,” reported Bild ahead of the deadline, calling it Merkel’s “most dangerous night.”

Despite the arbitrary cutoff date, talks are expected to continue into the weekend.

Merkel’s party has slipped to its lowest popularity in the polls in 17 years – while the populist, pro-border control Alternative For Germany (AfD) makes record gains.

“With coalition talks ongoing and Merkel’s position under question, it marks another low point an increasing backlash against her insistence on mass open door migration,” reports Westmonster. “With the anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany on the rise having gone from 0 seats in the Bundestag to over 90, it is clear that the shape of German politics is now changing radically.

Dan Lyman: Facebook | Twitter


Sexual assaults have increased since ‘refugee’ influx

Sweden Installs Microphones in Migrant Areas to Pick Up Women's Screams

Nov 17, 2017 by Paul Joseph Watson

Police in Sweden are installing microphones in migrant ghetto areas to pick up the sound of women screaming as the country’s rape crisis continues to escalate after the mass importation of Muslim “refugees”.

The Stockholm County Administrative Board will use both surveillance cameras and sound detectors to pick up “tell-tale” sounds such as explosions, gunfire, the clatter of broken glass and the shrieks of women being attacked.

“I know that police in New York have long been using microphones with success. From what I know, however, this is the first time a police authority has received permission to do this sort of thing in Sweden,” Joakim Söderström told the Svenska Dagbladet daily.

The first rollout of the technology will be in Järva, where a gay pride parade organized by right-wingers to highlight the intolerance of Muslims was cancelled last year after death threats towards conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos.

The new program follows the rollout of surveillance cameras that were recently installed in the notorious migrant areas of Rinkeby, Tensta and Husby.

The microphones will partly act as a stand in for actual police officers given that Järva’s only police station is set to close despite crime figures continuing to rise in no-go migrant suburbs, where cops, firefighters and ambulance workers are routinely attacked.

The number of gang-related shootings has surged 43% over the last three years in Sweden, while rapes have increased by 14% since last year. A recent poll also found that half of young women in the country felt insecure walking the streets.

The figures back up veteran Swedish police officer Peter Springare’s assertion that crimes he processed, which include rape, assault, violence against police, drug trafficking and murder, were almost exclusively committed by someone named “Mohammed” or a variation of that name and the culprits were invariably from Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Somalia, or Syria.

Sexual assaults on women at music festivals in Sweden have also risen by 1000%, with feminists and organizers responding by proposing that all men be banned from such events.

Low level urban terrorism and grenade attacks are also now commonplace in Sweden’s migrant areas, with a whopping 16 explosions in the last 28 days alone.

As we reported earlier this week, while the Swedish government and its subsidiaries seem to be extremely concerned with milk being used as a symbol to radicalize racists, actual ISIS recruitment propaganda is being broadcast on Swedish radio stations.


Mother-of-four, 26, ‘was horrifically stabbed to death, dumped in a cellar for two days’

Woman 'stabbed to death after defying Muslim husband'

Nov 16, 2017 by


A mother-of-four was brutally murdered by her husband after she continued to see a friend he forbade her from visiting, a court has heard.

Sinead Wooding, 26, was found dead in woodland in Leeds earlier this year. Her husband, Akshar Ali, is on trial for her murder.

A court heard this week how Ms Wooding had converted to the Muslim faith before meeting Ali, who she married in an Islamic ceremony in February 2015.

But the couple had a ‘volatile’ relationship and Ali ordered her not to visit family members and a female friend, Leeds Crown Court heard.

Read more

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment