12 april 2017
Julia Caesar: Hycklarnas julafton
De amerikanske universiteters tåbeligheder når nye højder
Nu er nogen “unsafe”, altså ikke sikker, fordi USAs vicepræsident Pence besøger universitetet !
Jeg går ud fra at hvis hans tilstedeværelse gør dem “unsafe”, så vil en total fjernelse af alle offentige (= federale) tilskud til “universitetet” gøre stedet med “safe” … 🙂
Hvor ville det være forfriskende, hvis Trump og Pence reagerede med omgående at fjerne enhver støtte !
Taget herfra, hvor du kan læse mere om vanviddet på venstrefløjen i USA
Her er en video med Comting Forever med flere eksempler på tåbelige “studenter” og “lærere” på “universiteter” i USA :
Taget herfra, hvor du kan læse mere om (bl.a) vanviddet på venstrefløjen i USA
Taget herfra, hvor du kan læse mere om vanviddet på venstrefløjen i USA
The case of a British Jewish child forced to leave his Berlin school after being subjected to anti-Semitic violence has provoked outrage and soul-searching in Germany.
The 14-year-old, was beaten, kicked and threatened with a replica gun after he revealed to fellow pupils that he was Jewish.
He endured a campaign of intimidation by Muslim pupils who told him “Muslims hate Jews. All Jews are murderers.”
His British mother, told that the school had done little to stop the bullying.
“They told us this is normal for adolescents from this background, that they’re just trying to find their identity,” she said. “But it shouldn’t be normal. I’ve never experienced such direct anti-Semitism before in all the years I’ve lived in Germany.”…
11 april 2017
Politisk indoktrinering starter tidligt i de danske skoler.
Det fremgår af en kort video, som 24NYT er kommet i besiddelse af. (Videoen kan ses sidst i artiklen)
Skolebørn helt ned til seksårsalderen blev torsdag i sidste uge opfordret til at kaste genstande mod billeder af den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump. Denne alternative form for pædagogisk indlæring var en del af et tema-arrangement om verdens lande for elever, forældre og lærere fra Vestre Skole i Silkeborg.
10 april 2017
The EPA human experiments controversy is now over.
As between choosing whether EPA committed multiple felonies vs. lying to the Congress/public about PM2.5 killing people, the National Academy of Sciences has chosen the “lying’ option. Total victory achieved.
A controversy that first appeared in these pages five years ago, came to an end last week. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that human experiments with air pollutants conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were not dangerous — meaning EPA has been lying to the public and Congress for years about the extreme danger of the “pollutants” in question.
So when the first Obama EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, testified to Congress that “Particulate matter causes premature death. It does not make you sick. It is directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” that was a lie, one compounded by her next false claim that particulate matter kills about 570,000 Americans per year.
As it turns out, the only time EPA told the truth about particulate matter was when it told its human guinea pigs that the experiments were harmless. Meanwhile the Obama EPA used the phony killer particulate matter scare — backed by almost $600 million in utterly fraudulent scientific research and fueled with secret scientific data — to virtually wipe out the U.S. coal industry, severely harming coal miners, their families and their communities.
Hvad siger danske miljømyndigheder? Ingenting! De vil fortsætte med at lade som om PM2.5 er sundhedsskadeligt og indføre alskens begrænsninger på danskerne.
Children younger than 10 are among hundreds of suspected forced marriage and “honour” crime victims in London.
It can be revealed that reports of “honour” violence soared more than 40 per cent over the past five years, with 1,081 made to Scotland Yard. Those relating to forced marriages doubled in the same period, with 367 in total.
Women and girls overwhelmingly form the majority of reported victims, with more than half coming from Asian backgrounds. Dozens of rapes and other sexual crimes were reported as well as knives and guns being involved in more than 70 incidents.
Aneeta Prem, founder of the Freedom Charity, which helps victims and visits schools to educate children, said they had recently provided support to a six-year-old girl suspected of being groomed by her family for a forced marriage after being taken to Bangladesh.
9 april 2017
Mærkværdigvis er der ikke et ‘teknisk uheld’?
8 april 2017
DN visade den osmakliga bilden på Ailan, för att propagera för att terroristerna skulle in i landet.
När konsekvensen av DN:s propaganda kommer i full dager, visar man naturligtvis inga bilder på döda barn.
Intet billede! Bemærk iøvrigt, at journalisten ikke kan stave.
En video fra Black Pigeon fra terrorangrebet i Nice som er ligeså aktuel i dag efter terrorismen i Stockholm.
The first of these is the “let’s not jump to conclusions” stage in which reporters take great pains not to assume that the attacker is a Muslim just because his name happens to be Abdul or Muhammad or even because he yelled “Allahu Akbar” moments before his killing spree began. Then, when it turns out that he is a Muslim, reporters wonder if his religious affiliation might have been incidental to the attack—which it rarely ever is. In the second stage, the shortest of the four, reporters actually acknowledge the attack and its motive before quickly moving on to the third stage. I’ll call this the “Muslims fear backlash” stage, and it’s characterized by stories about hijab-snatchings (that usually turn out to be hoaxes) or Muslims getting dirty looks in the street. It isn’t even necessary to find any actual incidents of backlash after an attack because the fear of a backlash, not the backlash itself, is the real story. The fourth and final stage is when reporters begin to ask how the right-wing might “exploit” the story. This serves as a warning that taking action to stave off civilizational demise is somehow letting the terrorists win.
Stockholmerne sørger dagen efter lastbilangreb.
DDR skriver: (fra ritzau)
Neil Gorsuch har mødt modstand som dommer i Højesteret, men Senatet har nu godkendt ham.
Gorsuch kunne godkendes, fordi et flertal på 52 medlemmer af USA’s senat i aftes ændrede reglerne, så en højesteretsdommer kan godkendes med simpelt flertal.
Dermed afskaffede Senatet en mangeårig regel om, at der skal mindst 60 ud af 100 senatorer til for at forhindre, at en nomineret højesteretskandidat kan blokeres med en såkaldt filibuster.
6 april 2017
Demokrater og MSM hyler over at Senatet ændrer afstemningsreglerne for indsættelse af Gorsuch som højesteretsdommer
DanMarx Radio er selvfølgelig med i koret men de undlader alle at gøre opmærksom på:
With Senate Republicans poised to use the “nuclear option” to confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, will the liberal media hypocritically accuse them of a power grab? In 2013, when then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did basically the same thing, he was cheered on in the studios of MSNBC and CNN.
Back then MSNBC’s Chris Hayes hailed it as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Rachel Maddow blurted “This is a huge freaking deal. This is like 3-inch headlines. This is like people who don’t even care about politics really ought to care about this.”
Over on CNN, political analyst Paul Begala hailed the nakedly partisan maneuver by Reid as necessary, whining that Republicans had “so abused” the filibuster that Democrats “can’t take it anymore.” And Begala’s colleague Ron Brownstein approved of Reid’s decision as a forward-thinking move: “The idea of requiring a super majority for the president to appoint his nominees just is anachronistic.”
But the cable network news hosts and analysts weren’t the only ones championing the nuclear option. On the pages of the Los Angeles Times, Reid’s move was celebrated in a November 22 editorial “Democrats bust the filibuster, and good for them.”
The Times editorial board crowed: “We welcome this action not because it represents a comeuppance for arrogant Republicans but because filibustering presidential nominees is undemocratic and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, which says that the president shall appoint judges and other officials ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’ — not by and with a supermajority of the Senate.” The Times went on to call it “a victory not just for the Democrats but for good government.”
That same day, The New York Times championed the procedure in an editorial headlined “Democracy Returns to the Senate.”