Friday, February 12

German rape victim: Algerian Muslim attacker shouted "Inshallah" during attack

In Germany an Algerian muslim is on trial for raping and brutally beating a 25-year-old German woman.  The victim testified that as the man was raping her he repeatedly shouted "Inshallah"--Arabic for "If Allah wills it."

I'll bet not one of you heard about this before now--simply because it didn't make American news.  (The link goes to the UK's Daily Mail.)

It didn't make our news because horrible things happen overseas every day, so the handful of the so-called media "elites" who decide what qualifies as "news" decided no American viewer needed to know about one particular rape in a foreign country.  And that's not entirely unreasonable.

Unfortunately the New York or Washington editor's decision prevents you from seeing a critical pattern:  The rapist invoked Allah to justify his attack.

This is important because by all indications most Muslim males overseas not only regard non-muslim women as fair game for rape, but also believe this is explicitly permitted by the Koran and their warped deity.

While it's certainly true that rapes are committed by men from virtually all cultures, I'm not aware of any other religion whose official doctrine explicitly permits rape.

The poor woman's testimony also reflects the mind-set of virtually all members of civilized societies: "I never thought something like that could happen to me.  I just couldn't comprehend it."

Let those who have ears, hear.

By the way:  A constant argument the Left uses to get you to go back to sleep regarding the threat posed by "zealous" Muslims is "We all worship the same god."  Leaving aside the fact that a huge number of leftists don't even believe in God, people who do believe in the Judeo-Christian God can easily see that the god described by Mohammed is NOT the same being.  The two are worlds apart.

Europe continues its death spiral

If the U.S. falls to Islam it won't be a military defeat, but rather because your political "leaders" will have surrendered.

Of course you think that's impossible--you can't imagine such a thing happening.  So let me explain:

You've heard an endless amount of blather from politicians--Democrats--claiming that we need to pay more attention to "international law."  And that we need to be more "multicultural."  This is simply a ploy to enable sharia law to become established here in the U.S.

Want to see what has already happened to ordinary citizens of Europe?  Watch the video below.  An older woman living in Calais, France, tells how life in her once-peaceful town has turned to utter shit because of the "migrants"--the so-called "refugees" who beat and rape and steal and demand everything from the government.  This poor woman can't even walk through her own town center.

You probably think her story is fiction, a fabrication.  That's because your American media doesn't  report what's happening all over Europe.  (To be accurate, they report it on page 8; it's technically there but very few people see it.)

You think this woman's story can't be true because you can't believe any people would put up with such blatant, naked aggression from foreigners.  But what you don't realize--because the media don't report this either--is that politicians there have been prosecuting NOT aggressive invaders but local residents who try to defend themselves, like with pepper spray.  They're even prosecuting locals who simply speak out against govenment policies that have caused the deadly invasion.

Why would any politician make such ghastly decisions--setting up policies and programs that would injure, intimidate or kill their own citizens?  Because the pols are ALWAYS insulated from the consequences of their policies.  Ordinary citizens suffer, while the people who created the policies live their luxurious lives serenely unaffected by the chaos they've caused.

And if you think it's not coming here you haven't been awake.  Open borders equals death. 

Look at the number of black-on-white murders and rapes and home invasions in the U.S.  They're barely reported outside the city where they happened.  The government and the mainstream media don't want you to know.  Because you won't take any action if you don't know there's a problem.

Wake up!  Wake the fuck up!  Your country is slipping away from you, just as their is.  You can't rely on the mainstream media to tell you the truth.


Monday, February 1

ISIS barbarity, part 496,934

Here's another of the one-million significant events you won't hear a word about in the U.S. mainstream media:

According to a Kurdish news agency the monsters calling themselves "the Islamic state" beheaded a 14-year-old Syrian boy in the northern city of Jarablus after accusing him of apostasy.  They accused him of...missing Friday prayers at the central mosque.

To behead a 14-year-old for missing prayers is beyond words--a crime against humanity.  And it gets worse:
 

The sharia court--run by ISIS--ordered that the boy be beheaded in public.  And they forced his parents to watch as their son was beheaded.

Such barbarity, such inhuman cruelty, is beyond words.  It's hard to even imagine how the parents must have felt.

But remember, citizen:  This "incident" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

As we've all seen, when Islam migrates to, oh, Paris, or Brussels, or Sweden, or Denmark, or Germany, or, say, San Bernardino or Fort Hood its followers magically become, like, totally peaceful.

Really.  Trust us, citizen, because the emperor's hard-working, totally competent elites know these things.  By contrast, if you think this totally unfortunate, isolated incident has anything to do with Islam you're stupid and a hater.  Oh, and Islamophobic!

The power of trend lines in huge systems

From Britain's "The Sun" newspaper:
Some parts of London are now almost 50 per cent Islamic.  Soaring immigration and high birth rates have seen the number of Muslims in the UK double in a little over a decade.  If current trends continue the areas could become majority Muslim within ten years.

One in four Muslims in England and Wales are under ten years old, indicating a very high birth rate within the community.

The number of Muslims in the UK has more than tripled since 1991.

Of course you don't live in the UK, so why should this mean anything to you?

Because large population trends are like avalanches:  they have a huge momentum--a power that can only be changed slowly, over a period shorter than multi-decades.

Okay, so why does that matter?

Ignoring the reality of Islamic terrorism--which only kills a few people each day--it's because once around half of the people in an area are Muslims, they demand that "their" areas comply with sharia law.

For those who haven't seen sharia in action, it often bans music (except the Islamic call to prayer) and alcohol, and deploys groups of thug males to surround and intimidate--or physically assault--women who wear clothes more revealing than a burqa. 

You say you don't believe that?  Consider that Muzz in London have actually printed and posted large signs in their areas saying "This is a sharia-controlled area" and listing what they say is prohibited.

Strict adherents to sharia insist that women not leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative.  How do you think it would affect you if your wife couldn't shop for groceries unless you were with her?  How would it affect her getting to work if she uses public transit?  Ready for that?

My liberal friends laugh at this scenario.  "Ridiculous!  Absurd!  Just fear-mongering!"  And my favorite: "Islamophobia!"  That's because very few people understand what the trends of large systems mean.  Huge systems take decades to change.  Example:  All civilized western nations are being out-bred by immigrants at least two-to-one.  Even if that trend were to *start* changing today it would take many decades to drop to parity.  Virtually all of Europe is likely to be majority-Muslim by 2100.

Think sharia wouldn't be too bad?  Think again:  About 8 years ago a girls' school caught fire in some mid-east shit-hole.  The girls started fleeing the burning building--and the local adult-male religious police forced them back inside because their hair wasn't covered.

Are you willing to put up with that shit?  If so, no problem as far as you're concerned.  But do you think sharia might be terribly hard on your wife or daughter?

People who understand the power of trend lines in huge systems say "But what can us non-elites do?  There's no way to solve this!"  Actually I think there is, and without going to war.  But I can say with absolute, utter certainty that it will not be solved if you continue to elect Democrats to run what remains of this nation.

That is all.

Friday, January 29

Cops in Kiel, Germany, ordered to ignore shoplifting by immigrants?

The disaster in Europe continues to worsen.  Germany is one of half a dozen European countries that's been overrun--perhaps it would be more accurate to say "invaded"--by so-called "refugees" from the middle-east and North Africa. 

Now police in the city of Kiel, Germany, have reportedly been ordered not to pursue cases where refugees were caught shoplifting.  Same for "minor" property damage.

City authorities claim that prosecuting shoplifting refugees "is hard" "because the perps often don’t carry identification documents."

Anyone wanna guess the effects this policy will have?  Sure you can:  Shoplifting will go exponential.  If someone was raised in a culture that views "infidels" as worthless, and the local officials have ordered the cops not to haul you to jail if you steal, why in the world would you not simply take anything you wanted?

Morality?  Honesty?  Simple civil behavior?  You have to be kidding!

So...local officials recognized a problem--and proceeded to make it vastly worse.  How typical.

Friday, January 22

Want to make a few bucks shoveling snow for people? New Jersey demanded a license.

Wanna know what's wrong with this country?  Astonishingly dumb politicians. 

Case in point:  Seems New Jersey (or possibly a few towns in it) had passed a rule requiring anyone offering to shovel snow for money to get a license.

That's right, these pinhead politicians demanded that people register and get a license to shovel snow for a few bucks.

And the damn license could be *very* expensive: $450 in one town.  And was only good for one season!

Last year two teens going door-to-door offering to shovel snow for a few bucks were stopped by the cops in Bound Brook.  The cops told the boys they were not allowed to "solicit businesses" without a permit.  In Bound Brook that license costs $450 and is only good for a period of 180 days.
After the story made national headlines, state lawmakers began working on a solution, saying it was incredible that some towns wanted teens to pay expensive licensing fees just to clear snow off driveways.

Insanity.

Saturday, January 9

NY Times: we shouldn't ask whether German assaults due to a problem with the refugees

New York Slimes "contributing op-ed writer" Anna Saurbrey has distilled the lesson of the mass assaults on German women by males reported by all victims to be "of arab or north african origin," and it is this:
The real question we should be asking is not whether there is something inherently wrong with the refugees, but whether Germany is doing an effective job of integrating them — and if not, whether something can be done to change that.
Yes, this is the way the liberals at the Times think.  Mob identified as immigrants sexually assaults women in the main square of Germany's fourth-largest city, and the Times editors conclude that the "real" question is NOT whether there's anything "inherently wrong" with the attackers, but whether Germany has done a good job of integrating them into German society.

Seriously.

Emperor starts new program to set up Mortgage Meltdown 2.0

Summary of article in Investor's Business Daily, Jan 7, 2016:

Remember the Great Housing Meltdown (a.k.a. collapse of the mortgage markets)?   If you're under 30 you don't, but in any case I'll explain:  One of the ideas aggressively pushed by Bill Clinton to help his re-election was to force banks to make mortgage loans to people who normally wouldn't have qualified for one.

Clinton and the Democrats did this by passing laws and making rules that promised mortgage lenders that they could sell these "risky" mortgages--loans the borrowers were unlikely to repay--to two "quasi"-federal mortgage agencies--cutely named Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Such loans were called "sub-prime."

Combined this with the Dems' instructions to aggressively prosecute banks and other lenders who wouldn't go along with the program, and it had the totally predictable effect of producing an avalanche of bad mortgage loans--ones which were highly likely to end in default. 

These eventually became known in the mortgage and banking industry as "ninja" loans: applicants would qualify for a mortgage even if they had "no income, no job and no assets."  And the flood of new buyers pushed the price of housing in "hot" cities through the roof.

When the wave of defaults from previously-unqualified home buyers started rolling in, the government agencies first tried to deny, deflect and hope for the best.  This worked about as well as you'd expect.  When the agencies were finally forced to start foreclosing on the defaulted loans, that pushed a huge wave of homes onto the market--depressing all home prices.  Because the price of ALL homes dropped, many borrowers who had made all their payments but had to sell due to a new job now found themselves "upside down" in the mortgage:  They couldn't sell for as much as they owed on their home loan--they had to bring money to the table to sell.

With that as background, your emperor is rolling out what might be called "Sub-prime 2.0"--a new mortgage program that lets low-income borrowers count income from nonborrowers living in the household.

Hey, what could go wrong?

But the emperor and his lackeys are cunning:  One assumes they know what caused the last housing meltdown, so they didn't want to call it "sub-prime."  Instead they call it the "HomeReady program." (The last sub-prime program was called MyCommunityMortgage.)  They describe it as "an alternative mortgage program."

But it might was well be called DefaultReady, because it is just as risky as the subprime junk Fannie peddled to cause the last crisis.

So under the new program a renter can get a conventional home loan backed by Fannie by claiming a roommate's paycheck to augment your qualifying income.  You can even claim the earnings of people who won't be living in the property.

Best of all, borrowers can pay as little as 3% down.  And borrowers who have defaulted before are eligible. 

Fannie and its regulators say this new program won't introduce any undue risk into the mortgage-finance system.
Gee, where have we heard that before?

One of Fannie Mae's tactics to reduce the default rate is to ensure that high-risk borrowers understand the importance of making their monthly mortgage payments.  And how does the government propose to accomplish this?  Hold onto your hats here:  It'll require lenders to ask applicants to take a four-hour online course on home ownership.

Well there ya go.  Gosh, wonder why no lender ever thought of that before? 

We've seen this movie before, and it does not end well.  Like earlier no-standards mortgage programs, this one will simply expand into lower and lower income markets while slashing requirements and burning lending standards even more.
Eventually it will become a no-income, no-job, nothing-down giveaway.

Return of NINJA loans.

White Hut announces new "task force" to fight on-line propaganda. Really?

Seeing a headline on TV news channel now:
 "White House launching task force to fight terrorists' on-line propaganda."
Now, most adults would interpret this as an effort to fight the on-line propaganda of jihadists. 

Silly Americans!  The White House said exactly what they meant.  I suspect that out of the emperor's extreme love for Islam, the "task force" will try to suppress conservative blogs.

Cuz, you know, them conservatives and Tea Partiers jus' keep shootin' unarmed civilians by the score.

Friday, January 8

State Dept refuses to deny that a Hellfire missile was "sold" to Cuba ??

Short news story yesterday said a state-of-the-art USAF Hellfire missile somehow ended up in Cuba.

Later story said the missile was a dummy.

Then at a State Department press conference some reporters asked the spokesdick for details.

If you can read body language, it looks like the guy went into lockup mode, repeatedly *reading* from a paper in front of him that he was barred by federal law from commenting about any aspect of export licensing, foreign trade, defense contracts, partridges in pear trees and everything else.

“I am restricted, under federal law and regulations, from commenting on the specific defense trade, licensing cases and compliance matters,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said during a press conference Friday.  “What I can say is under the Arms Export Control Act, the State Department licenses both permanent and temporary exports by U.S. companies of regulated defense articles,” Kirby added.

Next reporter:  "Did the State Department sell this missile to the Cuban government?"
Spokesdick:  "I can't comment.  I've said all I can say about this."

Finally another reporter said "So rather than simply deny that the U.S. sold this missile to Cuba, you're gonna leave without denying that?"
Spokesdick:  "Next question."

I didn't believe it either, but take a look for yourself:


Lord, I sincerely hope this is exactly what it appears to be.

U.S. officials have been urging the Cuban government to return the missile.  And now note that the shipment of the missile to Cuba happened in 2014.  Your emperor normalized relations with Cuba in 2015.  A rational president would have insisted on the return of the missile as a condition of resuming normal relations--which hugely, lopsidedly benefitted the Cuban government.

Of course Bullshit Barry didn't trouble himself to insist on the missile's return.  Gosh, if only we had a class of people in this country who would ask him why he didn't demand its return... 

When Bullshit Barry and Hillary lied their ass off after four Americans were killed in Benghazi, many of us thought that was Barry's Watergate.  But predictably, the mainstream media turned the story into "Look how those awful Republicans are trying to make a nothing story into a scandal!"

And it worked.  Both Barry and Hillary skated, dodging all responsibility for...everything.

Maybe this latest scandal could finally cause the mainstream media to stop defending the emperor's fuckups.

Hahahahahahaha!  Yeah, right after hell freezes over.

Speechless: yet more unspeakable cruelty from ISIS

Think you'd heard every possible type of crazy cruelty from the sadistic killers of ISIS?  From USA Today, January 8, 2016:
A member of the Islamic State killed his own mother in front of a crowd in Syria this week after she tried to get him to leave the terrorist organization, according to reports.

The man, identified as Ali Saqr, 21, executed her in front of hundreds of people in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and another Syrian rights group cited by The New York Times.

The two groups said the woman confronted her son and urged him to flee with her, out of fear that coalition forces would soon sweep in and defeat ISIS.  But the son reported her to ISIS authorities, who then ordered Saqr to execute her in front of the post office where she worked, according to the Syrian Observatory.
 Keep repeating, citizen:  This has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

A novel gun-confiscation idea from the Baltimore Sun

Wanna see the next step in the Democrats' plan to take away all private guns?  Here it is:

"We need a searchable database of gun owners...that we can consult before arranging play dates."

Every moonbat will get behind this.  And since moonbat/liberals are a huge majority in urban shitholes this type of measure will pass in the big cities, then in the blue states.

How one episode of gross corruption of government officials played out

Allow me to show you how corrupt politicians can rape taxpayers, in a very obvious, easily-recognized manner.  The key phrase here is "easily-recognized."  The goal is that once you see how this scam worked, it will enable you to see how the emperor's regime is doing the same thing to you--albeit in a more sophisticated way.

The example is from the town of Bell, California--a town of 35,000 people, near Los Angeles.  It's one of the poorest towns in the state, with a per-capita income of $25,000.  Roughly 90% of residents are latino.  Unemployment is 16%.

In response to several instances of grossly high salaries some city leaders in the state--including a city adjacent to Bell--had rammed through for themselves, early in 2005 the state legislature passed a law limiting salaries for cities that didn't have a charter.

Months after that law was passed, a measure appeared on the city ballot of Bell to convert the city to a "charter city"--exempting its leaders from the state limitation.

The measure was touted as one that "would give the city more control."  (Control of *what* seems not to have been much discussed.)

The measure passed, with 336 votes in favor and 54 against.

Of the 390 ballots, 239 were absentee.

Hmmm...huge percentage of absentee ballots.  Where have we seen that before?  Wonder what percent of the absentee ballots were "for"?  Care to guess?

One resident of Bell, on condition of anonymity, told The LA Times he was given the job of retrieving absentee ballots. "Our objective was to collect absentee ballots, and if they were not filled out, instruct them how to fill it out...[or] fill it out for them", he said.  Some residents went to the polling place only to find that someone had already voted under their name.

Result:  City manager Robert Rizzo got a 47% pay increase, to $442,000 per year--for a city of 35,000 people.  And yes, that means that *before* the increase his city salary was almost $300,000.

For a city of 35,000 people.

Rizzo soon collected a salary of $787,637 per year, with yearly 12% increases scheduled every July, until the year the scandal broke when his salary was $1.5 million per year.

For a city of 35,000 people.

The signature on the contract specifying the huge annual increases seems to have been forged.  The city attorney denies that he signed it.

In addition to the outrageous salary, Rizzo also received paid vacation, sick and personal time of 28 weeks off per year.

On April 25, 2011 at least two more illegal retirement accounts were revealed, totalling $4.5 million,  to benefit city manager Rizzo, assistant manager Angela Spaccia and a select few council members. Another account was found to be set up to benefit only Rizzo and Spaccia, letting them evade IRS regulations which cap government pensions. Lourdes Garcia, the city's director of administrative services, testified under limited immunity that Rizzo told her in 2008 that his goal was to put $14 million in one or both of these hidden pension funds, which would be paid by the city.

Amazingly--or perhaps predictably--Rizzo remains totally unrepentant, claiming his salary was a reward by the town's citizens for doing such a great job.  Of course the citizens didn't agree to the outrageous salary.  But much good should it do them, because Rizzo is now free, and living on a taxpayer-funded pension of $100,000 per year.

The city's new website shows that seven more city workers received excessively high salaries, with two making more than $400,000 per year and three making more than $200,000.[24] Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia collected $376,288 a year, with the same 12% annual pay increase as her boss.  Bell Police Chief Adams, who oversaw a 46-person department, had an annual salary of $457,000.

Ah, but justice eventually caught up with the lying thieves.

Whereupon they machinegunned her and burned the body.

Yes, on April 16th, 2014, Robert Rizzo was sentenced to 12 years in prison.  He was ordered to begin serving his sentence on May 30th.

But with the magic touch of all connected pols, Google says HuffPo reported Rizzo has been released.  I haven't been able to confirm that (and considering the source I'm skeptical) but if true it would mean Rizzo served a grand total of 19 months.

For stealing around ten million taxpayer dollars.

Point of the story:  Rizzo was the top guy in the little town, and he'd bribed virtually all the other town officials--including the council and police chief--with similarly fraudulently inflated salaries, which made everyone unwilling to blow the whistle.

As Lord Acton noted 150 years ago:  Power corrupts.  And absolute power corrupts absolutely.  And people down the organizational chart take their cues from the top guy:  If he's corrupt--whether thru graft or simply morally or ethically--everyone else will follow suit, because there's no down-side.

Emperor's "town hall" is invitation-only??

Following his executive actions this week, President Obama used Democrat shill CNN to televise what both called a "town hall" to discuss gun control.

The so-called "town hall" was scheduled for George Mason University, hosted by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.  But historically, a town hall meeting was a frank discussion between people with different viewpoints. 

What kind of faux "town hall" meeting only invites people with one, already-confirmed viewpoint?

That would be one held by the emperor and his media lackeys.

You think I'm kidding, but according to a memo sent by GMU Communications and Marketing Vice President Renell Wynn to faculty and students earlier this week, the emperor's "town hall" meeting was invitation-only.   "This is an invitation-only event. No tickets are available," the memo states. "The event is not open to the public."

How...typical of the emperor, and the attitude of most Dems:  No criticism shall appear in the mainstream media.  And since that's how most voters get their information, you've just "won" the "debate."

Thursday, January 7

German official: right-wing anti-immigrant talk "at least as awful" as the assaults

It's infuriating--and also sad--to see German government officials rationalize the mass sex assaults on German women in Cologne on New Year's eve.

For example, the "interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia," Ralf Jaeger, was very frank in his denunciation of...wait:  The BBC reported that this wussy goofball's complaint was to warn that anti-immigrant groups were trying to use the attacks to stir up hatred against refugees.
"What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women," he said. "This is poisoning the climate of our society."
Any questions on where this jerk stands?  Does any rational person doubt he's firmly, totally in the pro-immigrant, anti-German camp?

Here's how the Britain's "Telegraph" reported it: 
Ministers have said there is no evidence asylum seekers were involved in the violence.
But the leaked police report, published in Bild newspaper and Spiegel, a news magazine, claims that one of those involved told officers: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.”

Another tore up his residence permit before the eyes of police, and told them: “You can’t do anything to me, I can get a new one tomorrow.”
 The Telegraph also reports the number of women who reported being assaulted has gone from "dozens" to 100.

This isn't a simple misunderstanding.  It's war.  And I'd like to think that if this had happened in the U.S. there'd be a lot of seriously injured assailants.  But given emperor Obama's strong pro-Muslim stance, I'm not sure that would happen now.  And in Germany, with Frau Merkel having led the fight to allow 1.1 million "immigrants" in last year, it's hard to imagine any level of the German people putting an end to this.

Good luck, German women.  You'll need it.

As Jammie Wearing Fool put it,
We remember Democrats laughing and taunting conservatives about 'being afraid of widows and orphans.'  Anyone care to revisit that smugness?
Yeah, we knew none of you lying Democrats would have even a vague recall.  Uh-huh.

Critics of Syrian refugees are 'scared of widows and orphans,' Obama says

 WASHINGTON — President Obama mocked critics of his administration's refugee policy Wednesday amid a growing clamor from Republican governors, congressmen and presidential candidates for a moratorium on new arrivals from Syria.

"Apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. First, they were worried about the press being too tough on them during debates.  Now they’re worried about three-year-old orphans.  That doesn’t sound very tough to me," Obama said in Manila in a joint press conference with Philippine President Benigno Aquino.

Washington State commission makes it illegal to ask a man in women's locker what he's doing

Legislatures are notoriously dumb, and the one in Washington State is no exception.  That body of jokers has delegated to the state's Human Rights Commissionthe power to draft rules to "prevent discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender expression.” 

The HR commission has now released its final rule-- and it's as crazy as you'd expect.

The commission has decided it shall henceforth be illegal to ask “unwelcome personal questions about an individual’s sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, or transgender status.” In other words, if a woman in Washington State is in the women's locker room and a man walks in and starts undressing, the new rule makes it illegal for her even to ask him what he is doing there, much less ask him to leave.   The only legal recourse she has is to leave the locker room quietly. The naked guy gets to stay.
But wait, it gets better:  the new rule applies to schools as well as businesses, so according to this crazy "rule" school kids could be charged with violating it if they encounter the same situation at school.

As you'd expect, the rule doesn't try to define what constitutes an “unwelcome” personal question about a person’s gender expression.  Presumably it's like who decides what speech is deemed offensive to Muslims: the member of the specially protected group gets to decide whether they're offended.

The rule also makes it illegal for a business or school to deliberately refer to any person by a pronoun that's not the one that person prefers.  Thus Washington State joins New York city in fining people who call males “he” if they want to be called “she.”

The rule also states that it is illegal to ask someone using the "wrong" facility to use a separate facility.  Instead--you won't believe this--the "solution" is that anyone who is uncomfortable around such a person "should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility.”

Now, Washington State has long been known as one of the most left-wing states.  Moonbat territory.  But even with this in mind, it’s hard to imagine that any society so full crazy as to make rules like this one can survive much longer.

One of the 3 creators of Common Core math says parents shouldn't try to teach their kids math


Saw an article on the Net an hour ago claiming that one of the 3 "chief creators" of Common Core math had said parents shouldn't try to help their kids puzzle out CC math homework-- which strikes most parents as a gross perversion of what should be a straightforward skill. 

Of course since it was the Internet I was totally skeptical, so I followed the link chain to the source article--published by a hard-left outfit called the Hechinger Report.  (If you're skeptical about that "hard-left" description, click on this link and look at their list of advisors and "partners.")

Sure enough, they'd interviewed Jason Zimba, who claims the credit noted at top.  Here's the headline on the story (and remember, this is from an outfit that's strongly pro-common-core):

Back off parents: It’s not your job to teach Common Core math when helping with homework

Parents across the country are trying to make sense of Common Core standards, a set of academic expectations that call for less focus on memorization and more focus on explaining how solutions were found and, in English, a deep probe of text.
Advocates of the program argue that the skills are still the basic ones we learned as children but in the new curricula developed around the standards, the questions are often presented differently. That often means homework, an age-old source of angst for many families, has gotten even more complicated. Parents, like myself, are trying to guide children through questions that make little sense to adults who were taught math using other methods.

Before you throw up your hands and walk away from homework – a recent study in Psychological Science found that math-anxious parents who help children on homework breed math-anxious children – experts say there are several strategies you can try that don’t require relearning arithmetic.
Didja catch that sly innuendo?  They're implying that if your kid is "math-anxious" about Common Core, it must be because you (the parents) are similarly "math-anxious."

In other words, it's your fault.

I must have missed the memo:  Has entry-level math changed in any significant way in the last 50 years?  No?  Then why have the creators of Common Core managed to develop, publish and distribute text material that's so radically unlike the math parents learned that many (most?) adults can't understand it?

Back to the Hechinger Report:
DON’T TRY TO BE A MATH GURU
“The most important rule as a parent is to make sure it [sic; presumably homework.  No antecedent so hard to know] gets done. I may not have time to do an impromptu lesson on math but I can make sure everything is completed,” said Jason Zimba, one of the three lead writers of Common Core’s math standards and founding partner of Student Achievement Partners, a group that helps teachers with the standards. “It’s about managing workload and learning accountability.”
How can parents make sure homework is completed if they don't understand what the "school solution" method is?  (Hint:  just getting the correct answer is NOT what they demand.)  And Zimba claims "It's about managing workload and learning accountability."  Funny, I thought it was about learning how to do math.  And note again the subtle blame-shift:  As the parent, aren't you accountable for your kid?  Sure.  So if your kid isn't doing well, whose fault must that be?
Although [Zimba] gives his children, ages 6 and 8, math tutorials on Saturday mornings, he says a parent doesn’t have to be a numbers whiz when it comes to homework.

“The math instruction on the part of parents should be low. The teacher is there to explain the curriculum,” said Zimba.
Another strategy, said [Denver teacher Lauren Fine], is asking the child to teach you the concept.  “If you don’t know how to do it, ask your child to teach you, to show you how it’s done,” said Fine. Often, she said, the kids get it but parents don’t.
This is classic.  Virtually all successful adults know at least basic math, but the "elites" in the education empire want to throw the successful parents overboard:  The parents can't teach their kids math, because...well, in the years since the parents were in school, math has, like, totally changed!  "You bitter clingers need to understand that you never really understood complex math skills like addition and subtraction, so you couldn't possibly teach your kids how to do those!  Geesh, why would you think you could do any better at math than at teaching your kids about how wonderful same-sex sex is?  Or about why the Constitution is outdated and how dumb it is to claim it's the supreme law of the land."

Even though Zimba didn't object when the Hechinger Report article credited him as one of the 3 creators, in an interview with a non-Left-wing reporter Zimba was canny enough to imply that the Common Core math approach was really a team effort by LOTS of teachers.

Zimba:  "We work with teachers to develop implementation tools..."

Color me skeptical but I'd love to see a reporter ask this guy which teachers--by name--worked with him to develop this goofy method.  I'll bet the drink of your choice that any of these supposed team members were ultra-leftists.  Hard to imagine anyone who really loves this country or education would think the approach taken by CC will improve students' math proficiency.

As an aside:  When I was in 9th grade some outfit like Zimba's conned our previously-excellent school system into buying a new approach to math called "set theory," published by "School Mathematics Study Group."  It was supposed to be The New Cool Way of learning math--just like CC.   Parents had no idea what the hell it was saying, so couldn't help their kids master the new teaching method.  And for the three years it stayed in our schools, results plummeted.

I'd like to learn more about who developed the "new, oh-so-cool" method, and who in the local system approved it.  Hard to imagine there was any sort of research done into how well this Great New Method had worked in other cities--which suggests to me that perhaps someone on the city's school board got a fat bribe.  But I'm cynical that way.

In reality it was crap, and most of my classmates' math proficiency took a big hit.

Seems to me Common Core uses the same theory as our SMSG method:  The old way of teaching math must be flawed, so we'll show you the New, Improved, Cool Method.  Oh, and you'll use this new method or it'll cost ya.

Sure glad I don't have any kids.

Wednesday, January 6

Noemie Emery: "Media have been giving Obama a pass"

Noemie Emery has a great piece in the Washington Examiner:
"Obama's pass from the press"  

In the spring of 2007 something strange happened to the coverage of Iraq by U.S. media:  it disappeared.

As soon as the news from Iraq ceased to be bad, the media lost interest in covering it.  The mainstream media had no interest in reporting the fact that Bush's decision had worked.  They couldn't bear to believe it, and refused to report on it.

But regarding the current Middle East crises--which make Iraq in 2006 seem calm in comparison--the reverse is happening:  This time the press, which can no longer deny that the world has been going to hell since Barack Obama started unleashing his peacemaking powers, is doing its best to insulate him from any possible blame for it. 

Where mainstream reporters asked Bush almost every day if he regretted invading Iraq, not one ever asks Obama--the guy they strongly supported and refused to vet--if he thinks leaving Iraq has had anything to do with the chaos engulfing the region, or the huge upswing in attacks claimed by ISIS.

And while the media held Bush responsible for every casualty that occurred anywhere while he held office, Obama gets a complete pass for the massacres, rapes and enslavement of innocents that have followed his numerous foreign policy blunders.  As far as the media are concerned, he had nothing to do with any of the disasters.

If we had a Republican president the media would be hammering him for the unbroken series of failures, mistakes, and false starts over the last seven years.  By huge contrast, failures and mistakes by Obama are virtually ignored by the press.  He's allowed to fail quietly, discreetly, out of the spotlight.  Thus into a second year of beheadings and horror, instead of headlines reading "Another 24 prisoners beheaded by ISIS," we see headlines like "Attacks don't shake president's faith in patient strategy" (an actual headline in the Washington Post).

Pro-immigration mayor of Cologne now says they have no idea who assaulted women on NYE

Yesterday I told you about the mob of 1,000 or so "males" that sexually assaulted women in Germany's 4th-largest city.  Witnesses and victims of the assault described the mob as being composed of men of North African or middle-eastern appearance.  Police detained five, and all were recent immigrants, as identified by EU papers they carried.

The city's female mayor was said to be irate--a position also taken by the city's police chief.  They were NOT gonna put up with this stuff!  No sir!

But then, as they say, a funny thing happened:  Despite cops and the female victims identifying the assailants as being of North African or middle-eastern appearance, mayor Henriette Reker and the police chief now say they really don’t know who the attackers were--and by inference, that the victims either don't know either, or perhaps were lying in their identification.

And the mayor's and chief's proposed solution to the problem?  Ensure that all women attending public festivals or events change their behavior to make such attacks less likely!

We're awaiting scathing comments from NOW or other U.S. feminist organizations--because this is precisely the "she was asking for it" argument they've waged war on for decades.

What?  You say not a single feminist organization has gone postal on the goofy duo in Cologne?  I'm...I'm...well I'd say "surprised" but of course none of us is a bit surprised.

Of course you think this is fiction--that I simply fabricated this to stir up outrage.  Yeah, I can totally understand that, since it sounds so crazy.  But click on the link above and see for yourself.

The mayor and the police chief held what was billed as a "crisis meeting" to de-fuse the outrage beginning to build in Germany from this assault.  Part of their strategy was to discredit the victims' identifications of their attackers.  The mayor was strongly motivated to do this because for years she's been (and remains) a strong supporter of unlimited immigration into Germany.  It's one of the goals of the left.

So to permit the victims' identifications of their assailants as "immigrants" simply wouldn't do.  Gotta' shift the blame immediately!  Click the link above to see their press conference, and the translation.

Here's how a local paper (The Rheinische Post) reported the mayor's press conference:
“Behavioral regulations” for Festivalgoers
The first thing is to concentrate on preventive measures, which will be applied immediately for the upcoming Cologne Festival.  Also there will be “behavioral regulations” for girls and women “so that they will not experience such things again,” said Reker in reference to the sexual attacks. There is already a behavioral catalogue which will now be actualized [?] and will soon be available online.


One of the regulations [sic, but likely a mistranslation; probably "recommendations"] is that women shall keep an arm’s length distance from foreigners, stay with their own groups, don’t separate from that group, and in an emergency ask surrounding people for help and to step in as witnesses or inform the police.
Just...wow.  "In an emergency, ask surrounding people for help."  Yeah, I'm sure that never occurred to any of the victims of the assaults.  And since law-abiding Germans have no weapons, I'm sure asking people to help will be very effective.

Oh, and ask surrounding people to "inform the police."  Would that be so the cops can accuse victims of having no idea of the appearance of the men who assaulted them.  Yeah, sounds like a great plan.

(The transcript at Gates of Vienna doesn't begin to accurately portray mayor Henriette Reker's astonishing stupidity or treachery.  To really understand how bad this is you need to see her make these statements herself.  Unfortunately that video at GoV doesn't work, but here's a link to the same vid.  Again, you simply can't believe it until you've seen it.)

Here's how another local German paper reported the aftermath of the assaults:
"No-one should use the attacks to discredit refugees wholesale," said Justice Minister Heiko Maas.  "If there were asylum seekers among the perpetrators, that is far from a reason to place all refugees under general suspicion."  But for many conservatives and people on the far-right, news of the events in Cologne has confirmed rumours coursing online in recent months of increasing numbers of sexual crimes by Muslims in Germany.
Battle lines drawn over media coverage

Almost as great a scandal as the attacks themselves has been the failure of national newspapers and public broadcasters to report on them until days after the event.
Little was heard of the New Year's Eve attacks beyond local media in Cologne until three days later on Monday.
Former Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich accused journalists of operating a "cartel of silence and lockdown of news" and said it was "a scandal that it took days for the public media report the assaults."
The head of the German Journalists' Union retorted that "A report on suspicion that's not covered by solid research is incompatible with the principles of responsible journalism, and inflammatory."  [Ah yes, when considering whether to publish news that undermines the ruling party, by all means let's delay until everyone is absolutely certain of all facts.]
And Tagesspiegel online editor Markus Hesselmann tweeted that "the lesson from Cologne is not to report faster, but to report more exactly, more sensibly, more reliably. All that usually means slower."
Ah yes, let's report "more sensibly, more reliably."  Who could argue with that?  In fact, why don't you media dinosaurs simply not report anything critical of your ruling regimes?  Leave that to the internet.  Even though people who post on the Net lack your "layers and layers of fact-checkers and editors," the only people who believe a word you print or broadcast are people over 65 or members of the so-called "free shit army" who will believe any bullshit from the gummint as long as they get their free shit.

You should also know that one of the standard deflections used by the mainstream media to fail to say a word about a story they don't want to publish is that it's "old news."  If no one prints a word about some negative story for 3 days or so, the mainstream media can and often will ignore it by claiming that no one is interested in the story since it's...wait for it..."old."

Hillary supported a U.N. resolution that would criminalize any criticism of...can ya guess?

How many of you have heard of U.N. resolution 16/18?  (I'll guess less than one percent.)

If you're one of the tiny percentage of Americans who have heard about it, how many of you know what it says?

If you don't, don't feel bad:  Not one American out of a thousand knows.  So try this:  When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she strongly pushed for its passage.  Obama and loyal moron of state John "I served in VietNam" Kerry are also strong supporters.  That should tell you what you need to know, but if you're new I'll explain.

To understand what "16/18" does, you need to know about an organization called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  It's a group of 57 mostly majority-Muslim countries that comprises the largest voting bloc in the U.N. 

For a couple of decades the OIC has pushed the idea that speech or writing even slightly critical of Islam or its prophet should be punished--with the goal of suppressing such speech altogether.  In fact making “defamation of Islam” illegal everywhere is a chief objective in the OIC’s charter.

In 2005 the OIC published a 10 Year Plan of Action to criminalize ‘defamation of Islam.’  But rather than use those words--which free people would correctly have recognized as a complete revocation of free speech--the OIC drafters substituted the far more benign phrase “Countering Islamophobia.” The ten-year plan includes this:
3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.
That was 2005.  Six years later, in December of 2011, the U.N. passed UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which was co-sponsored by Pakistan...and the United States??

You're kidding, right?

Unfortunately I'm not.  And it gets better:

After the murder of a dozen unarmed French employees of the satire mag Charlie Hebdo by Muslim terrorists, the spokesman for the OIC--one "Ufuk Gokcen"--tweeted...what, great sympathy for the unarmed victims so cruelly slaughtered by the men armed with machineguns?

Of course not.  Muslim diplomat Gokcen tweeted this:
That is, he implies the mass shooting--which your emperor claims simply doesn't happen outside the U.S. (yes, he actually said that--in Paris, no less--and just three days after a second group of Muzz armed with machineguns killed an additional 130 Parisians)--was the fault of the victims, and that the fix is to outlaw criticism or lampooning of Islam.

Now, why is this resolution so important?  Because Hillary Clinton strongly backed it.  And it would be astronomically unlikely that she would admit doing so was stupid.

It would certainly be helpful if a reporter would ask Hillary whether she still supported 16/18, and if so, what she thinks it requires U.N. members to do to their citizens that criticized Islam or its murderous pedophile prophet.

I won't hold my breath.

Okay, for you Democrats out there:  You're about to tell me that U.N. resolutions passed by the General Assembly--unlike those passed by the Security Council--aren't regarded as binding.  The true answer is, "not yet."  If you want to know the true intent of the OIC's and Hillary's 16/18, look at how the U.N. and the International Court of Justice have carefully, deliberately made it absolutely impossible to say conclusively how a resolution becomes binding on all member nations. 

Really, you need to click on that last link.  It's a textbook example of "lawfare" used by the former Soviet Union and everyone they trained:  Blur the rules, and later claim everyone agreed to X when that wasn't remotely the case.

And did it work?  Well here's how the U.S. Left spins the resolution:
Resolution 16/18, Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief, was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011. Among its many specific points, it highlights barriers to religiously tolerant societies and provides recommendations on how these barriers can be overcome. The resolution calls upon all member states to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief. Other recommendations include creating government programs to promote inter-religious tolerance and dialogue, training government employees to be sensitive toward religious sensitivities, and engaging in outreach initiatives.
Wow, who could possibly be worried about such wonderful ideas, right?  It says the drafters want to "highlight barriers to religiously tolerant societies," right?  Sounds great--except what the resolution's drafters--the member states of the Organization for Islamic bullshit mean by that isn't at all the ordinary meaning of the phrase.

What they mean is, no one will be permitted to say anything deemed by them to be critical of Islam.

Leftists counter, "You can't possibly know that!  You're just an intolerant hater!"

Really?  Consider that the OIC had been trying to pass this resolution for several years, and that previous versions proposed criminalizing "blasphemous speech" and “defamation of religion.”  These were regularly rejected by our U.N. delegation on the grounds that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be "blasphemous" – violated our Constitution.  
 
But after the ascension of emperor Barack, the U.S. government mysteriously switched positions:  The Constitution's protection of free speech was thrown overboard in the rush to please Muslims. 
 
Again, you're just sure this has to be tinfoil-hat stuff.  You literally can't believe it.  But the version that passed--with U.S. approval--includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase quoted above.  You think that simply bars some redneck from saying 'We need to kill some o' them Muzz guys,' and since you're fine with banning that you don't think the "incitement" clause is a problem.
 
But once any kind of speech is criminalized, the crucial next step is...who decides if, say, a cartoon could be said to "incite" someone to violence?  Would speech considered “blasphemous” do it?  Of course--because fundamentalist Muslims are incited to violence by...well, virtually everything.

Again, if you want to know what the OIC has in mind with this resolution, look at the language they originally proposed:  Against "blasphemy."  Which they alone get to define.
 
Getting the picture yet?  And keep in mind that while the Bush administration steadfastly opposed the original language, the emperor's regime--including Hillary Clinton--approved the resolution after the drafters substituted "incitement" for "blasphemy."  But the change is simply cosmetic--no rational adult can deny that it limits speech.  The emperor and Hillary have ditched free speech to win the favor of the Muslim drafters.
 
Example:  If anyone writes a column objecting to any Islamic government or group throwing gays off buildings, or stoning rape victims (a very common fate for Muslim women who've been raped), or against what the mainstream media prefers to euphemize as simply "FGM"--cutting off the clitoris of 12-year-old girls--then you've criticized Islam.  And violated resolution 16/18.

Resolution 16/18 explicitly seeks to have U.N. member states pass laws to enact criminal penalties.  For example, Quebec has introduced "Bill 59," which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of up to $20,000.  If this bill passes (as seems likely at this point) it suggests a similar measure will become law for all of Canada.
 
But of course, Canada has always coddled Muslims. That wouldn't happen here...would it?
 
Well consider that just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack, your emperor's hand-picked attorney-general Loretta Lynch vowed that the laughably mis-named "justice department" will prosecute anyone she and the emperor claim has used “anti-Muslim rhetoric.”  And how does she define that?  'Well, Canada defines it as anything offensive to Islam.  The entire U.N. general assembly has passed a resolution that criminalizes...'  You get the idea.

Again, if you think this isn't the goal, go back and look at the original language the Islamic drafters used--language criminalizing "blasphemy."  And we know that Muslims consider anything critical of Islam is "blasphemy."

Do you think the drafters changed their purpose after the Bush administration said it violated our First Amendment?  Ask a leftist.  Of course they don't care either way, since anything that weakens Christianity or the U.S. is fine with them.