Skip to main content

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SmileyFaze

DnD Central / Re: God Save the Governor!


The Sinn Fein Party  could form parts of governments in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for the first time in history.

Tiocfaidh ár lá
DnD Central / Re: God Save the Governor!
A Brexit Super-Majority.........but .... but How.....How.....Howie......How?!!!! :no: 
  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Tiocfaidh ár lá

DnD Central / Re: Today's Bad News
.........Hopefully my fellow citizens will have enough sense to throw asshole m'f'er out next November. Perhaps Bloomberg can gather some momentum?

None of the state department's business regarding your social media, etc.

Well, long time Nick!!!

How goes it?

Sorry ya feel the way ya do, but IMHO, it seems you have taken an unfortunate hard turn to the Left.....

Please say it ain't so!!

As far as I'm concerned I feel the government (any government) has absolutely no right whatsoever into a Law-Abiding American Citizen's personal information, & social media activity. But, unfortunately that bronco has already bolted out the corral 30 years or so ago. They are already there.....these new regs are just a smokescreen to cover the governments 'real' objectives.

That said, the World changed one September morn, & like it or not, I've had to endure inconveniences over the years too......but to me it's not 'the end of the world', & in this case I feel....much to my chagrin....I can almost understand why the government is doing what it is.  It is a proven fact that the District Courts don't like it when the same rules don't apply to all, especially those with sand in their shoes, so in order to eliminate those wolves the government has to target to protect us all, they have to aim higher, & seemingly aim for a broader circle of targets, causing possible collateral damage amongst us mostly innocent folk .......Our overall legitimate Freedom & Liberty....though takin' an uncomfortable probably better served knowin' that the real bad guys are bein' seen to before they cross out doorstep.

Now, Michael Bloomberg, that petulant, ex-NYC Mayor, Anti-Second Amendment flee bag needs to be summarily euthanized............politically.

So far the gun-totin' Right, myself proudly included, along with the hard good work of the NRA & others, has held him & his ilk in check, but his billions make him a difficult adversary.

Nick, sincerely, if Bloomberg ever did get his Extreme-Left tentacles into the oval office, you might as well rip up the Bill of Rights, & study up on Europe's slide to the bottom.....because America will be forced to rollin' with that pack in no time flat!

Well, I hope all's good with you & yours........good to see ya again.......I do stop by every now & then, but bein' retired  is keepin' me busier now than when I was actually makin my daily do.......'till we cross paths again.......all the best

Keep on.....keepin' on!!


My point was not to suggest improvements, but to point out the deficiencies. US people operate under the delusion that they are electing their president, thus making evident their lack of knowledge of their own constitution. The politicians and politologists (such as the one quoted) work to perpetuate the ignorance of the people. This situation is irreparable.

True, & they, along with most of the western world are under the delusion that America was founded as a democracy.

Far from it.

The American Founding Fathers despised the thought of instituting a democracy. They set out to create a Republic....A Constitutional Republic, based loosely on a few democratic principals true, but a Republic controlled by the US Constitution, written by the People, with the People as the sole source of all power to govern, which is granted through the consent of the governed.

........Or else amend the constitution to abolish the Electoral College.

I wouldn't hold my breath about that happening.

Amendments have been offered over 11,000 times since the late 1700's, & of those only 33 have ever been successfully approved by Congress (Super Majority affirmative votes of both the House & Senate), much less sent to the States for Ratification by the 3/4's of the States (38 of the 50 States).

Outside of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) only 17 Amendments were successfully ratified by the States.

Only One (1) Amendment to the US Constitution has ever been repealed.......The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment,  which was a prohibition on booze.

The last Amendment, the 27th Amendment, made it through the process successfully back in 1992.

Being that the First 10 Amendments are the protected Rights of the American People, it has been suggested by SCOTUS that they may not be repealed, or possibly even amended, but nothing is impossible as long as an amendment process exists.

So, if there is any chance that an amendment might make it through the process & become Law of the Land, I would have to think it would have to be either extremely important, extremely popular, or a mixture of both.

Abolishing the Electoral College, IMHO, would probably fall far short of having enough support to pass the rigorous test....

DnD Central / Re: DnD entropy
Maybe before this place becomes completely abandoned, we should have a members gettogether irl somewhere convenient, such as Brussels? Flights are cheap right now.

Nah, I guess this place is already dead. The last chance was last year...

Old friends, political adversaries, fellow combatants, cherished one & are all missed.....each & every one of ya........

I have to admit, even though I would rarely post, I regularly stopped in to see "what's new & happening".....finding nothing that jarred my adrenalin....I trekked elsewhere.......I know I'm not alone because we had such good times here......probably more than most would think or imagine.

I wonder, when each of us registered into the forum, we all used an email address......couldn't a post or two to those addresses possibly alert the owners to stop on by, if for nothing else than to say "I got the message, so I came here, saw nobody & nothing interesting outside of memories, but I needed to leave my mark just to let anyone who might give a damn a sign that the lights are still on" a sign-in for others to note, & maybe say hi.....even elaborate where they might be found & under what handle they are using of late, just in case contact might be in the cards if one so pleases......dunno, but these are my thoughts for what it's worth....
Just for your information my lights are still on.......& I've been darting around the southern hemisphere.....Island by Island.....soaking up the toxic sun, & enjoying retirement......I still maintain constant contact with many dozens of friends, & former employees, now friends, in the States.....& yes I am still an active firearm/Second Amendment advocate, & I shoot often when I'm Stateside.....the ranks of my military service buddies have dwindled considerably......many of which have just faded away, but those still active.....hell we have a blast when we do huddle up for annual old yarns.....maybe a tad slower, but still just as sharp!! 

Well........all the best to you those that may read first mate says were into some good fishin' here soon, so I gotta go & get topside....I taste tuna today.......but know as long as DnD is still kickin', I'll be stoppin' by to take a look at "wuts happnin".........Cheers gents.....hope life's been good to ya'll!!!   

Polls: No Lasting Support for Gun Control
One Year After Parkland School Shootings

Source:     NRA-IRA 
Thursday marked the one year anniversary of the terrible crimes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL.

It was a somber occasion, but some media outlets couldn't contain their glee this week that last year's horror might finally advance the anti-gun agenda. A CNN headlined heralded "A new era on guns." "After Parkland, everything is different," Salon gushed.

But a new nationwide poll by NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist tells a different story. The News Hour headline summarized the essential point, "A year after Parkland, support sinks for stricter laws on gun sales ... ."

Specifically, the percentage of adults favoring stricter laws covering the sale of guns has dropped 20 points since the immediate aftermath of the Parkland killings, to 51%. In contrast, 46% of those surveyed believe such laws should be less strict or kept as they are. The difference between these responses is essentially a statistical tie, given the poll's margin of error.

As the Washington Post noted with reference to Gallup and Civiq's dalily tracking polls, "public support for stricter gun laws has returned to pre-Parkland levels."

The Marist poll also found only 42% of respondents believed stricter gun legislation should be an "immediate priority for the current congress," versus 56% who opined that it was not an immediate priority or not a priority at all.

Nevertheless, on Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee advanced two major gun control bills along strict party lines. H.R. 8 would ban most firearm loans and transfers between two private parties. H.R. 1112 would eliminate the current three day safety valve for uncompleted NICS checks. It would instead institute a new procedure where the transferring FFL would have wait 10 business days after initiating the open NICS check.  The prospective purchaser would then have to petition the FBI for an answer to the query, then wait an additional 10 business days before the transfer can proceed. 

Contrary to these surveys, the bills were portrayed by their proponents as reflecting a resurgent demand for gun control following the events of Feb. 14, 2018.

Yet even those proponents could not claim that either bill would have prevented the incident at Parkland.

Nor are they likely to stop other firearm-related crimes. Archly anti-gun media outlet recently admitted as much. "[A] growing body of research suggests that comprehensive background checks alone won't do much, if anything, to combat gun violence in America," it conceded, even as it argued for far stricter gun control measures.

Democrats likely have the votes to pass both H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 in the House. Their prospects in the Senate, however, appear far less favorable.

Whatever might have changed after Parkland, it hasn't altered the basic realities that Americans support the Second Amendment and that gun control advocates continue to push measures that would unfairly penalize law-abiding gun owners, without actually reducing violent crime.

We've said it before and we'll say it again, bedrock American values prove stubbornly resistant to gun control opportunism. Media firestorms always burn out eventually, but the flame of liberty endures.

The  NRA  has been a keeper of that  FLAME of LIBERTY   since 1871.

And unlike the media-fueled emotionalism of Gun-Control Supporters, the NRA isn't going anywhere! 


Governor Noem Signs
Constitutional Carry Bill

Source:      NRA-ILA     
Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association today applauded South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem for signing into law Senate Bill 47, NRA-backed legislation that fully recognizes the constitutional right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a concealed firearm.

"On behalf of the NRA's five-million members, we would like to thank Governor Noem for her leadership on this critical issue," said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA. "This law is a common sense measure that allows law-abiding South Dakotans to exercise their fundamental right to self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs."

This was the first bill Governor Noem signed into law.

South Dakota already recognizes the right to carry a firearm openly without a permit. Current law, however, requires a state-issued permit to carry that same firearm under a coat or in a bag. This new law simply extends the current open carry rule to concealed carry. Those who obtain permits will still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that South Dakota has with other states.

With this law, South Dakota joins Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, New Hampshire and North Dakota as the fourteenth state that allows constitutional carry.

That's 14 States that have recognized their Law Abiding Citizens have the Constitutional Right to carry their firearms without needing to apply for a Government permit to do so. The 2nd Amendment is their permit.

11 more States have pending legislation to do exactly the same, while others are strongly considering it as well!

Their permit is the United States Constitution's Second Amendment:

Where is all this Violent Gun Crime you fellas have predicted over the past 50 years?
In the news paper?

I mean let's not pretend there's not some sort of problem.

Seriously, if you remove the every-day criminal & gang-banger activity, what do you actually have left???  None to speak of................especially not the apocalyptic predictions raised by the gun-grabbin' Left that started about ±100 million firearms ago. If you listened to them we all should be knee deep in rotting, bullet ridden corpses by now!!!        

Over 30 U.S. States now permit "Open Carry (link)" ,  where one can carry a firearm in the open (as opposed to concealed), usually without a license or a special permit.  :yikes:

That said, according to the Hysterical-Left, this would mean daily "Wild West" type shootouts all over the USA, with unimaginable death counts.....including Grandmothers, Grandfathers, Women, & Children.

The Anti-Gun Leftist MSM would be ecstatic, there would be a feeding frenzy --- anything to help their Anti-Gun Agendas, & it would be splashed across every front-page --- lead story material on every news broadcast......not only in America, but all over the entire world - day in, day out!!!!

Well Anti-Gunners......why are violent firearm crimes trending down across the USA over the last 20 years, & still going in that direction?

Aren't more guns supposed to equate to more crime?

According to the    Washington Post    there are over 390 MILLION Firearms in Civilian hands in America today.......way more than there were 50 years ago.......way more than 25 years ago......way more than 15 years ago......way more than 5 years ago.

Where is all this Violent Gun Crime you fellas have predicted over the past 50 years?

Surely, you Anti-Gunners can easily explain this trend.......

An Armed Society is a Polite Society


What's on that patch, & above, is the second of two (2) complete, & distinct, clauses within the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, clearly defined for us by the United States Supreme Court in their landmark decision in D.C. vs Heller

Source:     MIC     
A common misconception about the Second Amendment is that it only protects arms for the militia, or in modern day, the National Guard or other government-organized military group.

This is simply untrue; a belief arising from ignorance about the language used in the Second Amendment and understanding its meaning as it was understood originally when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court helps us understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and the words used in their historical context.

In the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. vs Heller, the court explains that all citizens are the militia; the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like every other right protected in the Bill of Rights, and is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the 'meat and potatoes.' The court wrote: "1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (p.5). 

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that "announces a purpose" for the operative clause.  The court stated: "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms"(Heller law syllabus p.1).

The court also stated: "The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'" (Heller law syllabus p.3, emphasis added).

Note: "syllabus" in law briefs is not like a college course summary, but "a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case."

The Militia is all of the people

The court states: "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people" (p.7).

It's clear from the court's ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause (p.25) that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

"The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved" (Heller law syllabus, p.2, emphasis added).

"Keep arms" was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p.9).

Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militia

The court states that while Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already existed:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power ... to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence," (p.23).

Second Amendment doesn't mean any organized military unit

We find on page 11: "In numerous instances, 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia," adding further that, "It is clear from those formulations that 'bear arms' did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit" (p.11-12).  Fun fact: The National Guard, as it exists today, wasn't created until 1903.

So we see that at the time of its writing, it was clearly understood that the Second Amendment protected the right of all citizenry to have and carry arms. Our ignorance of the terminology, and perhaps the phrasing of the two clauses has clouded this truth, so obvious to our Founders. The Second Amendment means all of us, since we are all the militia, and in no way means only an organized military unit or the National Guard.

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you........

DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…

John Bolton declares International Criminal Court 'dangerous'
& 'dead to' America

He labels the ICC as a 'freewheeling global organization governing over people without their consent'

Source:      The Independent     
National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, John Bolton, has said the International Criminal Court (ICC) is "dead to us" in his latest speech.

He labelled the court as "illegitimate" and "for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us".

Mr Bolton, who has long held an unfavourable view of the court, who was speaking at a meeting of the Federalist Society, a conservative group based in Washington DC, said the ICC was "ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed outright dangerous".

The court, established in 2002 in The Hague in the Netherlands, has the power to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The US never ratified the Rome Statute that established the court and George W Bush, in the early days of the still-ongoing war in Afghanistan, never ratified it.

The court is getting ready to investigate detainee abuse in Afghanistan, an investigation Mr Bolton called "utterly unfounded", adding: "We will provide no cooperation to the ICC."

The former US Ambassador to the United Nations under Mr Bush, went on to say the "central aim of [the ICC's] most vigorous supporters was to constrain the US".

Mr Bolton said the court's statute had "glaring, significant flaws" and "constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the US".

He also acknowledged his hecklers as Code Pink, an international charity which works to end US-funded wars, his "friends who follow me" everywhere.

Mr Bolton, following a trend in the Trump administration of criticising multilateralism, branded the ICC as a "freewheeling global organisation governing over individuals without their consent".

He claimed American "soldiers, politicians, and private citizens" are at risk because the court assumes the automatic right to prosecute over everyone, even in countries which did not ratify the Rome Statute establishing the court. 

Israel, Sudan, Russia, and the US under Mr Bush, are four signatories of the statute who renounced their signatures and informed the UN they would no longer be subject to the legal obligations under the statute.

Mr Bolton said the US' "unsigning" of the Rome Statute was meant to protect Americans from the "unacceptable overreach" of the court.

He cited the 2002 American Service-members Protection Act, "which some have dubbed the Hague invasion act" Mr Bolton said and also prosecution within South Africa following the abolishment of apartheid as examples of why the court was "superfluous".

The act authorized the US president to use all means, "including force", to shield US military members from prosecution by the ICC, he noted.

The Trump aide said US courts and the military justice system already hold all Americans to "the highest legal and ethical standards".

Mr Bolton repeatedly hit out at the global body of which 123 countries are part, asking: "Would you consign the fate of American citizens to a committee of other nations [and] entities that aren't even states like the Palestinian authority?"

The US state department had earlier announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) office in Washington, partly out of a concern over the office's attempts to have the ICC investigate US ally Israel.

He supported the aggressive US stance against the ICC by citing internal management issues, like divulging confidential information to human rights ambassadors like actress Angelina Jolie.

Mr Bolton went as far as threatening ICC officials and prosecutors with sanctions and legal action "to the extent permissible under US law" and said those individuals could be barred from entering the country.

The overarching message of the National Security Advisor was that any perceived atrocity against humanity is to be deemed so by the people within those states, not by the international body.

"We don't recognise any authority higher than the US Constitution," Mr Bolton said.

DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Well, well.........the EU seems to have come to an impasse.

    ◆ Will Britain remain in the EU???  (they will not halt trading, probably just flex any muscle she may still have, from the perimeters)

    ◆ The USA has been rumored to be contemplating withdrawing any & all financial support from NATO, & withdrawing a large portion of the American presence out of the continent.

Seems, on both fronts, the EU best start getting it's ducks in order, because if both come to pass, there's a hungry bear on your doorsteps just salivating for a little taste.

The EU, those not pulling their fair share, best start coughing up 2.5%+ of their GDP pronto, or the EU might just be invited for dinner......And what's being served you ask?........................Why, the EU......

➤ ➤ Of Nato's 29 members, just five meet that target this year: the US, Greece, Estonia, the UK and Latvia. However, several, such as Poland and France, are close to the mark.

A word to the wise.......start forking up heaps of Euros, or say goodbye to the NATO you used to know!!!

The same Jews subtly irnore that their wrongful and violent creation of a Jewish State was heavily done by Jewish terrorist organisations who got away with it. We even had soldiers done in by them away back then. Disgusting history and practice by Zionism.

So, that's the crux for your anti-Semitic tirades.....during your lifetime you watched your once almighty empire turn tail & get thrown out of so many places, it sits badly in your craw. The only reason the big boys in the world entertain your pompous English attitude is because you maintain a nuclear arsenal. Once a mere-shell of an empire, you no longer have even a valid shell to hide behind.

So, the Israelis Freedom Fighters off'ed some English whores did they........ a credit to their just cause........ them I raise, we raise, a drink .... job well done!!!

Too bad Israelis didn't off more Union jacketed scum, but hey, they tried & succeeded, in winning themselves a homeland drenched in English blood, & forcing the remaining demoralized English to skedaddle home from the Americans made them do ........ not just once, but twice!! (1783 & 1815)     
Islam in particular is a danger and the only consolation is that later this century we will all be gone and Europe will be an even more hell-hole as will this small overcrowded island. Islam and democracy do not go well so our future generations are going to be a desperate time.  :(

And who said RJ & SmileyFaze  could never see things the same!!!???

Hey, RJ how bout it?

Howzat having some more black blood in the Blue-Blooded Royal Family ehh......feels good...dunnit!!?? 

Seems she isn't the first though, is she..........There has been Black-African Blood flowing in ALL the Royals veins for quite some time, hasn't there RJ!?

Well, nice to know we agree on the muzzie dilemma in Europe though.....   Ooh, ah, up the 'RA! ... Tiocfaidh ár lá

DnD Central / European Suicide

Geert Wilders and the Suicide of Europe

    None of Wilders's speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that surrounds him is directed only at him.

    The only person talking about these problems is Geert Wilders. Dutch political leaders and most journalists seemingly prefer to claim that Geert Wilders is the problem; that if he were not there, these problems would not exist.

    What adherents of this view, that the West is guilty, "forget" is that Islam long oppressed the West: Muslim armies conquered Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and the Balkans, and virtually all of Eastern Europe. The Muslim armies were a constant threat until the marauding Ottoman troops were finally turned away at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

Even if the Dutch politcian Geert Wilders had won and if the Party for Freedom (PVV) he established eleven years ago had become the first party in the country, he would not have been able to become the head of the government. The heads of all the other political parties said they would reject any alliance with him ; they maintain this position to this day.

For years, the Dutch mainstream media have spread hatred and defamation against Wilders for trying to warn the Dutch people - and Europe - about what their future will be if they continue their current immigration policies; in exchange, last December, a panel of three judges found him guilty of "inciting discrimination". Newspapers and politicians all over Europe unceasingly describe him as a dangerous man and a rightist firebrand. Sometimes they call him a "fascist".

What did Geert Wilders ever do to deserve that? None of his remarks ever incriminated any person or group because of their race or ethnicity. To charge him, the Dutch justice system had excessively and abusively to interpret words he used during a rally in which he asked if the Dutch wanted "fewer Moroccans." None of Wilders's speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that surrounds him is directed only at him. He defends human rights and democratic principles and he is a resolute enemy of all forms of anti-Semitism.

His only "crime" is to denounce the danger represented by the Islamization of the Netherlands and the rest of Europe and to claim that Islam represents a mortal threat to freedom. Unfortunately, he has good empirical reasons to say that. Also unfortunately, the Netherlands is a country where criticism of Islam is particularly dangerous: Theo van Gogh made an "Islamically incorrect" film in 2004 and was savagely murdered by an Islamist who said he would kill again if he could. Two years earlier, Pim Fortuyn, who had hoped to stand for election, defined Islam as a "hostile religion" ; he was killed by a leftist Islamophile animal-rights activist. Geert Wilders is alive only because he is under around-the-clock police protection graciously provided by the Dutch government.

More broadly, the Netherlands is a country where the Muslim community shows few signs of integration. There are now forty no-go zones in the country; riots easily erupt, recently in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Nijmegen. People recently from other countries repeatedly attack Dutch-born citizens. Some are so sure of their impunity that they publish online videos of their crimes. Throughout the country, an ethnic cleansing that Europeans are too scared to name is taking place in the suburbs, and non-Muslim residents often say they feel harassed.

Non-Muslim women are encouraged by local authorities to dress "modestly". As in Islam dogs are haram (impure), dog owners are asked to keep their pets indoors. In 2014, 2015 and 2016, Islamists demonstrated and shouted slogans in support of Hamas and the Islamic State.

Daily life has become particularly difficult for the 40,000 Jews still living in the country; districts long inhabited by members of the Jewish community have become almost entirely Muslim. Authorities recommend that Jews avoid any "visible sign" of Jewishness to avoid creating "unrest". Muslim delinquency is high; the percentage of Muslims sent to jail for various crimes is notably higher than the percentage of Muslims in the population. Six percent of the country's population are Muslim; about 20% of all inmates are Muslim. None of this is secret.

The only person talking about these problems is Geert Wilders. Dutch political leaders and most journalists seemingly prefer to claim that Geert Wilders is the problem; that if he were not there, these problems would not exist. At best, they utter fuzzy words intended to show strength; at worst, they turn their back.

A large percentage of the Dutch population is anxious; the constant demonization of Geert Wilders apparently tries to indoctrinate the people to settle for less.

A year ago, London's Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan stated that "living with terror attacks is 'part and parcel of living in a big city." It did not used to be that way . Rotterdam's Muslim mayor, Ahmed Abutaleb used harsher words; he said that migrants had to "respect the law or go home".

In late January, the incumbent prime minister, Mark Rutte, published a full-page advertisement in several newspapers warning immigrants to "act normal or be gone"; he did not use the word "Islam". On March 11, 2017, four days before the Dutch elections, Rutte decided to send a "strong message" to bar Turkish ministers from speaking in Rotterdam. Voters who had considered supporting Geert Wilders voted instead for Rutte's People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD); he thereby secured a last minute win. Wilders's party came in second. The Party for Freedom (PVV) won five more seats than before, but will have only 20 seats, out of 150. Rutte's VVD will have 33 seats. The Labor party, Rutte's main ally until March 15, collapsed and is down to nine seats, its worst result ever. The left, however, is not retreating: GroenLinks, a party largely made of former communists and radical environmentalists won 14 seats,10 more than before. The Socialist Party won 14 seats. Democrats 66, a "social-liberal", "progressive" and multicultural party won 19 seats, almost as much as the Party for Freedom. A Muslim party, Denk (Dutch for "think, Turkish for "equality "), won three seats. The VNL, a conservative party established by two former Party for Freedom members, was beaten so severely it will have no seat at all.

The next Dutch government will be a coalition of four parties, maybe five, and probably lean more to the left than previous governments. It will certainly include Democrats 66, and could include Groenlinks.

In the years to come, the situation in the country is certin to deteriorate. The Netherlands' fertility rate (1.68 children per woman) is not as catastrophic as in Germany, Italy or Spain, but is far below the replacement rate. The Muslim birth rate is higher than the non-Muslim one. Dozens of churches close each year due to the rapid decline in the number of practicing Christians; the churches are replaced by mosques. Radical preachers keep coming and proselytizing; Islamist organizations keep recruiting. In a report on the Islamization of the Netherlands published ten years ago, Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote that "resistance to radical forces within the Dutch Muslim community is weak". Nothing has changed since that time.

What is happening in the Netherlands is similar to what is happening in most European countries. In the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden, the number of no-go zones is rapidly growing. Islamic riots occur more and more often. Ethnic gangs are growing more violent. Ethnic cleansing is transforming neighborhoods. Jews are leaving for Israel or North America.The Muslim population is sharply increasing. Radical mosques are proliferating. Islamic organizations are everywhere.

Politicians who dare to speak the way Geert Wilders does are treated the way Geert Wilders is treated : scorned, marginalized, put on trial.

The vision of the world in Western Europe is now 'hegemonic'. It is based on the idea that the Western world is guilty; that all cultures are equal, and that Islamic culture is "more equal" than Western culture because Islam was supposedly so long oppressed by the West. What adherents of this view, that the West is guilty, "forget" is that Islam long oppressed the West: Muslim armies conquered Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and the Balkans, and virtually all of Eastern Europe. The Muslim armies were a constant threat until the marauding Ottoman troops were finally turned away at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

This European vision also includes the idea that all conflicts can be peacefully settled, that appeasement is almost always a solution, and that Europe has no enemies.

It also stands on the idea that an enlightened elite must have the power, because if Adolf Hitler came to power through democratic means eighty years ago, letting people freely decide their fate might lead to ill.

The dream seems to be of a utopian future where poverty will be overcome by welfare systems, and violence will be defeated by openness and love.

It is this vision of the world that may have prompted Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel to open the doors to more than a million unvetted Muslim migrants, despite a migrant crime wave and an increasing number of rapes and sexual assaults. The only candidate likely to beat Angela Merkel in this year's German elections is a socialist, Martin Schulz, a former European Parliament president.

In France, Marine Le Pen, the only candidate who speaks of Islam and immigration, will almost certainly be defeated by Emmanuel Macron, a former minister in the government of François Hollande -- a man who see no evil anywhere.

It is this vision of the world that also seems to have led British Prime Minister Theresa May to say that the Islamic attack on March 22 in Westminster was "not an act of Islamic terrorism".

This romanticized, utopian vision of the world also explains why in Europe, people such as Geert Wilders are seen as the incarnation of evil, but radical Islam is considered a marginal nuisance bearing no relation to the "religion of peace". Meanwhile, Wilders is condemned to live under protection as if he were in jail, while those who want to slaughter him -- and who threaten millions of people in Europe -- walk around free.

This adolescent vision is so embedded in the minds of millions of Europeans that a lot of fast growing-up will be required to eradicate it.

Get over the ignorant "GUILT" Europe, & grow some Spine..........Say NO to Multiculturalism, & deny them entry evermore.......Send the pond-scum back to where they spawned!!! 

More words of wisdom from PragerU:

DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…

Donald Trump announces 'withdrawal'
from Iran Nuclear Deal

Source:    The Telegraph     
Donald Trump pulled America out of the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, reimposing sanctions on the regime and delivering on an election campaign promise. 

The US president said the "defective" 2015 agreement would not stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb and signed a presidential memorandum enacting the US withdrawal.

Iran has been accused of failing to be honest about its nuclear ambitions while supporting terrorist groups and acting in an increasingly hostile way across the Middle East.

Britain, France and Germany condemned the move in a joint statement and promised to stay within the nuclear agreement claiming that it was the only way to prevent a Middle-Eastern nuclear arms race.

However, the White House announcement was welcomed by Israel - which released new intelligence on Iran's nuclear programme last week - and several Arab nations.

Mr Trump said: "It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.

"The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen.

"In just a short period of time the world's leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapon.

"Therefore I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal."

The US president added: "Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States."

Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, warned that if negotiations with other partners to the deal failed then the country's uranium programme will restart.

Shortly after the announcement, there were widespread reports of an explosion in Syria, possibly the result of an Israeli strike on Iranian forces.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least nine pro-government fighters were killed, including members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The decision to reimpose sanctions raises fears that European companies who trade with the Iranian government and do business in America could be hit with sanctions.

Mr Trump has long been a critic of the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed by his predecessor Barack Obama and lifted sanctions in turn for the country's nuclear programme being curbed. Mr Obama criticised the decision as a "mistake".

Mr Trump said he was open to striking a new, wider deal with Iran that would address behaviour such as the country's ballistic missiles programme and involvement in Syria and Yemen.

The US president said he wanted a "real, comprehensive and lasting solution" that would thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.

He also made clear he was delivering on a 2016 election campaign pledge, saying: "The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them."

The re-imposition of sanctions will come into effect between three and six months from now. It includes sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the country's central bank, and Iranian businesses.

European companies with significant presences in the US could be caught up if they do not curtail business in Iran before the sanctions come into effect.

Some of them were exploring ways to continue doing business in Iran after making significant investments following the announcement of the nuclear deal three years ago.

The UK, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying they "regret" the decision and making clear they would remain in the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The statement said: "Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement."

It went on: "We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements."

EU leaders are expected to meet within days to discuss how the deal can be rescued. Mr Rouhani, the president of Iran, said Iran would stay in the nuclear deal for now but was prepared to return to enriching uranium if its interests were not preserved.

He denounced Mr Trump's speech as "psychological warfare" against Iran but said his country would not bow to pressure. "Our people have always been victorious in the face of conspiracies and we will also emerge victorious at this juncture."

But he warned: "I have ordered Iran's atomic organisation that whenever it is needed, we will start enriching uranium more than before."

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister and a leading critic of the Iran deal, said Mr Trump had made a "brave and correct decision" to withdraw from the agreement.

"Israel fully supports President Trump's bold decision today to reject the disastrous nuclear deal," Mr Netanyahu said in a speech moments after Mr Trump's address.

The Israeli leader has consistently warned that the deal would pave the way for Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons and called the agreement a "recipe for disaster".

Shortly before Mr Trump's speech, Israel's military said it had detected "irregular activity of Iranian forces in Syria" and ordered Israelis on the Golan Heights to ready their bomb shelters.

Israeli officials have been saying for several weeks that they expected Iran to retaliate for a suspected Israeli strike against the T4 airbase in Syria, which killed seven Iranians. 

IMHO, the original deal was defective to it's core, & didn't hinder the Iranians from advancing their ambitions one bit.

The President made the right call, & will seek to force a better deal on Iran.

If Europe can't understand that, they can collectively piss up a rope, the US President is not going to backpedal due to Europe's piss-poor protest. 

Europe should remember which side their bread is buttered on, & after they get over their latest "hissy-fit", they should stand up strongly behind the USA, & help force Iran back to the table to sign a more equitable & accountable Nuclear arms agreement, not the porous deal they laughingly penned with the former Vacillator-in-Chief, Barrack Hussein Obama. 
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
If you like President Trump, you'll love this.....

If you hate President Trump, you'll fall to the floor crying, kicking, & screaming because it hits every button within your #NeverTrumpers butt-hurt snowflake being, since you still haven't come to grips with him winning the US Presidency, & becoming the most powerful man on the planet bar none!

DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…


People like SmileyFaze are vast numbers in nutjobland and easily controlled by the gun lobby mentality.  For a country that boasts about itself in the world what a gun mad place it is. Oh and did you notice that the gun pusher here ignored that school massacres were "overlooked and run into 3 figures. The answer we get from the gun nots is what? Oh the right to bear arms.

Ahhh, RJ.....would you be all too surprised if I were part of that dastardly "Gun Lobby" you so abhor?

JFYI, I am ......... & every penny I am paid to do the work I would gladly do for free, is the penny.....donated to the NRA so it can carry on with the great work it does.  

Now, did you know that if you were truly worried about lil cherubs being slaughtered by an evil gun (with a mind of it's own for that matter....the Left discounts the shooters culpability at the event for pressing the trigger) so RJ if you were visiting America, & really worried about bein' shot, the safest place you could hide would a school. You have the least likelihood of being shot in a school, than anywhere else in America........that's verifiable fact..... 

RJ, the price of Freedom is often very high, but in the end Americans will still get up, brush themselves off, grieve for a while, then get on with their lives.....never to forget of those who pay the ultimate price, but also never kept from enjoying the Freedom they so love about just being American. Americans don't want your prissy Gun Laws, or your johnny come lately multiculturalism either. America will always, now & forever, be America......the America that causes you to be completely apoplectic sittin' in front of your boob tube.......the America that soundly kicked the British out, not with words, no ...... George Washington's & Andy Jackson's men shot them fargin' Brits very very dead with guns, & the rest, the few that survived the ordeal skedaddled like homeless, cowardly, rats.......not once, but twice ........ skedaddled home to don the King's skirts like the lady-boys they were!!! 

You can cry crocodile tears, swear up a river, complain 'till you're blue in the face & shit tastes like candy, you will still have to live with one bold & glaring fact, & others like you everywhere in the world, you have to live with the fact that you all are helpless to do one blessed thing about OUR AMERICAN FREEDOM, OUR AMERICAN RIGHTS, & OUR BELOVED AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, & it must sit in your craw that that fact will never, no never, change......the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the Law of the Land, OUR LAND, & you, Ersi, & your ilk can do absolutely nothing to change that.....


Myth: Private guns are used
to commit violent crimes

Source:     GUN FACTS     
Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. (19)

Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. (20)

Fact: Fewer than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. (21)

Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. (22)

Fact: Cincinnati's review of their gang problem revealed that 74% of homicides were committed by less than 1% of the population. (23)

Fact: 92% of gang murders are committed with guns. (24)   Gangs are responsible for between 48% and 90% of all violent crimes. (25)

Fact: Most gun crimes are gang related, and as such are big-city issues. In fact, if mayors in larger cities were more diligent about controlling gang warfare, state and nationwide gun violence rates would fall dramatically.

It has nothing to do with the gun itself......a gun it an inanimate object, incapable of acting on it's own, but violent crime involving a gun, has everything to do with the one pulling the trigger.....

Enforcing harsher penalties on those that use firearms in the commission of a crime is more effective than completely banning guns.

Also, enforcing laws already on the books, including those harsher penalties, is the only true "Common Sense" gun control mechanism.

Even if the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution were removed/revoked, & Americans were not legally able to own a firearm at all, the statistics wouldn't change much, except there would be a marked increase in crime all across the board because criminals would have nothing to fear when they go about committing their violent crimes.

I really find SmileyFaze comments funny, he pays taxes for the police but he wants civilians to act as cowboys.

Funny?? You find it funny that people, teachers who love the children they teach, wish to voluntarily step up to protect them, & a government that will stand aside, & see that these brave teachers have the opportunity to protect the lives they cherish......protect them from heinous criminals who have absolutely no respect for the law. I don't find that funny, I find that an example of unselfish love! 

Only an ignorant asshole would find that "Funny".........right Bel???

It's called Freedom, something those under the thumbs of their governments know nothing about, in places where the only rights they have are rights "granted" to them..........rights that can be removed at any time. Oh, & when these teachers do what they need & freely want to do.....learn how to protect & defend the children & people they love.......they are exercising their Liberty.

Yep, it seems Freedom & Liberty was born in the 18th Century.....& self-governance became a reality after the Declaration of Independence was signed & delivered to the People who are living it today.

Taxes, good taxes, are paid for excellent police forces........brave men & women..........defending America 365 days a year......24/7.

When a deranged coward enters a school, hell bent on killing murder, those police do so wish to be there to stop them......Unfortunately though the police can't be everywhere, & when they are needed immediately to save lives, most of the time they are only 10-15 minutes away.......too far, & just too late for most.

There isn't any one-size-fits-all solutions to all situations, but having someone there, fully trained, & armed might be the difference between life & death for people who desperately need their help.

American teachers are hoping to fill in those 10-15 minutes, & provide that desperately needed help.

It may not always be the absolute best solution to every situation, but it's better than words, soft tissue, & bone as the only defense.

 Victoria Soto, sacrificed herself to save her first grade students by throwing her body in front of the gunman in Newtown, Connecticut, &  Aaron Feis, a football coach, died after putting himself between his students and the gunman recently in Florida.

Those my friends are true heroes!!!!!   

Not would be "Cowboys" like some assholes think.....right Bel???

American teachers are trying to make a difference, putting their lives at risk to save lives, & their governments are putting their trust in their citizens hands by encouraging the dismantling of "Gun Free Zones", & enabling their teachers to carry firearms in the schools to protect & defend until the police arrive, to assist or take over.

Schools with armed teachers, what a great idea!  :)
US schools might become the most secure worldwide.

I believe that 15 State Legislators have dropped the "Gun Free Zone" requirements in their States, & allow well trained & qualified Teachers/Administrators to carry loaded firearms while in the schools, & on school grounds, to protect their students, with almost that many voting to do the same next year.


Colorado's rural schools arming themselves against
danger, long response times

Source:      THE DENVER POST     
Teachers and staff members in at least a dozen of Colorado's most remote school districts are arming themselves instead of waiting for local law enforcement to rescue them in the face of a Columbine-style attack.

Those districts have employees carry concealed weapons, train like law officers and then be the first line of security should a school or classroom be targeted by assault.

Colorado law prohibits firearms in the classroom but does allow for security personnel to be armed. These smaller districts, fearing their vulnerability because of their far-flung locations, are training and reclassifying some teachers and staff as security personnel and overseeing the safe storage of their weapons.

The districts say they do so because hiring a security guard can cost more than a teacher's salary. They also are not relying on the local sheriff's department for help, where it could take a deputy 60 minutes to get to the front door.

"There's a bunch of us out here in a kind of no-man's land," said Rick Mondt, superintendent for the Briggsdale School District in northeast Weld County.

A bill sponsored by Colorado Senate Majority Leader Chris Holbert, a Parker Republican, will allow a county sheriff to provide a handgun-safety training course to any employee of any public school who also possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Under Senate Bill 5, which had its first hearing Tuesday, county sheriffs would consult with school boards to develop a curriculum for the courses.

The bill also says that someone employed by the school district and who carries a valid conceal-carry permit can carry a concealed handgun onto school grounds, if they have received permission from the local school board.

Training courses for teachers and other staff members are minimal in some cases, Holbert said, adding that his bill will establish and bolster training standards for armed school security.

"This is not a gun bill, but a training bill," Holbert said.

The bill's hearing drew both pro-gun and anti-gun speakers before passing 3-2 along a party-line vote. The majority Republicans supported the measure, which now moves to the full Senate.

Critics said the bill repeats the dangerous myth that more gun training will turn English teachers and custodians into experts at close-quarter combat.

"I am going to be a kindergarten teacher and I don't want to worry about a gun in my possession or one of my colleagues having a gun in their possession," said Carly Dougherty, whose aunt was killed during the assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

But the bill's proponents said having school staff members take gun training will discourage someone from targeting a classroom.

"My office is always fielding phone calls from schools and teachers who want to know how they can make the next angry, young man rethink his next move," said Dudley Brown, head of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

The districts with the policies say they are requiring the type of training routinely required of deputies and police officers.

"People think we are just offering up guns for anybody on our staff to use, and that is not the case," said Randy Underwood, a member of the Hanover School District school board in eastern El Paso County.

Hanover, which boasts an enrollment of 270 students, is now hammering out its policy that security will be provided by staff members with a conceal-carry permit who undergo annual training that meets school insurability standards.

Underwood voices the thoughts of rural school officials who say even the hint that some school personnel are willing to draw weapons to secure the safety of students will make a prospective attacker think twice before acting.

This is just the beginning. "Gun Free Zones" are magnets for deranged criminals wishing to commit heinous crimes without the fear of any armed opposition, because as we know "good guys obey the law", so if it's a "Gun Free Zone" nobody will be carrying firearms...right?

Well think again asshole!!!!!