Saturday, September 26, 2015

Islam: No Such Thing As Human Error | VDARE

It was the will of Allah. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent it.

This is nothing new. After the Holy League slaughtered the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto in 1571, the explanation was this: “The Imperial Fleet encountered the fleet of the wretched infidels and the will of God turned another way.”
Yet again we have another example of that proves the truth of Pope Benedict XVI’s evaluation of Islam: It posits an irrational and capricious God.

Nightclub comes out swinging in racial discrimination case

If you want to have a truly free society you going to have to allow people to be free to be assholes.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/ceb34688803183e3f74fd9da8885ef7e

“WE’RE not racist, we’re just a bunch of a**holes.”

Jury declines to indict man in deadly road rage shooting


A Houston man arrested in a fatal road rage shooting will not face charges in the incident, a Harris County Grand Jury decided Wednesday.
Robert Craig Klimek, 43, of Houston, had been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after Ziad Abu Naim, 42, was shot in the head during a confrontation on June 26.
Klimek's attorney, Craig Seldin, said after the shooting that Klimek was acting in self-defense.
On Wednesday, a grand jury agreed and declined to indict Klimek, effectively dropping all of the charges against him.
The incident made national headlines after the Council on American-Islamic Relations has asked Houston police to investigate the incident as a hate crime, alleging that the gunman made anti-Muslim statements before shooting.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Articles: The Bare Naked Truth about the GOP and 2016


Here’s the dilemma -- and it’s a big one. Electing a Democrat president in 2016 would be bad for the nation, very bad. Conservatives agree. Establishment Republicans do too, in important regards, at least. To avert further troubles domestically and dangers overseas, the Mayflower truck that unloads stuff at the White House in January 2017 needs to be for a Republican. 
But to get a Republican in the White House, the GOP needs to nominate a candidate favored by the grassroots. Too narrow? Well, trends in survey research show that anti-establishment sentiment is intense among GOP grassroots voters -- and not going away.  Very simply -- and this is the hard reality -- the grassroots -- or a big portion -- aren’t going to turn out to vote for an establishment Republican (short of an existing or looming crisis).
This from Craig Robinson, who runs TheIowaRepublican.com.  From a report in the Centre Daily Times dated September 1:
Robinson found “the establishment is toxic,” and noted that in the Register poll, candidates who have never held public office, Trump, Carson and former business executive Carly Fiorina, totaled 46 percent. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida; Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, totaled 14 percent.
Robinson pointed out that Iowa is a caucus state, meaning that turnout operations are critical. Organization is a big part of the Iowa ball game, and that gives Jeb or others a chance to upset expectations. Or not. Trump, most notably, is working there.
Per CNN, Trump is “organizing, organizing, organizing.”  From an August 31 CNN report:        
One sign the campaign is serious about their strategy in the Hawkeye State: The Trump campaign hired top Iowa strategist Sam Clovis, once proclaimed as a "conservative icon," away from the Perry campaign. Clovis, who was Rick Perry's Iowa co-chairman, will serve as national co-chair and senior policy adviser.
Trump or no Trump, the grassroots rebellion isn’t disappearing. The intensity of distrust for the establishment by the grassroots makes bridging differences improbable -- that is, in ways beneficial to an establishment nominee. 
From the Washington Post’s feature “The Fix,” dated August 31:
1. Republicans want an outsider; Democrats don't
The poll finds 77 percent of Democrats would prefer a candidate with experience working the halls of Washington, D.C. On the GOP side, 73 percent prefer someone who is a D.C. outsider.
These numbers seem clearly reflective of the fields of primary candidates that exist. Democrats' top two contenders are clear D.C. insiders, which is probably why their party feels that way.
But with the GOP, their field does have some insiders too, and yet three-fourths want an outsider. It's a big reason Trump and Ben Carson are leading and Carly Fiorina is ascendant. It's also why candidates who have served in Congress are taking just one out of every five votes in the new Iowa caucus poll released over the weekend.
Grassroots alienation, in no small part, cost Romney the presidency in 2012. Nearly three years later, the abysmal and distrust-inspiring performance by congressional Republicans has caused that alienation to widen.  
The GOP establishment isn’t going to hand the nomination to a grassroots’ preferred candidate, of course. The establishment didn’t step aside for Goldwater or Reagan. It has deeply vested interests in nominating one of its own. The grassroots is going to have to fight for an acceptable candidate. Sooner rather than later, grassroots leaders need to huddle to agree on a plan to unite around a candidate. Doing otherwise invites a repeat of 2012, when Romney rode primary pluralities to the nomination against a fractured conservative field. 
Trump’s candidacy is the wild card. He’s proving to be the Great Disruptor. Trump has shown remarkable consistency in topping national horserace polls and surveys in early state nominating contests.  
If Trump rolls up majorities or larger pluralities in the early going, the GOP field will winnow out, as fundraising dries up and pros and volunteers head for the exits. (Rick Perry and the Scott Walker are already history, thanks in large measure to the Trump factor.) 
Smaller plurality victories for Trump are problematic (provided victories come). Enough candidates may be close enough to Trump’s totals to soldier on. (Don’t expect a big batch of candidates to follow Walker’s advice about immediately leaving the race to better takedown Trump. They all have their reasons for staying in. Others haven’t tanked as dramatically as Walker.)   
In any event, expect Jeb, Rubio, or Kasich capturing a quarter to third of the establishment-identifying GOP.
Would conservative candidates combine with Trump to push him over the top? Other than Cruz – who’s more a “maybe” – it’s hard to say. Would Trump support a conservative?  There’s a strong likelihood of Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich hammering out a deal. 
That’s why grassroots leaders need to be working now to secure a general understanding among non-establishment candidates. Getting candidates to unite at a critical juncture, and getting the grassroots to agree, is a lot like herding cats, you say? It’s a tough challenge and the goal may prove elusive, but the effort is indispensible. The grassroots will need to galvanize or risk opening the door to the establishment again in 2016.
If an establishment Republican wins the party’s presidential nomination, the likeliest scenario is a depressed turnout among grassroots voters, perhaps more significantly than 2012. That could negatively impact down-ballot races (that’s congressional, state, and local).
Like the establishment’s refrain about Obama in 2012, the argument now is that the grassroots will rally to oppose Hillary, Biden, or Sanders (however improbable Bernie is). If that reasoning were true, then Romney should be seeking his second term. 
Should the grassroots secure the nomination for a preferred candidate, it needs to find ways to fold the establishment into a coalition. That notion is cringeworthy for many grassroots activists.  But Reagan did so expertly in 1980. Trump, who’s the master of the “art of the deal,” would attempt to woo establishment leaders into backing him. 
Whether its Hillary, Joe, or Bernie, the Democrat must be defeated next year. But to win this time, victory must come from the grassroots up.  
Here’s the dilemma -- and it’s a big one. Electing a Democrat president in 2016 would be bad for the nation, very bad. Conservatives agree. Establishment Republicans do too, in important regards, at least. To avert further troubles domestically and dangers overseas, the Mayflower truck that unloads stuff at the White House in January 2017 needs to be for a Republican. 
But to get a Republican in the White House, the GOP needs to nominate a candidate favored by the grassroots. Too narrow? Well, trends in survey research show that anti-establishment sentiment is intense among GOP grassroots voters -- and not going away.  Very simply -- and this is the hard reality -- the grassroots -- or a big portion -- aren’t going to turn out to vote for an establishment Republican (short of an existing or looming crisis).
This from Craig Robinson, who runs TheIowaRepublican.com.  From a report in the Centre Daily Times dated September 1:
Robinson found “the establishment is toxic,” and noted that in the Register poll, candidates who have never held public office, Trump, Carson and former business executive Carly Fiorina, totaled 46 percent. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida; Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, totaled 14 percent.
Robinson pointed out that Iowa is a caucus state, meaning that turnout operations are critical. Organization is a big part of the Iowa ball game, and that gives Jeb or others a chance to upset expectations. Or not. Trump, most notably, is working there.
Per CNN, Trump is “organizing, organizing, organizing.”  From an August 31 CNN report:        
One sign the campaign is serious about their strategy in the Hawkeye State: The Trump campaign hired top Iowa strategist Sam Clovis, once proclaimed as a "conservative icon," away from the Perry campaign. Clovis, who was Rick Perry's Iowa co-chairman, will serve as national co-chair and senior policy adviser.
Trump or no Trump, the grassroots rebellion isn’t disappearing. The intensity of distrust for the establishment by the grassroots makes bridging differences improbable -- that is, in ways beneficial to an establishment nominee. 
From the Washington Post’s feature “The Fix,” dated August 31:
1. Republicans want an outsider; Democrats don't
The poll finds 77 percent of Democrats would prefer a candidate with experience working the halls of Washington, D.C. On the GOP side, 73 percent prefer someone who is a D.C. outsider.
These numbers seem clearly reflective of the fields of primary candidates that exist. Democrats' top two contenders are clear D.C. insiders, which is probably why their party feels that way.
But with the GOP, their field does have some insiders too, and yet three-fourths want an outsider. It's a big reason Trump and Ben Carson are leading and Carly Fiorina is ascendant. It's also why candidates who have served in Congress are taking just one out of every five votes in the new Iowa caucus poll released over the weekend.
Grassroots alienation, in no small part, cost Romney the presidency in 2012. Nearly three years later, the abysmal and distrust-inspiring performance by congressional Republicans has caused that alienation to widen.  
The GOP establishment isn’t going to hand the nomination to a grassroots’ preferred candidate, of course. The establishment didn’t step aside for Goldwater or Reagan. It has deeply vested interests in nominating one of its own. The grassroots is going to have to fight for an acceptable candidate. Sooner rather than later, grassroots leaders need to huddle to agree on a plan to unite around a candidate. Doing otherwise invites a repeat of 2012, when Romney rode primary pluralities to the nomination against a fractured conservative field. 
Trump’s candidacy is the wild card. He’s proving to be the Great Disruptor. Trump has shown remarkable consistency in topping national horserace polls and surveys in early state nominating contests.  
If Trump rolls up majorities or larger pluralities in the early going, the GOP field will winnow out, as fundraising dries up and pros and volunteers head for the exits. (Rick Perry and the Scott Walker are already history, thanks in large measure to the Trump factor.) 
Smaller plurality victories for Trump are problematic (provided victories come). Enough candidates may be close enough to Trump’s totals to soldier on. (Don’t expect a big batch of candidates to follow Walker’s advice about immediately leaving the race to better takedown Trump. They all have their reasons for staying in. Others haven’t tanked as dramatically as Walker.)   
In any event, expect Jeb, Rubio, or Kasich capturing a quarter to third of the establishment-identifying GOP.
Would conservative candidates combine with Trump to push him over the top? Other than Cruz – who’s more a “maybe” – it’s hard to say. Would Trump support a conservative?  There’s a strong likelihood of Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich hammering out a deal. 
That’s why grassroots leaders need to be working now to secure a general understanding among non-establishment candidates. Getting candidates to unite at a critical juncture, and getting the grassroots to agree, is a lot like herding cats, you say? It’s a tough challenge and the goal may prove elusive, but the effort is indispensible. The grassroots will need to galvanize or risk opening the door to the establishment again in 2016.
If an establishment Republican wins the party’s presidential nomination, the likeliest scenario is a depressed turnout among grassroots voters, perhaps more significantly than 2012. That could negatively impact down-ballot races (that’s congressional, state, and local).
Like the establishment’s refrain about Obama in 2012, the argument now is that the grassroots will rally to oppose Hillary, Biden, or Sanders (however improbable Bernie is). If that reasoning were true, then Romney should be seeking his second term. 

Should the grassroots secure the nomination for a preferred candidate, it needs to find ways to fold the establishment into a coalition. That notion is cringeworthy for many grassroots activists.  But Reagan did so expertly in 1980. Trump, who’s the master of the “art of the deal,” would attempt to woo establishment leaders into backing him. 
Whether its Hillary, Joe, or Bernie, the Democrat must be defeated next year. But to win this time, victory must come from the grassroots up.  

What the Media Is Showing, but Isn't Saying About Syrian Refugees

http://pjmedia-new.pjmedia.netdna-cdn.com/tatler/user-content/31/files/2015/09/migrants.jpg

The photo above was featured in a Reuters report on Syrian migrants travelling between Serbia and Croatia in an attempt to obtain refugee status in Europe. The fairly dull report read: Serbia gave Croatia an end-Wednesday deadline to fully lift a blockade on cargo traffic or face retaliatory measures, as relations between the ex-Yugoslav neighbors sour over the flow of migrants across their joint border. 

What the report didn’t bother noting was the fact that these migrants, in the process of living their “woe is me” refugee lifestyle, decided to desecrate a Christian graveyard, turning tombstones into campsites and cooking, chatting and snoozing with the dead.
That isn’t all they’re doing to the former Yugoslav nations. As the Reuters report noted, their squatter status has become a nightmare for both countries, which are already far from the best of friends. Croatia has closed its borders to Serbian buses full of Syrian refugees, and as a result, the borders have been closed to Serbian goods as well, reportedly costing the Serbian economy “millions in damage every day.” With a potential economic crisis looming, Serbia has sought intervention from the EU before it takes measures to “…demonstrate that Croatia cannot torture or humiliate Serbia and destroy Serbian business without consequences.”
More than 30,000 migrants have crossed from Serbia to Croatia so far. Yesterday, Hungarian police arrested a Syrian migrant “suspected of taking part in a riot on the border with Serbia, entering the country illegally and being a member of a group used as a front by Islamic extremists.”

Sheriff: 72-year-old man tied up in home invasion gets free, grabs gun

http://kptv.images.worldnow.com/images/8856821_G.jpg

GOLD BEACH, OR (KPTV) -
A 72-year-old man who was tied up in a home invasion robbery by two women managed to get free, grab his gun and send one of the suspects running from his home, according to deputies.
Curry County deputies, along with Oregon State Police troopers and Gold Beach police officers, responded to Crabapple Way about four miles east of Gold Beach at 10 p.m. Friday.
Investigators said two women entered the home of the 72-year-old victim, tied him to a chair and stole his cash, debit card and credit cards.
One of the suspects, identified as 50-year-old Sheila Clark of Coos Bay, then took off in the man's Chevrolet Blazer, according to deputies, while the second suspect, 27-year-old Michelle Taylor of Crescent City, California, stayed behind to guard him.
Police located the vehicle at McKay's Market in Gold Beach and then found Clark in the store. She was arrested for an outstanding warrant out of Multnomah County and faces additional charges of robbery, coercion, burglary, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and theft.
In the meantime, investigators said the man who was tied up was able to free himself. He grabbed a handgun and pointed it at Taylor, the sheriff's office said, and she ran away from the home.
Deputies searched the area that night and the next day, but Taylor was not found.
Deputies said Taylor is also wanted out of California on a felony warrant. Anyone with information about her location is asked to contact the Curry County Sheriff's Office.
Copyright 2015 KPTV-KPDX Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved.

Ben Carson Exposes Islamic ‘Taqiyya,’ But There’s Even More You Should Know

http://pjmedia-new.pjmedia.netdna-cdn.com/user-content/1/files/2015/09/Deception.png

Of all the points presidential hopeful Ben Carson made in defense of his position that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” the most poignant was his referencing of taqiyya, one of Islam’s doctrines of deception.
According to Carson, whoever becomes president should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran”:
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution.
“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.
Considering that the current U.S. president has expunged all reference to Islam in security documents and would have Americans believe that Islamic doctrine is more or less like Christianity, it is refreshing to see a presidential candidate referencing a little-known but critically important Muslim doctrine.
However, the widely cited notion that taqiyya is only a Shia doctrine needs to be corrected. This is false, and it lets the vast majority of the world’s Muslims, the Sunnis, off the hook.
According to Sami Mukaram, one of the world’s foremost authorities on taqiyya:
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[i]
Taqiyya is often associated with the Shias because, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni rivals, they have historically had more reason to dissemble. Today, however, Sunnis living in the West find themselves in the place of the Shia. Now they are the minority surrounded by their historic enemies — Western “infidels” — and so they too have plenty of occasion to employ taqiyya.
Making Muslims swear on Bibles would not be any defense against taqiyya. As long as their allegiance to Islam is secure in their hearts, taqiyya allows Muslims to behave like non-Muslims. Praying before Christian icons, wearing crosses, making the sign of the cross — anything short of actually killing a Muslim could be allowed. (In several instances, Muslims in the U.S. military exposed their true loyalties when they reached the point of having to fight fellow Muslims in foreign nations.[ii])
For those with a discerning eye, taqiyya is all around us. Muslim refugees have pretended to convert to Christianity (in the past and the present); an Islamic gunman gained entrance inside a church by feigning interest in Christian prayers. Examples abound on a daily basis.
Consider the following anecdote from Turkey. In order to get close enough to a Christian pastor to assassinate him, a group of Muslims — including three women — feigned interest in Christianity, attended his church for over a year, and even participated in baptism ceremonies. Said the pastor, Emre Karaali:
These people had infiltrated our church and collected information about me, my family and the church and were preparing an attack against us. … Two of them attended our church for over a year and they were like family.
If some Muslims are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already downtrodden Christian minorities in their midst, does anyone doubt that a taqiyya-practicing Muslim presidential candidate might have no reservations about swearing on a stack of Bibles?

5 Essential Life Lessons I Never Learned in School


http://pjmedia-new.pjmedia.netdna-cdn.com/lifestyle/user-content/36/files/2012/11/school_its_way_more_boring_than_when_you_were_there-460x307.jpg

Here are five essential life lessons I never learned in school which would have saved me a lot of trouble.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

VIDEO=> Angry Muslims Taunt NJ School Officials: "We're Going to Be the Majority Soon" - The Gateway Pundit

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/muslims-jersey.jpg

Muslim parents taunted school officials in Jersey City, New Jersey after schools would not close for Eid al-Adha. “We’re going ...

“Refugees” Are Breaking Into Europe In Search Of…White Supremacy!



If you hope for your kids to live well, you want them living under white supremacy—in a country built by and governed by whites, preferably by northwest Europeans, most preferably by the British.
And that’s exactly what people are doing. Everyone’s dream worldwide is to live in a country built by and governed by northwest-European whites. You can curl your lip all you like when you say “white supremacy,” but the truth is, white supremacy’s awfully popular with the wretched of the earth.
You even see something similar within the borders of the U.S.A. Remember Black Separatism? It was alive and well as late as the 1980s. Louis Farrakhan urged American blacks to start their own companies, build their own factories, stop depending on the white man for stuff. [THE KEY TO SUCCESS? Do for Self, by Louis Farrakhan, Final Call, Vol 1. No. 4]
Independence! Self-support! Turn your back on the white devil and his works—look to your black brothers and sisters!
That didn’t work out any better than independence for European colonies did. Black Americans today are more dependent on whites than ever.
Black American revolutionary Stokely Carmichael settled in the West African nation of Guinea in 1968 and lived there until he died thirty years later. Can you imagine a black American leader doing that nowadays? Jesse? Al? Ta-Nehisi?It’s unthinkable.
Why uproot yourself and move to some trashcan country when you can live in ease and luxury milking white guilt right here in the U.S.A.? Why go to the trouble of building your own factory, when Whitey will build one for you, if you scare him enough and guilt-trip him enough?
This decades-long trend I’m describing is despair—the death of hope. But there’s also a sort of cynical throwing-up of hands, saying something like: “Ah, screw it, my people are never going to make any decent showing by ourselves. Let’s settle for living off the white man’s bounty.”
The wretched of the earth—Muslims, blacks, American Indians, Pacific Islanders—have settled into dependency—or, if you don’t mind really plain speaking: parasitism.
They’ve tried independence and self-support, and it didn’t work out. So, live off the white man’s benevolence. If you don’t have the good fortune to live in a white country, just break into one.
That’s been happening in the U.S. since the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act. It’s what’s happening in Europe now.

New Zealand Zoo won't euthanize Tiger that killed Zookeeper.



Come and see the genuine man-eating tiger!


US Army Wants More Firepower across Formations, General Says

http://images.military.com/media/equipment/military-vehicles/m1126-stryker-combat-vehicle/stryker-combat-vehicle-09.jpg

A U.S. Army technology czar wants to arm the service's combat formations, from squads to brigade combat teams, with firefight-ending weapons.
"We are undertaking broad range of efforts to improve the lethality of our force," Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, director of Army Capabilities Integration Center and deputy commanding general of Futures at Training and Doctrine Command, told an audience at the 2015 Maneuver Conference at Fort Benning, Georgia.
During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army emphasized armor protection over lethality and mobility, McMaster said.
"And so what we are trying to do now is ensure that every formation in our Army has the appropriate combination of mobility, protection and lethality to overmatch the enemy," he said. "We don't want 14-hour firefights. We want four-second firefights."
One of the goals of the effort is to build more lethality into the squad.
"We are weighed down; not as mobile as we want to be to conduct fire and maneuver and close contact with the enemy, so we need to lighten our kit," McMaster said. "We need to lighten what we are wearing for protection, but we also need to lighten our weapon systems and our ammunition."
This is being looked at under squad foundation of the Decisive Force Initiative.
"We also want more firepower; we want a firefight-ending capability," McMaster said, asking if anyone had served in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley, an area where some of the fiercest fighting of the war took place.
"What happened when you bump up against an enemy that had multiple RPGs?  We were outgunned," McMaster said. "So how do we get that firefight-ending capability? The counter-defilade capability right now is represented by the XM25," a shoulder-fired weapon that shoots a 25mm airburst round designed to detonate over enemy hiding behind cover.
To McMaster, that high-tech weapon isn't enough.
"We want to build into the squad the ability to create smoking boots on the other end of the engagement," he said. "In general, bullets that explode are better than bullets that don't explode."
The other key part of this is combat vehicles, McMaster said.
The Army has been talking for some time now about equipping infantry brigade combat teams with mobile protected firepower platforms that can ensure freedom of movement for infantry in close contact with the enemy and can do so in forcible entry operations.
McMaster wants to make this a reality.
Another effort involves equipping cavalry squadrons a light reconnaissance vehicle with enough firepower to destroy enemy recon formations. Such a vehicle would also allow them to provide security for light infantry on an approach march in ground mobility vehicles, McMaster said.
Stryker vehicles will also get more firepower.
The plan is to equip at least every other Stryker vehicle with a 30mm cannon in addition to machine guns, McMaster said.
"We are not going to change the way a Stryker fights, but if you are going to close with the enemy over a danger area, it would be nice to have a 30mm [high-explosive] round that's exploding on the enemy's ass as you are closing on him," McMaster said.
--Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com

Hungarian army given sweeping powers against migrants


Hungary's parliament gave Monday the army and police sweeping new powers to keep migrants out as populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban warned that Europe was being "overrun". "Our borders are in danger, our way of life built on respect for the law, Hungary and the whole of Europe is in danger," the 52-year-old said in Budapest.

First driverless pods to travel public roads arrive in the Netherlands

Looks like the Dutch got tired of obnoxious foreign taxi drivers. The robots can be programed to speak intelligible Dutch too.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03447/WEpodcrop_3447373k.jpg

The first self-driving electric shuttle for use on public roads has been delivered to the Netherlands. The "WEpod" will take passengers between the two towns of Wageningen and Ede in the province of Gelderland from November.
Autonomous public transportation does exist in other parts of the world, such as the ParkShuttle bus in Rotterdam, the Heathrow Pod in London and the LUTZ Pathfinder in Milton Keynes, which run on special single trajectory lanes, or in pedestrianised areas. The WEpods in Gelderland will drive on regular roads amongst public traffic.
During its test phase it will not travel in challenging conditions, such as in rush hour traffic, at night or in bad weather. A control room will monitor the vehicle and safety of its passengers. The six-person vehicle has a maximum speed of 25 kilometres per hour.
The WEpod team intend to equip the vehicle with additional technical equipment such as cameras, radar, laser and GPS to track the environment the vehicle will travel in.
According to Joris Ijsselmuiden, a researcher at Wageningen University which is testing the pods, the vehicles will also be equipped with multiple cameras. The cameras are used to map landmarks, which is used as an alternative navigation tool when GPS accuracy is masked by road obstacles like trees.
The WEpod can be booked using an app which will allow passengers to reserve a seat and specify their starting points and their destinations. Vehicles are expected to select their itineraries independently.
The electric pod was originally designed by French vehicle manufacturer and robotic specialists EasyMile. It was developed for Citymobil2, an EU-funded project looking at automated road transport systems across urban Europe.
Through Citymobil2, the electric driverless shuttles have already transported 19,000 passengers in Vantaa, Finland and carried passengers on the EPFL university campus, in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The EZ10, which is the WEpod's predecessor, being tested in Vantaa, Finland
The vehicles will initially ride on a fixed route, but it is expected to expand to more routes and other regions in the Netherlands from May 2016 onwards.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

BREAKING NEWS: Teenage robber is found GUILTY of murdering boy, 15

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/17/17/2C6E696200000578-0-image-a-13_1442508096156.jpg

Joshua Williams, 18, stabbed 15-year-old Alan Cartwright (pictured) in the chest as he cycled along a busy street in Islington, North London, with friends.

Articles: Carson's Right -- Islam is Incompatible with the Constitution



Speaking on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, Dr. Ben Carson was asked if a president’s religious beliefs mattered. He said they did, and, when pressed on the issue, said no Muslim should be President of the United States (insert Obama joke here) and that in fact Islam is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution:
Chuck Todd: Should a president’s faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?
Ben Carson: Well I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it is inconsistent with the values and principles of America then of course it should matter. But, if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution then no problem
Todd: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?
Carson: No I do not, I do not. I would not advocate that we would put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.
Ben Carson is right. So says Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar who said in 2009 that democracy and Islam are like matter and anti-matter in physics:
Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues….
In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ.
This is self-evident in the fact that Islamic theocracy rules throughout the Islamic world, crushing human rights such as those delineated in our Bill of Rights. In some “secular” states like Turkey and Egypt, democracy is tolerated for Western acceptance, but trying telling a Coptic Christian in Egypt, for example, about the freedom of religion or try imposing aa government dictate contrary to Islam, the way ObamaCare imposes on pro-life Christians, on Muslims. Under Islam and Shari Law, there is no freedom of religion or speech and equal rights are forbidden to women and non-Muslims. If you should convert to Christianity, you have signed your death warrant.
As Islamic expert Robert Spencer notes in FrontPage Magazine:
In January 2013, the Saudi Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak declared: “Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems.” The idea of popular elections, he said, “has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”…
Tunisian author Salem Ben Ammar wrote last month: “‘To hell with democracy! Long live Islam!’ One hundred percent of Muslims agree with that. To say anything else is apostasy from Islam. These two competing political systems are antithetical to each other. You can’t be democratic and be a Muslim or a Muslim and be a democrat. A Jew can’t be a Nazi and a Nazi can’t be a Judeophile.”
Ben Carson is merely recognizing what Islamic scholars and political leaders publicly declare. Islam and democracy are incompatible and Sharia Law is particularly toxic to our way of life and human rights and freedom, as Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, noted:
Gaffney believes that Obama’s policies should be the “subject of very concerted debate.” He is hoping that what Dr. Ben Carson did on Sunday with his comments brings to light the fact that a president cannot “uphold, defend and support the Constitution of the United States” and adhere to Sharia Law. “It cannot be done. Because Sharia says, ‘No it’s not the Constitution of the United States that must govern. It is God’s law. It is Sharia. It is this repressive totalitarian, misogynistic program that must govern.’”
An October 2010 report from the Center for Security Policy documented the threat posed by Islam and Sharia Law to our democracy, our government, our Constitution, and our way of life:
The report, whose authors included former defense, law enforcement and intelligence officials such as Clinton administration CIA Director R. James Woolsey and Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, a career counterterrorism prosecutor during the Clinton administration, was releasedWednesday at a Capitol Hill press conference.
The report concludes the Shariah system is "totalitarian" and incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, our system of democratic lawmaking and the constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience, individual liberty and freedom of expression, including the right to criticize Shariah law itself….
The report cites the 1991 document from the Muslim Brotherhood in North America describing a covert process of Islamic "settlement" in the United States. The plan is to carry out a "grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated," the document stated.
These documents and statements by Muslim clerics and radical Islamists are warning of their intentions that we would be foolish to ignore. We ignored the announced goals and intentions of Adolf Hitler in his book, Mein Kampf, which came to pass in a horrific war and the Holocaust. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:
Shariah is used around the world to condone barbarities such as the stoning and subjugation of women and the execution of homosexuals. It does not support freedom of speech, conscience or religion or even equal treatment under the law
Ben Carson is right. To paraphrase President Barack Hussein Obama, the future should not belong to those who threaten the U.S. Constitution.