Seguir na 2.ª Circular a 60 km/hora pelo meio de árvores
NUM TEMPO DE VACAS MAGRAS DEPOIS DE ANOS DE FESTAS COM OBRAS PARA DAR EMPREGOS AOS CABO-VERDIANOS E AFINS LISBOA RESISTE.JÁ VI GRANDES RENOVAÇÕES EM QUE NO JARDIM QUASE NÃO SE NOTOU A DIFERENÇA...
PERTENCE CERTAMENTE AO submundo da blogosfera DE ACORDO COM CIENTÍFICAS CLASSIFICAÇÕES DUNS GAJOS QUE VIVEM DOS MEUS IMPOSTOS E ANDAM A AFUNDAR PORTUGAL
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Monday, January 4, 2016
EUROPE FOR GENUINE EUROPEANS ONLY PLEASE...
Europe must get together and close its borders to all returning jihadis
Sweden’s decision to end its open frontier with Denmark is necessary for it to be able to defend itself
By Philip Johnston6:16PM GMT 04 Jan 2016 Comments149 Comments
You don’t need to have driven over the five-mile Oresund crossing between Denmark and Sweden to understand its importance. Any fan of the Nordic noir TV crime series The Bridge will be aware of how it facilitates borderless movement between the two countries to such an extent that they are virtually indistinguishable. Police officers dash back and forth between Copenhagen and Malmo into each other’s jurisdictions without a by-your-leave. So, too, do the criminals.
Sweden’s decision, therefore, to impose ID checks on travellers from Denmark is quite a moment. All train, bus and ferry passengers are now required to show photo identification before being allowed across a border that has not existed in any real sense for many years. The Scandinavians have been operating their own mini-Schengen area since the 1950s. The migration crisis, and Sweden’s propensity to take in more refugees per head of population than any other EU country, has put an end to that.
"Anyone who has gone to live in this self-styled caliphate should forfeit their nationality since they are so keen to adopt a new one"
However, this is not just about being able to control migration; it is also to do with security. How are countries to defend themselves against those determined to do them harm if they cannot identify who wants to enter and then decide whether or not to let them in? And that must include their own citizens, who pose the greatest threat of all.
The emergence of another Jihadi John character to taunt his homeland with promises of violence and carnage will reopen the debate about how to deal with those nationals whose loyalty now is to their self-styled caliphate.
The masked jihadi, speaking in a London accent, mocks David Cameron as “an imbecile” for ordering the RAF to target Islamic State (Isil) in Syria. He added: “All British government. All people of Britain, know that today your citizenship is under our feet and that the Islamic State, our country, is here to stay and we will continue to wage jihad, break borders and one day invade your land, when you will be ruled by Sharia.”
Leave aside the braggadocio and bluster about the ability of such a motley army to stage an invasion; but his threat to “break borders” is all too real. Thousands of foreign nationals have gone to fight with Isil in Syria and Iraq and many have returned to their home countries. The perpetrators of the Paris massacre were Belgians and French jihadis who had travelled in and out of Europe with ease, not least because there are (or were) no internal borders. Even though these people claim allegiance to their caliphate they use their citizenship to re-enter and conspire against the country they have disavowed. Why do we let them?
Anyone who has gone to live in this self-styled caliphate should forfeit their nationality since they are so keen to adopt a new one. It should be advertised loud and clear in all Muslim communities that if radicalised young Islamists go to Syria they cannot come back. They might try to, and might even succeed if their identity is never discovered; but most will be known to the police or the intelligence services and their names placed on a watch-list. It is hard to understand the arguments against banishing these people. They laugh at the international laws that prevent statelessness and scorn the half-cocked measures we are forced to introduce as a result, such as terrorist “asbos” and temporary exclusions orders.
There is an argument that returning jihadis can be deployed to dissuade other would-be fighters joining Isil in the first place. But finding former fanatics prepared to be branded apostates by their peers is not easy. The Government has an anti-radicalisation programme called Channel to which hundreds of suspected radicals have been referred to try to stop them falling into Isil’s clutches. Yet the scheme has been criticised for stigmatising all Muslims and it is not clear how successful it is at intercepting returning jihadis.
Around 700 British Muslims have travelled to Syria . Fifty or so have been killed while about 350 are thought to have been allowed back into the country and a few dozen have been convicted of offences for supporting terrorism abroad or are being investigated. But most have not been charged even though adherence to Isil is supposedly a crime.
Why is this? Has a decision been taken that most returning jihadis are harmless, made a mistake and will live blameless lives in future? Perhaps they will; but it is a big gamble for any country to take. It would be better not to let them back in the first place. That, of course, means being able to identify who they are and to intercept them if they try to return. Yet it is highly doubtful that our border controls are up to the task. A report yesterday from the Centre for Policy Studies disclosed that some 67,500 ships and planes are not met by overworked border staff while targets for detection and seizures are routinely missed. The National Audit Office reported recently that border points are routinely understaffed and that the troubled e-borders programme is only now showing signs of working after 12 years and £830 million spent on it.
We have also long had the equivalent of the Scandinavian no-border arrangement in the common travel area with Ireland.
There is growing concern that radicalised British Muslims returning from Iraq and Syria are flying into Dublin and Shannon and sneaking back into the UK by way of Northern Ireland. Although crossing points were often manned by the police or Army during the Troubles, passport controls have never been imposed in peacetime since partition. No one wants frontiers put up between Ireland and the UK; but nor did they want them reinstated between Denmark and Sweden.
"Psychopaths like Jihadi John and his balaclava-wearing successor claim allegiance to a state. Let them stay there"
Many of the assumptions about the movement of people that have been taken as gospel for decades will now have to be revisited. That includes the international barrier against rendering people stateless. Since this is not just a matter for the UK but for all countries whose nationals pose a threat to their security it should be possible to reach an accord to change or at least suspend treaties to recognise the new, dangerous reality. To argue otherwise is to risk a repeat of the carnage seen in Paris.
Why on earth should we not defend ourselves? After all, psychopaths like Jihadi John and his balaclava-wearing successor claim allegiance to a state. Let them stay there; we don’t want them back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12081296/Europe-must-get-together-and-close-its-borders-to-all-returning-jihadis.html
JIHADIS AND CRIMINALS OUT OF EUROPE
Sweden’s decision to end its open frontier with Denmark is necessary for it to be able to defend itself
By Philip Johnston6:16PM GMT 04 Jan 2016 Comments149 Comments
You don’t need to have driven over the five-mile Oresund crossing between Denmark and Sweden to understand its importance. Any fan of the Nordic noir TV crime series The Bridge will be aware of how it facilitates borderless movement between the two countries to such an extent that they are virtually indistinguishable. Police officers dash back and forth between Copenhagen and Malmo into each other’s jurisdictions without a by-your-leave. So, too, do the criminals.
Sweden’s decision, therefore, to impose ID checks on travellers from Denmark is quite a moment. All train, bus and ferry passengers are now required to show photo identification before being allowed across a border that has not existed in any real sense for many years. The Scandinavians have been operating their own mini-Schengen area since the 1950s. The migration crisis, and Sweden’s propensity to take in more refugees per head of population than any other EU country, has put an end to that.
"Anyone who has gone to live in this self-styled caliphate should forfeit their nationality since they are so keen to adopt a new one"
However, this is not just about being able to control migration; it is also to do with security. How are countries to defend themselves against those determined to do them harm if they cannot identify who wants to enter and then decide whether or not to let them in? And that must include their own citizens, who pose the greatest threat of all.
The emergence of another Jihadi John character to taunt his homeland with promises of violence and carnage will reopen the debate about how to deal with those nationals whose loyalty now is to their self-styled caliphate.
The masked jihadi, speaking in a London accent, mocks David Cameron as “an imbecile” for ordering the RAF to target Islamic State (Isil) in Syria. He added: “All British government. All people of Britain, know that today your citizenship is under our feet and that the Islamic State, our country, is here to stay and we will continue to wage jihad, break borders and one day invade your land, when you will be ruled by Sharia.”
Leave aside the braggadocio and bluster about the ability of such a motley army to stage an invasion; but his threat to “break borders” is all too real. Thousands of foreign nationals have gone to fight with Isil in Syria and Iraq and many have returned to their home countries. The perpetrators of the Paris massacre were Belgians and French jihadis who had travelled in and out of Europe with ease, not least because there are (or were) no internal borders. Even though these people claim allegiance to their caliphate they use their citizenship to re-enter and conspire against the country they have disavowed. Why do we let them?
Anyone who has gone to live in this self-styled caliphate should forfeit their nationality since they are so keen to adopt a new one. It should be advertised loud and clear in all Muslim communities that if radicalised young Islamists go to Syria they cannot come back. They might try to, and might even succeed if their identity is never discovered; but most will be known to the police or the intelligence services and their names placed on a watch-list. It is hard to understand the arguments against banishing these people. They laugh at the international laws that prevent statelessness and scorn the half-cocked measures we are forced to introduce as a result, such as terrorist “asbos” and temporary exclusions orders.
There is an argument that returning jihadis can be deployed to dissuade other would-be fighters joining Isil in the first place. But finding former fanatics prepared to be branded apostates by their peers is not easy. The Government has an anti-radicalisation programme called Channel to which hundreds of suspected radicals have been referred to try to stop them falling into Isil’s clutches. Yet the scheme has been criticised for stigmatising all Muslims and it is not clear how successful it is at intercepting returning jihadis.
Around 700 British Muslims have travelled to Syria . Fifty or so have been killed while about 350 are thought to have been allowed back into the country and a few dozen have been convicted of offences for supporting terrorism abroad or are being investigated. But most have not been charged even though adherence to Isil is supposedly a crime.
Why is this? Has a decision been taken that most returning jihadis are harmless, made a mistake and will live blameless lives in future? Perhaps they will; but it is a big gamble for any country to take. It would be better not to let them back in the first place. That, of course, means being able to identify who they are and to intercept them if they try to return. Yet it is highly doubtful that our border controls are up to the task. A report yesterday from the Centre for Policy Studies disclosed that some 67,500 ships and planes are not met by overworked border staff while targets for detection and seizures are routinely missed. The National Audit Office reported recently that border points are routinely understaffed and that the troubled e-borders programme is only now showing signs of working after 12 years and £830 million spent on it.
We have also long had the equivalent of the Scandinavian no-border arrangement in the common travel area with Ireland.
There is growing concern that radicalised British Muslims returning from Iraq and Syria are flying into Dublin and Shannon and sneaking back into the UK by way of Northern Ireland. Although crossing points were often manned by the police or Army during the Troubles, passport controls have never been imposed in peacetime since partition. No one wants frontiers put up between Ireland and the UK; but nor did they want them reinstated between Denmark and Sweden.
"Psychopaths like Jihadi John and his balaclava-wearing successor claim allegiance to a state. Let them stay there"
Many of the assumptions about the movement of people that have been taken as gospel for decades will now have to be revisited. That includes the international barrier against rendering people stateless. Since this is not just a matter for the UK but for all countries whose nationals pose a threat to their security it should be possible to reach an accord to change or at least suspend treaties to recognise the new, dangerous reality. To argue otherwise is to risk a repeat of the carnage seen in Paris.
Why on earth should we not defend ourselves? After all, psychopaths like Jihadi John and his balaclava-wearing successor claim allegiance to a state. Let them stay there; we don’t want them back.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12081296/Europe-must-get-together-and-close-its-borders-to-all-returning-jihadis.html
JIHADIS AND CRIMINALS OUT OF EUROPE
Ó MARCELO ELES SEMPRE PODEM COPIAR O AMILCAR CABRAL.EXIGIR A INDEPENDÊNCIA...
A alguns quilómetros de distância, em Oeiras, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa aproveitou a visita ao Bairro do Pombal – onde a maioria da população é de origem cabo-verdiana – para lamentar que os imigrantes residentes em Portugal quase não tenham representação política. "Não há praticamente nenhuma figura saída da comunidade imigrante que esteja no Parlamento, no Governo, no patronato, nos sindicatos, no poder local, é um país clandestino", afirmou o ex-líder do PSD, que quis evitar questões sobre o apoio de Passos Coelho à sua candidatura. Desta vez, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa não levou a marmita, mas aproveitou por provar uma cachupa e beber grogue, típicos de Cabo Verde.
~~~~
Numa visita ao Centro de Acolhimento para Crianças Refugiadas, em Lisboa, Sampaio da Nóvoa foi abordado por um jovem que lhe perguntou o que fará em relação ao tema se for eleito Chefe de Estado. O ex-reitor prometeu " grande abertura". No final, aos jornalistas, admitiu que o drama dos refugiados "é uma situação que nos preocupa a todos"
A COMER DE DOIS CARRINHOS NÃO?LISTEM LÁ BEM OS "BACK OFFICE" ONDE A MALTA ANDA EMBOSCADA...
O MARCELO QUERIA QUE OS POBRES CHEGASSEM E PRONTOS MANDEM LÁ...
OUVIR DIZER QUE SEM EMPREGO DEVERIAM IR EMBORA É QUE NUNCA NUNCA NUNCA...QUE O ESTADO SOCIAL INTERNACIONALISTA ESTÁ CHEIO DE DINHEIRO...
PS
ISTO É QUE É O FARDO DO HOMEM BRANCO...SE ESTÁ EM África está a mais e é racista.Se está cá na sua santa terrinha tem que "acolher" quem quiser vir e ainda por cima pagar...
PS1
SE NÃO TIRAR URGENTEMENTE UM CURSO DE SOCIOLOGIA OU UMA BAJUDA BOA SE NÃO SE OFERECER AO CASTIGO PORRA O QUE SERÁ DISTO.ESTE AVANTE DA REACÇÃO...
~~~~
Numa visita ao Centro de Acolhimento para Crianças Refugiadas, em Lisboa, Sampaio da Nóvoa foi abordado por um jovem que lhe perguntou o que fará em relação ao tema se for eleito Chefe de Estado. O ex-reitor prometeu " grande abertura". No final, aos jornalistas, admitiu que o drama dos refugiados "é uma situação que nos preocupa a todos"
A COMER DE DOIS CARRINHOS NÃO?LISTEM LÁ BEM OS "BACK OFFICE" ONDE A MALTA ANDA EMBOSCADA...
O MARCELO QUERIA QUE OS POBRES CHEGASSEM E PRONTOS MANDEM LÁ...
OUVIR DIZER QUE SEM EMPREGO DEVERIAM IR EMBORA É QUE NUNCA NUNCA NUNCA...QUE O ESTADO SOCIAL INTERNACIONALISTA ESTÁ CHEIO DE DINHEIRO...
PS
ISTO É QUE É O FARDO DO HOMEM BRANCO...SE ESTÁ EM África está a mais e é racista.Se está cá na sua santa terrinha tem que "acolher" quem quiser vir e ainda por cima pagar...
PS1
SE NÃO TIRAR URGENTEMENTE UM CURSO DE SOCIOLOGIA OU UMA BAJUDA BOA SE NÃO SE OFERECER AO CASTIGO PORRA O QUE SERÁ DISTO.ESTE AVANTE DA REACÇÃO...
TEMOS UM ESTADO SOCIAL MUITO INTERNACIONALISTA E GENEROSO.DISTRIBUIU MUITAS DISCRIMINAÇÕES POSITIVAS POR CONTA DO INDIGENATO QUE TEM QUE PAGAR
Estudantes estrangeiros em Portugal aumentaram 74% nos últimos cinco anos
São cerca de 34 mil os alunos de 200 nacionalidades que estudam em Portugal. O país é considerado um dos destinos favoritos para estudar.
PODIAM INFORMAR DOS "DESCONTOS" NAS PROPINAS.OU ATÉ NA SUA AUSÊNCIA...MAS ISSO CLARO É QUE É SEGREDO DE ESTADO...
São cerca de 34 mil os alunos de 200 nacionalidades que estudam em Portugal. O país é considerado um dos destinos favoritos para estudar.
PODIAM INFORMAR DOS "DESCONTOS" NAS PROPINAS.OU ATÉ NA SUA AUSÊNCIA...MAS ISSO CLARO É QUE É SEGREDO DE ESTADO...
OS ETERNOS SALVADORES SUECOS A VIRAR O BICO AO PREGO?PORRA...
Suécia começa a recusar entrada a refugiados sem documentos
País receia que vaga de refugiados e migrantes ameace a segurança nacional.
QUE TODOS OS SEM "PAPÉIS" ESTAGIEM UNS TEMPINHOS NO SOBADO DE LISBOA ALEGUEM QUE SÃO "PRIMOS" E VÃO TER PAPÉIS NA HORA...E ENTÃO SIM PODEM RUMAR A QUEM TENHA UM VERDADEIRO ESTADO SOCIAL...
País receia que vaga de refugiados e migrantes ameace a segurança nacional.
QUE TODOS OS SEM "PAPÉIS" ESTAGIEM UNS TEMPINHOS NO SOBADO DE LISBOA ALEGUEM QUE SÃO "PRIMOS" E VÃO TER PAPÉIS NA HORA...E ENTÃO SIM PODEM RUMAR A QUEM TENHA UM VERDADEIRO ESTADO SOCIAL...
Sunday, January 3, 2016
ENCHIA-TE TODA DE LEITE
JOSÉ SOEIRO
“Enchia-te toda de leite!”
http://expresso.sapo.pt/blogues/2016-01-01-Enchia-te-toda-de-leite
Isto tudo começou com o racismo. Corria o ano de 1995 e os loucos que se sentam no Parlamento decidiram pôr no Código Penal que as injúrias racistas passavam a ser crime! Então já não podia dizer na escola a um preto “vai para a tua terra, ó macaco!”? Uns anos mais tarde, nova mudança e pumba, veio a criminalização da injúria por religião, sexo, orientação sexual ou identidade de género. Um autêntico atentado à liberdade de expressão. Nous sommes Charlie, minha gente! Mas o Estado totalitário não ficou por aqui.
Em 2000, como se não houvesse tantos problemas mais importantes para tratar, foi a violência doméstica que passou a crime publico! Crime público, ou seja: mesmo que a mulher diga que quer levar no focinho e que um gajo só está a bater no que é dele, a queixa mantém-se! Vergonhoso. Um verdadeiro desrespeito pela vontade das próprias. Sim, porque a mim ninguém me diga que não há mulheres que gostam de levar. Algumas até se sentem valorizadas (não é, meninas?). E já dizia o outro: uma chapada bem dada nunca fez mal a ninguém.
Mas o pior veio agora. Depois de terem criminalizado até o assédio sexual, as mentes retorcidas que perseguem a nossa liberdade de expressão resolveram achar que a importunação sexual também devia ser crime. Escandaloso!
Dizem que foi por unanimidade, mas a mim ninguém me tira da cabeça que isto tem dedo das esganiçadas. Razão tinha o Dr. Henrique Monteiro, que alertou em boa hora aqui no Expresso que o “ridículo mundo do Bloco” queria era legislar especificamente sobre o assédio verbal: "Legislar sobre essa matéria é ridículo", garantiu. Quem nos avisa nosso amigo é.
Então um tipo roçar os seus genitais numa miúda que vai no autocarro ou virar-se para uma jovem na rua e dizer-lhe “enchia-te essa cona de leite” passou a ser crime? Inaceitável! Só mentes mesquinhas se lembrariam de tamanha perseguição a este tipo de relações livres entre as pessoas! A seguir a isto proíbem-nos de nos cumprimentarmos uns aos outros! Olhem para o que vos digo!
A RAPAZIADA INTERPRETADORA A CONFESSAR A SUA INCOMPETÊNCIA EM MATÉRIA DE "ESCOLA PÚBLICA" DONDE SAEM OS "CIDADÃOS" BEM FORMADOS OU MELHOR A MAIS BEM PREPARADA GERAÇÃO DE SEMPRE.
MAS DESCONFIO QUE A CRIMINALIZAÇÃO DO PIROPO TEM OUTRO OBJECTIVO:NÃO SE ATIREM AOS LEITES NAS CONAS MAS SIM AOS LEITES NOS CUS...SIM PORQUE ESSES NUNCA APRESENTARÃO QUEIXAS SEJA QUAL FOR A COR DOS CARALHOS...
Saturday, January 2, 2016
UI UI UI QUE A POLÍTICA DO BOM SELVAGEM NA "JUSTIÇA"NUNCA MAS NUNCA DEVE SER COLOCADA EM CAUSA
O novo jihadista do Estado Islâmico é gangster e terrorista
ANTHONY FAIOLA e SOUAD MEKHENNET
Há muito que as prisões europeias são terreno fértil para radicais islamistas, mas criminalidade e extremismo estão agora mais interligados.
SENÃO COMO SE PODIAM CHAMAR OS FRACTURANTES QUE LEGISLARAM DAR A "NACIONALIDADE" AO FIM DE 6 ANOS DOS QUAIS 3 PODEM SER EM PRISÃO?
ANTHONY FAIOLA e SOUAD MEKHENNET
Há muito que as prisões europeias são terreno fértil para radicais islamistas, mas criminalidade e extremismo estão agora mais interligados.
SENÃO COMO SE PODIAM CHAMAR OS FRACTURANTES QUE LEGISLARAM DAR A "NACIONALIDADE" AO FIM DE 6 ANOS DOS QUAIS 3 PODEM SER EM PRISÃO?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)