Agenda 21 Moving Forward in California

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/local-government-tries-to-regulate-businesses-out-of-existence-so-they-wont-have-to-compensate-the-owners/

While this article (Above) does not mention UN Agenda 21 specifically, it has the plan written all over it.

Ventura County had begun to apply zoning regulations in a manner that forces people to leave rural areas. An inn that has been closed down since 2002 has been hammered with restrictions in an effort to keep it from being reopened by the owner.

"The inn was forced to close down in 2002 when the owner, Tom Wolf, had a heart attack. Yet now it’s being stopped from reopening because, according to the county, this building has numerous zoning violations, including an unauthorized chicken coop.

There’s just one problem – not only is the idea of an unauthorized chicken coop natively ridiculous, but according to the business’s owner, there is no chicken coop on the premises at all. That’s right, the authorities have resorted to accusing the Inn of violations for buildings that don’t exist on the property.

Why? According to the video [In the link at top], because the local government doesn’t like the fact that there are human beings living out in the rural parts of Ventura County and spoiling it for the wildlife.

“They wanted a complete open space with nothing but deer and frogs and no people,” says Tom Wolf, the owner of the Pine Mountain Inn.

And no, this isn’t just the railing of a bitter business owner. There is an actual policy on the books in Ventura County that prevents any economic development of the rural areas in Ventura County. Fair enough, but what about the businesses that already exist in those areas? Apparently, the county’s proposed solution is to basically force all the rural residents into the urban center so as to get rid of all these messy, environmentally unfriendly humans."

Here are some links for newbies to the Agenda 21 saga. It is an ugly plan to merge Marxist dogma with radical environmentalism. The intention is to force all but those needed to work the farms (those that are allowed to remain as farms) into densely-populated urban areas. The Country and Suburban home, indeed all single-family homes, private vehicles, etc., are all on the list for removal.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/obamas-rural-council-and-un-agenda-21.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/un-scientists-call-to-move-people-into.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/farming-families-targeted-by-dept-of.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/agenda-21-more-details-and-original.html

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/03/30/un-backed-scientists-call-for-mega-city-population-lockup/

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/agenda-21-iclei-creation-and-purpose.html

Bloomberg to Ban Large Soda Servings

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nyc-mayor-bloombergs-actual-defense-of-large-drink-ban-we%E2%80%99re-simply-forcing-you-to-understand/

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/05/bloomberg-force-cities-to-take-in.html


In the post in the top link, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg explains his intentions behind his new proposed ban on large servings of sugary drinks. The second link is one from a week ago in which a brief history of Bloomberg's moves is provided.

This is how he rationalizes his soda ban:

“The idea here is, you tend to eat all the food in the container in front of you,” Bloomberg said on MSNBC Thursday afternoon. “If it’s a bigger container, you eat more. If somebody put it in a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.”

And then there’s this: “We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

“It’s not perfect, it’s not the only answer, it’s not the only cause of people being overweight – but we’ve got to do something,” he added. “We have an obligation to warn you when things are not good for your health.”

And: “I would just like to … force the consumer to hopefully move over to the less fattening drinks and everybody will be better off.”

- as I noted in the second post, this from the man who affected to be, as a kid, inspired by Johnny Tremain, a story set in the early days of the movement for American Independence, a time in which freedom from oppressive government was a rallying cry.

Obama Knows Most About Judaism Out of All US Presidents

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/obama-awards-rock-icon-bob-dylan-highest-presidential-honor-1.433388

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-is-the-polish-pm-demanding-an-apology-from-president-obama/

Just keep letting him talk........

The day before the intelligent (I was told that he was smart before and after the 2008 election) President referred to WWII concentration camps that happened to have been in Poland as Polish Death Camps (TheBlaze link), he claimed to know more about Judaism than any other US President. (Haaretz link) His reason and justification for such a claim?

He read about it.

"Obama also stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it - and wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel about their support to Israel.

William Kristol, founder of The Weekly Standard, criticized Obama's comments at the meeting with Conservative rabbis, saying that the "reason no one asks John Boehner or Mitch McConnell about their support for Israel is because they really do support Israel," adding: "The reason people ask Barack Obama about his support for Israel is because his support for Israel has been equivocal."

Kristol also tagged as "truly pathetic" President mentioning his "Jewish friends" in Chicago to support his pro-Israel credentials, and ripped at the claim he "knows more about Judaism than any other president."

"His vanity boggles the mind". Kristol wrote, adddig: "One could begin by citing Adams and Madison, who knew Hebrew, or Harry Truman, who knew Jewish history."

The conservative writer added that in "thinking about the presidents since Truman, though, I'd guess the president who knew the most about Judaism was Jimmy Carter, who taught Sunday school and had a deep interest in religion.' "

I have come to believe that Obama is the product of three major flaws. The first, and most obvious, is that he is not very bright. The second is that he is a true product of our educational system, a structure from which enormous amounts of world and American history has been excised. The third is that he is terribly narcissistic and therefore believes that people will believe any claim that he makes. His pattern of lying is as close to the Munchausen syndrome as I have ever seen in a politician.  The three come together like a train wreck.

In the case of Obama, I have often held that there was a reason for the second. In order to properly prepare the people for "Year Zero*", the beginning of the new world order in which all that occurred prior to the new government is not taken into account nor even discussed, they all had to be made ignorant of their history and culture, including that of their nation. Only by spitting out graduates that know nothing of Greek, Roman, Northern European, Christian, and Jewish history could the Leftists of Academia create blank slates in the minds of the Proletariat and thus leave them susceptible Marxist arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion)

"The term Year Zero, applied to the takeover of Cambodia in 1975 by Pol Pot, is an analogy to the Year One of the French Revolutionary Calendar. During the French Revolution, after the abolition of the French monarchy (September 20, 1792), the National Conventioninstituted a new calendar and declared the beginning of the Year I. The Pol Pot takeover of Phnom Penh was rapidly followed by a series of drastic revolutionary agrarian socialism policies resulting in the Cambodian Genocide, whose death toll vastly exceeded that of the French Reign of Terror.

The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up."

Anyway, Obama serves up another example of his outrageous vanity. It is clear that he does not even take the time to ask any of his advisors to do a Google search with terms such as "Judaism or Hebrew US Presidents" to first find out if any other Presidents are known to have any appreciable knowledge of Judaism. Any one of us could come up with other search terms/keywords to glean some information quickly.  

Barry just can't wait for that. An idea pops up in his head, and it rolls right off the tongue. He knows that the Media will, as the do with all of the his gaffes, either ignore it or get someone to explain it in a nice way.

In an old The Simpson's episode, Bart gets a Big Brother (Actually the show calls it "Bigger Brothers") because Homer never does anything with him. Homer, feeling insulted and jealous, volunteers to be a Bigger Brother himself. When asked why he wants the position, his mind tells him "Don't say revenge, Don't say revenge." Homer utters a one-word answer "Revenge". His mind says "Do'oh, I'm outta here". We then hear in his mind footsteps and the door being shut  

The door was shut a long time ago. Now all that we are left with are his delusions of grandeur.

Just to test my claim, I typed in "Jewish History US Presidents". The following post was about three results down:


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/presquote.html

John Adams-

I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation. (Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson)

Farther I could find it in my heart to wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelites . . . & marching with them into Judea & making a conquest of that country & restoring your nation to the dominion of it. For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation. (Letter to Mordecai Manuel Noah, 1819) 1

John Quincy Adams-

[I believe in the] rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation. (Letter to Major Mordecai Manuel Noah)


Abraham Lincoln-

Not long after the Emancipation Proclamation, President Abraham Lincoln met a Canadian Christian Zionist, Henry Wentworth Monk, who expressed hope that Jews who were suffering oppression in Russia and Turkey be emancipated “by restoring them to their national home in Palestine.” Lincoln said this was “a noble dream and one shared by many Americans.” The President said his chiropodist was a Jew who “has so many times ‘put me upon my feet’ that I would have no objection to giving his countrymen ‘a leg up.’”


Woodrow Wilson-

The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth. (Reaction to the Balfour Declaration)

Recalling the previous experiences of the colonists in applying the Mosaic Code to the order of their internal life, it is not to be wondered at that the various passages in the Bible that serve to undermine royal authority, stripping the Crown of its cloak of divinity, held up before the pioneer Americans the Hebrew Commonwealth as a model government. In the spirit and essence of our Constitution, the influence of the Hebrew Commonwealth was paramount in that it was not only the highest authority for the principle, “that rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,” but also because it was in itself a divine precedent for a pure democracy, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy or any other form of government.

To think that I, the son ofthe manse, should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people.


Warren Harding-

It is impossible for one who has studied at all the services of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity.


Calvin Coolidge-

Coolidge expressed his “sympathy with the deep and intense longing which finds such fine expression in the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine.”

The Jews themselves, of whom a considerable number were already scattered throughout the colonies, were true to the teachings of their prophets. The Jewish faith is predominantly the faith of liberty.

Harry Truman-

I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now. (Granting de facto recognition to the new Jewish State—11 minutes after Israel's proclamation of independence)

I believe it has a glorious future before it—not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization. (May 26, 1952)

I had carefully read the Balfour Declaration. I had familiarized myself with the history of the question of a Jewish homeland and the position of the British and the Arabs. I was skeptical, as I read over the whole record up to date, about some of the views and attitudes assumed by the 'striped-pants boys' in the State Department."


Lyndon Johnson-

Our society is illuminated by the spiritual insights of the Hebrew prophets. America and Israel have a common love of human freedom and they have a common faith in a democratic way of life.

Most if not all of you have very deep ties with the land and with the people of Israel, as I do, for my Christian faith sprang from yours....the Bible stories are woven into my childhood memories as the gallant struggle of modern Jews to be free of persecution is also woven into our souls. (Speech before B'nai B'rith)



George W. Bush-
Through centuries of struggle, Jews across the world have been witnesses not only against the crimes of men, but for faith in God, and God alone. Theirs is a story of defiance in oppression and patience in tribulation — reaching back to the exodus and their exile into the diaspora. That story continued in the founding of the State of Israel. The story continues in the defense of the State of Israel (Address to the National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance, April 19, 2001).

Van Jones Accuses Tea Party of Doing What He Does

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/van-jones-slams-the-tea-party-again-the-so-called-patriots-smashing-down-every-american-institution/

Van Jones' Modus Operandi is not hard to discern; he routinely accuses his opponents of doing what he does. 


It seems that, each time he has spoken in the last few months, he has leveled charges against the good guys of destroying America, its foundation, and its principles. The funny part, if any of this can be said to be funny, is that he pretends that he and those of his ideology are the ones who built the structure of our society. While Jones works unceasingly to destroy the nation so that his comrades can build a Leftist government on top of its smoldering ruins, he tries to paint those who would save the nation as the actual destroyers.


“At this point in this struggle, it’s the so-called patriots who are the ones who are smashing down every American institution….It’s the so-called patriots, the ones who come out here with their Tea Party and the flags and call themselves patriots — they’re the ones that are smashing down our unions, smashing down public education, smashing down every American institution that we built, and our parents built, and our grandparents built to make this country great.”

Jones added that the Tea Party is trying to “take a wrecking ball — and paint it red, white, and blue — and smash down all the things our parents did for us.' "

Like the Jedi mind-trick, though, it also only works on the weak-minded. The problem is that we have a whole lot of weak-minded people who buy into this drivel.

Jones' plan looks to me like it came right out of the playbook of the The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery.  
http://books.google.com/books?id=shrn4lTg_RkC&pg=PA20&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false


Page 20 of this book contains Jones' standard play - "Accuse your opponent of doing what he is accusing you of". In the book it is referred to as "Dirty Trick # 1".


I don't have much else to say. It is plain that Jones fancies himself a Master of  lying and manipulation. In this case he is probably quite correct. My only real note is that the good guys must always keep in mind the maxim that "He who controls the definitions controls the debate". If those who actually desire to save America from the likes of ol' Van and Company, want to be successful, they need to press hard with the truth. They need to forget about defending themselves. Saying things like "No, we're not trying to destroy anything." puts you exactly where Jones wants you to be - on the defensive.

Jones needs to be labeled for what he is. He is a destroyer. He is the anti-Patriot and the anti-American. This message needs to be pressed home on a daily basis. He must be described as such every time that the opportunity presents itself. I hold that Jones should even be brought into the discussion whenever possible. We must be even more relentless than he.

Like Obama, I don't think that Jones' ego can handle the pressure. If we keep up the pressure, I think that he will fold.

MSNBC Denigrates US Military Heroes

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-panel-struggles-over-using-the-word-hero-to-describe-fallen-soldiers/

I wanted to do a post on the most recent of Van Jones jerko rants, but when I saw this one, I know that I could not let it go without comment.

A panel on a MSNBC show hosted by Chris Hayes opted to use this Memorial Day weekend to state the participant's problems with utilizing the term hero to describe our military veterans.

"Chris Hayes introduces the issue:

“I feel uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’ because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers, and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that…”


I suspect that Mr. Hayes is not so uncomfortable with the idea of justifying war as he is with the obvious fact that those who willingly sacrifice their lives in campaigns against our enemies, are far better people than he could aspire to be in his wildest dreams. Cowards tend to constitute the bulk of those who advocate Leftist positions. Instead of dealing with this fact, they veil their awareness of their own shortcomings with a veneer of pseud-intellectual snobbery. This manifests itself in speaking of those who do in fact fight as gullible or ignorant individuals who are too trusting and uneducated to know that they are being wrongfully employed. 

The idea that people such as these try to project is that the only reason that they are not fighting is that, well, they are just too smart for that. Only the county bumpkins and other dense people (Read patriotic conservatives) would subject themselves to such dangers.


"John McWhorter of the New York Daily News continued: “…I would almost rather not say ‘hero’ and come up with a more neutral term…I share your discomfort with those words because they are argumentational strategies in themselves, often without wanting to be.' :

Mr. McWhoter, how about "unfortunate saps"? would that label make you feel any better? Would that ease the guilt that you undoubtedly feel for not doing what they have?

"Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast, who recently compared Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin on the same network, added: “There are people who are genuine heroes, but the kind of implication is that death is what makes you a hero, you know as opposed to any kind of affirmative act or moral act…' "

Ms. Goldberg blatantly lied in this case. No one ever suggested that one has to have died or have been in combat to be a hero. She of course is well aware of this and was simply trying to steer the discussion her way. Goldberg's version of a hero is probably an Occupy puke who is living off his student loans (which he has no intention of paying) and receiving donated food while he demands more entitlements from the government.

"After reassuring that there is honor and valor in the military, Goldberg said: “It’s more just that, it’s a way of ennobling sacrifices that have a lot of nobility for the individual, but to say that someone kind of died heroically suggests that they died worthily, or that they died in the pursuit of a worthy endeavor…” [Emphasis added]"


Another Leftist ploy from Ms. Goldberg. She is insinuating that our soldiers have not died for worthy causes. In answer to that I would hold that, although we have entered into wars that, in retrospect, have come to be thought of as poor decisions on the part of our government, that fact has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not one's sacrifice was noble or heroic. As with any enterprise, decisions must be made with the facts that are known at the time. Even if the event itself was poorly conceived, the sacrifice is still just as noble as that of the person who fought in a war that had universal support. In my opinion, the most noble of virtues may sometimes be in sacrificing oneself for the very people who appreciate your action the least.


We see yet another example of the effects of the purposeful omissions of the history of Western Civilization from our schools. When people grow up unaware of the heroic sacrifices of those who preceded us, they are easily misled by those who would denigrate noble and heroic acts. Whether it be an ancient Greek or Roman hero, a Saxon force which stood off a Danish attack, a Christian martyr who refused to offer sacrifice to the Emperor, or the seven Jewish brothers and their mother who too suffered horrible deaths for refusing to do things contrary to their faith, heroism has been an integral part of what made us what we are today. Our culture is one that, without heroism of the individual, would not exist today in any recognizable manner.


My personal opinion is that each and every member of this panel who made or agreed with these comments can be aptly described from this line from Henry V. The King notes that, years from now, those who survived the coming battle will be able to recount those events and that those who were comfortably at home while the war was on will think poorly of themselves for not being there. The only difference is that in place of admitting that those who are away from home are better than we, our panelists affect to consider our fallen heroes as having "died for nothing".

"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. "

The Left would prefer to hold the position of Wilfred Owen. Mr. Owen wrote after the horrid and widespread carnage of WWI, a  conflict that I would state should never have occurred. I hold that the poem from which the line below was taken should be understood in  its historical context - it was written in 1918. I, though, still honor the memory of those who fell in that war and, regardless of the reasons for it, am grateful for their intentions.

"To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory, The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est 

Pro patria mori.(15)" (it is sweet and right to die for your country)"

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

I again am remained of the Spartan man, Pedaritus, who was told that he was not to be admitted to the 300 of Officer Class of his city (From what I have read, I gather that the guy was not fairly considered and that those who made the decision may not have liked him). Upon being told that he did  not make the cut, had an expression that suggested that he was delighted.. Those who informed him ( possibly vexed since Pedaritus was not sulking) asked why he looked so happy after hearing bad news.

Pedaritus replied that he was happy that his city had 300 men who were better than he.

We all know that those who have sacrificed are better than we are. The only difference is that some of us admit that fact and others cover it up by saying that that the word hero should not be used.

Female Soldiers Sue For Combat Assignments

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/24/11842777-female-soldiers-sue-to-lift-combat-ban-solely-on-the-basis-of-sex?lite

"WASHINGTON -- Two female soldiers filed suit on Wednesday to scrap the U.S. military's restrictions on women in combat, claiming the policy violated their constitutional rights.

Command Sergeant Major Jane Baldwin and Colonel Ellen Haring, both Army reservists, said policies barring them from assignments "solely on the basis of sex" violated their right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."

I have treated this sorry joke of a topic in a post on the Australian Military and will include the text of that post at the bottom. 

As societies become more safe and secure, one of the results is that women begin to demand to be allowed to everything that the boys can do. For most jobs, that works out well and fine. Few would hold that women cannot drive trucks, do tree cutting, roofing, sanitation removal, or any other civilian jobs.

Even police work, unless possibly when it requires an officer to work alone and hours away from backup, no longer requires big strapping men. Cops now have pepper spray and tasers, both of which are extremely effective is disabling a person who is trying to harm the cop or is avoiding arrest.

Fighting, especially when it is done within the context of killing or destroying an enemy force's ability to destroy you, is an entirely different matter

When we begin to presume that the current level of security that we enjoy one that we have created as a result of years of technological and material superiority will continue forever, we paint ourselves into a dangerous corner.

Men's bodies are capable of shouldering much heavier burdens for long periods of time than are women. They have a much more aggressive, fighting-oriented mindset. This is of course partially due to environmental/cultural factors, but it is also a natural result of the male mind, which is formed by male hormones. When a man engages the enemy, he does it in a ruthless manner with the intention of killing him. This mindset is essentially foreign to that of a woman. The reason that men have borne the burden of fighting through the millennia has nothing to do with a “no girls allowed" mentality; the reason that women have not historically been fighters/soldiers is that they can not do the job in a manner that a guy can. Ancient societies needed soldiers that could wield clubs, swords, shields, armor, and other tools germane to those who will be either on a long campaign or sent to commit to a pitched battle. Any society that may have included women as part of its regular fighting force is no longer around. The reason for this is that any such force was annihilated in combat and therefore has been lost to history (For the record, although some ancient Iranic tribes did teach women to shoot arrows from horseback, the actual "Amazons" are an absolute myth).

An argument often employed in support of allowing women into combat roles is that we no longer have to fight with shield, sword and spear. The conclusion is that, since we now have so much heavy equipment and technology on which we can rely, brawn and killer instinct is no longer necessary.

Such a position leaves out a wealth of factors.

A fighting force needs people capable not only of being able to shoulder and fire a weapon, but also those who can carry, extra ammunition, body armor, communications gear, sufficient quantities of water, tripods for machine guns and base plates for mortars, etc., and still be able to relentlessly deliver aimed fire at their opponents for sustained periods of time.

Another factor not taken into account by the "girls are as good as boys" mentality is that nothing guarantees that any fighting force will always be able to operate in the manner in which they expected the operation to proceed. Sure, we have tanks, armored personnel; carriers, etc, but what happens of an enemy force of substantial size is able to approach one's position and attack at close quarters? When something like this occurs, being able to shoot a weapon like it is done at a rifle range or other training conditions is only a small part of what is now needed. The enemy must me repelled by vicious and terribly violent actions that are both physically and mentally exhausting. Not only must one be able to shoot, move and communicate while carrying his rifle, he may also have to pick up a machine gun, move it to another position, set it up, and have it delivering fire in a matter of seconds. We cannot ignore the possibility that the battle will turn into a matter of who can kill whom when ammunition is not longer available. At that point, swinging rifles and the utilization bayonets, knives, entrenching tools, axes/tomahawks, and fists, are what will make the difference.

Men are also much less likely to falter on a psychological level in combat. No one claims that men never suffer form Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The difference is that a man's mind is programmed to override the otherwise overwhelming fear during a high-stress situation. It is far more likely that a man, when faced with the powerful fear of being killed, will immediately be able to turn the switch and convert that fear into either a resolve to kill as many of the enemy as possible or to descend into an outright rage. A related factor is that that men are much more likely to so fear the loss of respect from their peers that would result from allowing fear to impair the ability to "keep up" in a fight that one, who would otherwise run away, will stand and fight with a fury to avoid having to be ashamed when faced with his teammates after a battle.

Even the normally mundane task of staffing a guard post at a checkpoint can turn into a maelstrom of hectic and savage violence in a second. That checkpoint is in place for a reason; it is needed both to prevent the entrance of an enemy and to serve as an observation post from with communications can be made so that reaction forces can be deployed in the event of an attack. If we allow women in combat roles, then we must allow that there will come a time when a checkpoint with be staffed entirely or almost entirely by females. In an event such as this, we are not looking at an infantry company in which one or two female soldiers are not going to make an appreciable difference in the fighting strength if the unit. At this point, those who staff the checkpoint are the fighting unit, and there is little between them and the inner perimeter of a military unit. That position must be defended with a ferocity, the nature of which is almost unimaginable. Are to assume that a force comprised of, say, experienced Taliban fighters, will be held off by females for a sufficient amount of time to deploy a reaction force to the threatened area?

The problem that we face is one inherent in political correctness. We are supposed to be so afraid of the social stigma of being brand a sexist that we bite out tongues when topics such as this arise.

Those in decision and policy-making positions at the Pentagon are going to have to be honest with themselves and the American public. War fighting, and the preparation for the same, is not a forum into which we can bring the “everyone gets a trophy” idea. If female soldiers want to be foolish enough to pretend that they are being unfairly discriminated against, then they need to be reminded do the facts. A Military is formed with the purpose of being able to destroy wither the entire enemy force or severely impair its ability to damage ours. It is not a place to make people feel good or “empowered”.

As an aside, we must also note that, is females are allowed in combat roles, there will be many more female prisoners of war. It is sickening that we are so afraid of hurting feelings that we would even consider subjecting our soldiers to, not torture and rape, but mob-rape. We cannot allow the hubris of some women who affect to be unconcerned about such a possibility to influence our decisions

-From an earlier post about Australia bending to this pressure"

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/09/australia-lifts-ban-on-women-soldiers.html

The Associated Press reported that the Australian Defence Ministry has authorized female soldiers to serve in any unit in the Australian Armed forces, including front line-type infantry units or Special Forces. This reportedly follows previous moves by Canada andNew Zealand.

The societal current in the West is one of enforced silence on issues such as this. Those who dare raise their voices are met with mockery, outright hostility, or at best pursed lips and raised eyebrows. Anything that does not support the pretend-world that we have created is prohibited. We are effectively not allowed to make mention of the fact that women's and men’s bodies are appreciably different from each other. This applies to short-term bursts of strength as well and the ability to shoulder heavy burdens for long periods of time. It also includes standard infantry tasks like moving, wearing and employing increasingly heavy body armor, weaponry, ammunition, as well as manual labor such as digging and filling sand bags.

I have witnessed this topic being brought up on numerous occasions. This point will of course be dismissed as biased as currently in the US military women are still barred from serving in these unit, but the fact remains that men who have actually been in these units are not calling for women even to share the burden in the infantry. If anything, they would call for stronger restrictions on what men are allowed to be in the infantry. Barely a current or former infantryman exists who, weighed down by a machine gun, a tripod, water, ammunition, a base plate or tube for a mortar (Can't assume that all mortarmen are uninjured), optical equipment, radios, and more, did not have thoughts of dropping out of a formation due to exhaustion while simply moving the distance from Point A to Point B.
The reason that he did not was that his body has the ability to be pushed physically by his will to continue.
A person, even one who starts out in great physical shape, may have all the right intentions to push on, but if the body does not have the tools to do so, it will fail.

I served both in units that allowed females and those that did not. The women, although in good shape and spirits, simply did not posses the ability to perform this type of heavy manual labor that was required. The only people whom I have witnessed calling for such a move are those who have not been in that environment.
Today we define things from the outside. We decide things are what we would prefer they be.

An interesting note is that I have heard isolated support for allowances of this type from some civilian police officers. It is a known fact that females do indeed make fine law enforcement officers; especially since the days of needing the 6' 4" 220 lb Sheriff/Cop are long gone. Our tools, which include tasers, pepper spray, and vastly improved radio communications have eliminated much of the advantages of the big guys in this case.
Some cops who have never been in the military though, tend to heap much importance on their work tasks and thus equate their work more or less with that of infantry soldiers (This is particularly true with SWAT personnel). They move and communicate tactically, shoot military-type weapons, stay in better physical condition, etc. The similarities stop at that point. From there the infantryman picks up a long, extremely physically demanding grind of heavy and extended work that taxes every guy until he needs to call upon himself to continue, even if it is to avoid being ostracized by his peers for failing to keep up.

Now to address the issue of the few women who can in fact keep up:

OK, I get it. Yes, there are indeed women around the world that I have witnessed performing extremely heavy works tasks for lengths of time. One example I offer from my own experience is a farmhand who could throw bales of hay markedly further than could I. Honestly, I was not threatened but impressed as I could throw pretty well also. There are of course others, but we are talking about a tiny fraction of women who can do such work. It likely that, if we evenly distribute the women who not only want but are actually able to consistently do such work, each infantry platoon (or possibly company- size element) will have a mean average of less than one female soldier per unit.

So there we are; to appease the radical liberals we have one woman among either 30 or up to 120 men in an infantry platoon or company. What have we accomplished? The radical liberals are not out to set things right for women. They are on their path to dismantle every part of Western Civilization and the anti-male agenda is a big part of their strategy. So again we are supposed to politely pretend that this is going to work out well. The Australian Military now has little or no say on the makeup of its own combat units.

We can’t go on pretending that every restriction in akin to Major League Baseball when it formerly (effectively) prohibited blacks from playing. Some restrictions are indeed based on fact. At some point the voices will need to be heard before the primary line of defense or force projection of a country is of significantly less value than it once was.

Coptic Priest on Mohammed's Sexual Practices

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/9865/the-perverse-sexual-habits-of-the-prophet

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11630/islam-death-sex-necrophilia


Father Zakaria Botros is a Coptic Orthodox Priest who has risked his life for years in exposing the facts about Islam and Mohammed.

The post at top is by Father Botros and the bottom one is by Raymond Ibrahim.

I would advise one to ready himself before reading either post. The information is gathered from the Haddiths, which are the sayings and actions of Mohammed. These are considered authoritative to Muslims. One of the mysteries that Westerners have a hard time grasping is how much awful stuff is not only attributed to Mohammed, but that none of these bizarre things seem to bother Muslim sensibilities in any way. These are not charges leveled at Mohammed by his detractors, but by his followers.

The only thing to which I could compare it is a list of the worst things done and said by the Renaissance era Popes of the Catholic Church that were not only accepted as not being so bad, but were embraced as examples of good conduct.

Azerbaijani Border Troops Leave Georgian Monastery

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/sion-victory.html


One of those events that the US media will not report since it deals with Islamic tolerance.

Borders troops from Azerbaijan departed from a monastery in Georgia that they had occupied early in May.

The troops had claimed that part of the property is in Azerbaijan. I have not found a map that I could cite to make any kind  authoritative decision, but Christian countries that are surrounded by Muslim ones, such as Georgia and Armenia, have been dealing with this type of thing for centuries. It was not until 1994, for example, that the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, who comprised well over 90% of the population of that province, were able to wrest control of their province from Azerbaijan after a hard-fought war that was referred to in the West as sectarian fighting.

Georgia was, in addition to being invaded and dominated by Islamic dynasties such as the Seljuk Turks, the recipient of savage treatment at the hands of the Muslim Timur (Tamerlane), the Turkish nobleman who broke off from Mongol rule but commanded large Turkish and Mongol forces.. Timur ravaged Georgia in 1394, 1399, 1400, and one last time for good measure in 1403. In the middle of those eras was the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. Even when independent, Georgia often had much of its area torn from it and ruled by other Islamic dynasties. After an unsuccessful revolt from the rule of the Persian Safavids (If my mind serves me correctly, very late 15th - early 16th century), tens of thousands of men were killed, and similar numbers women and children were carried off into slavery.

I  can't get enough of Islamic tolerance. There are just so many examples of it.

It reminds me of the line in Rodney Dangerfield's Back to School when his character, Thorton Melon, has been told by his goldigger second wife that he has no class and that she wants a divorce. Melon hands her papers to sign. The wife of course refuses to sign them.


Read "classy" as "tolerance".

"Oh! Oh, I'm afraid it's not gonna be that easy, honey. This is gonna cost you - PLENTY!
Thornton Melon: (chuckles and takes Polaroids [Photos] out of his pocket) Oh, yeah? Vanessa, let's talk about class for a minute, alright? Here's you and Giorgio in the guest room. A little classy, isn't it? Here's you and Giorgio in the rumpus room. Another classy one, huh? Ooh, this one, I can't figure out. There's you, there's Giorgio... What's with the midget over here? "

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090685/quotes


After seeing the photos, his wife leaves the room and Melon asks "Where are you going? I've got more! [photos].

Foreign Law Banned in Kansas Courts

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/afdisioa-victory-kansas-governor-signs-bill-blocking-islamic-law.html

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

Count one for the good guys.

"It's a great day for freedom. Thank you to all Jihad Watch readers who heeded my call to email and tweet Governor Brownback urging him to sign Kansas's anti-Sharia law. Brownback's office was flooded with messages from defenders of freedom, and he heeded us. Pamela Geller has more details here. "Governor Signs Bill Blocking Use Of Islamic Law," from Associated Press, May 25:
Gov. Sam Brownback has signed into law a bill aimed at keeping Kansas courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes.

Brownback's office notified the Senate of his action Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The new law will take effect in July.

Muslim groups had urged him to veto the measure, arguing it promotes discrimination. Supporters say it simply restates American values."

It's a small step, but a significant one. The Islamic lobby expended  lot of effort to convince the Governor to refrain from signing the Bill into law. 

I have no doubt that this law will be appealed, but unlike a similar law that had been struck down in Oklahoma, this Law prohibits all foreign law from being applied within the state and does not specify Sharia. I think that there is a good chance that this law will pass the examinationsof the Courts.

I am surprised that Barry has not weighed in with his two cents on this issue. He has a penchant for doing all that he can to make anyone who seeks to uphold American values look like a bad guy. Where is the complaint about those who cling to "religion, guns, and antipathy" towards others?

Bloomberg - "Force" Cities to Take in Immigrants

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bloombergs-solution-for-ailing-u-s-cities-the-feds-should-deliberately-force-them-to-take-immigrants/

There are people for whom one needs to double-check before reacting since they may have been jocking, then there is Michael Bloomberg.

My positions on Obama and his carousel of Obamian moves are known to readers. What I have yet to mention is my position on Michael Bloomberg. I rate this man a full step below Obama, hands-down.

Bloomberg has got to be far and away the most arrogant and totatalitarian-minded man of power in the US. His most recent outrageous statement was to the effect that, to deal with certain cities that have experienced drops in their populations, the Federal government should “deliberately force” them to accept immigrants and allow them to establish residency.

“There’s no reason why you have to have a common immigration policy for all of America,” Bloomberg said Tuesday. “You could let each state do it differently.”

Note that I have read the first quote several times and still cannot fathom how it segues into the following statement:

“I would argue the federal government should go one step further. They should deliberately force some places that don’t want immigrants to take them, because that’s the only solution for these big, hollowed-out cities where industry has left and is never going to come back unless you get some people to move there,” he added"

Bloomberg also criticized the Obama Administration for one of its only successes - continuing with the deportation of illegal immigrants.

As an aside, I will quote this paragraph from the article. It is interesting that we keep hearing about how we should expand our immigration quotas to import future employees for which we may have the need. Well, people from, for example, The Republic of (South) Korea and Japan, who tend to be highly educated (And interestingly in the hard sciences as opposed to Liberal Arts and Sociology degrees) have a devil of a time getting work visas for the US. We keep being told that we need the unskilled people to do our groundskeeping, restaurant work, etc. I for one do all of my own yard work, snow and leaf removal, lawn cutting, etc., and have no problem paying a little more for my food, whether it be when dining out or at the supermarket if that is the consequence of employing our own citizens in those fields.

"The study, which was underwritten by a company owned by Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas, claims that while the rest of the world is snatching up immigrant talent, the U.S. turns it away. In fact, according to the study, Canada “allows its provinces to set different immigration standards to attract the type of employees each region needs,” the New York Post reports. Bloomberg argued that the U.S. should adopt the Canadian strategy."

Back to Bloomberg:

I will avoid going on about the fact that everyone, Bloomberg included, is fully aware that the US government was never given the authority to order other states about when it comes to being assigned quotas of any group of people to take in. This is just one of many examples that demonstrate that his mindset is complexly contrary to that which is required of an American public figure.

The man has made a habit of bringing soft totalitarianism to a degree that exceeds anything that we have seen before. Here are a few examples of his controlling policies:

The revised smoking ban, effective last year in New York City, made smoking illegal in New York City's 1,700 parks and on the city's 14 miles of public beaches. It is also now prohibited in pedestrian plazas like Times Square. For the record, I do not smoke. I just find this atrocious. He could not even come up with approved smoking areas outside. Central Park, for example, is 843 acres. That is almost 850 times larger than the property on which my house is located, one that I find to be easily sufficient in size to accommodate smokers.

He has moved to ban salt from restaurants in NYC. Despite the fact that no government was ever created with the intent to regulate the minutiae of people's lives, Bloomberg decided to seize upon table salt. The salt hysteria, which has gone by the wayside in the 80's, reappeared in the late 90's. I wonder how all of those coastal-living Mesolithic communities survived to pass on their genes to those of us alive today since they no doubt ingested a whole bunch of sodium with their clams.

He successfully [sic] banned trans-fats in the City in 2005. I for one prefer mono-unsaturated and saturated (Yes that is correct) fats, but, again, we did not create governments for this type of intrusion

He banned donations of food, that is correct-food, to homeless shelters. Ostensibly, this was due to the fact that City health official could not determined that trans-fat and sodium content of what was being donated. I for one think that food donation bans are part of a broader plan to ensure that ever more people are entirely reliant on the government for their sustenance. When a law/ordinance such as this is passed, it makes lawbreakers out of people that want to help. Pretending to be under the impression that some trans-fats and sodium will do more harm than good to people who otherwise do not have any food is beyond being patently dishonest.

As part of his anti-gun agenda, Bloomberg moved to ban Duracoat paint so that kids could not make their stupidly-colored toy guns (Politics have resulted in toy manufacturers making toy guns in ridiculous colors such as neon yellow) look like guns. Many would be fine with this, but I am not. Some are against any toy guns; again, I have no problem with them. When my kids had their toy guns, they were instructed to play with them in our yard and to refrain from taking them into public areas. Peaceniks should not panic; kids who play with guns, in addition to having fun, are teaching themselves about one of the obligations of every adult, especially men; that of protecting society.

I wouldn’t doubt that there are more of the NYC bans, but it is time to move on to more ominous Bloomberg stuff.

Bloomberg is rabidly anti-gun. He would have the police and the military being the only ones authorized to posses firearms if he were in charge (And he did seriously test the waters for the Presidency). Since criminals do not abide by his City's draconian gun laws, often relying on guns being brought in illegally in the City, he embarked on a campaign against firearms dealers in 27 states, including 7 in Virginia. He was behind lawsuits that accused the dealers of selling guns to people who had no intention of keeping them (straw purchasers). The best was when he took it upon himself to hire private investigators in an undercover operation to go to States that did not have restrictive firearms laws, including Arizona and Virginia, to demonstrate that one could easily buy a gun in another sate with the intention to bring it to New York. Not only is this unethical and a terrible waste of taxpayers money, but it is also illegal. Most states, and we must include the US Code, provide criminal penalties for purposely purchasing a firearms with the intention of turning it over to someone else. Since Bloomberg wanted the guns purchased and brought to him (or his lackeys), then he should have been prosecuted. He was not.

He also went from actively supporting term limits for those holding public office until he was the one that would be affected by the restriction. He pushed for an amendment to the term limit law. Once the bill was passed, he dutifully signed it into law. His justification? New York City needed him to shepherd the city though the financial crisis. Note that this followed his failure to garner any appreciable support for a Presidential candidacy. Having failed in that endeavor, he affected to believe that only he had the ability to lead the city. So, true to the style of those such as Oliver Cromwell, Fidel Castro, Lenin, and others who insisted that they were just so terribly competent and that no one else was good enough for the job, he won a third term for himself.

All of this brings me to something that I gleaned from the days when he was drumming up support for a run at the Presidency. As is common with someone in his case, he gave several interviews in which he would have a chance to tell his life story and have that publicized by the Media. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. What got my goat was a tidbit from one of the artcles.

He stated that, as a boy, he was inspired by the book Johnny Tremain. Many of us have not read this book as anything that makes us aware of our history is either purposely glossed over or demonized by Academia. This story is about a boy who grew up in the days when our protests against British misrule were bringing us ever closer to war and thus independence. It is an incredible and uplifting story.

My problem with this is a simple one. If the actions of the Whigs (American Patriots) were undertaken with the understanding that we should not be oppressed and over-regulated in our daily lives by a government, and the story of a boy who is caught up in these events inspired him, how does Bloomberg think that he can reconcile the two? We are faced with to diametrically opposed concepts; the story of a patriot who desires freedom that inspired boy Bloomberg, and the controlling politician man Bloomberg. I never caught any statement reflecting Bloomberg's volte-face on the idea of Liberty. He just pretends that the two can be paired together without any conflict.

I would compare it to an event from my life. As a boy, I was very inspired by watching the movies, especially that of Disney's, about the defense of the Alamo* in the Texas War for Independence. For the purpose of this post, I will refrain from any arguments in support of or against the motivations or virtue of the Texians (That's what they referred to themselves as back then). I will only add that, although I now have a much clearer understanding of this event, and thus have an appreciation for the motivations on each side, I still do not take the weak Leftist position that the Mexicans were the victims in the conflict.

My point is simple; if I, through years of research on the above noted war, came to the conclusion that the Texians were wrong, I would not cite my boyhood admiration for the men of the Alamo unless it was to clarify that I no longer held to that position and that I now regret the outcome of that conflict and our later war with Mexico.

Bloomberg, in telling us that he was in fact inspired by Johnny Tremain, while at the same time advocating more and more governmental control in people's lives, exposes himself as a hypocrite and a liar in a way that no one else could. He should be more ashamed about his supposed appreciation for our Revolutionary Patriots than anything else that he has done.

*On the one occasion when I toured the Alamo, I did ask if I could see the basement. 
Anyone who responds with an answer for that reference will be recognized.

Penn. 7th Grade Textbook Candy-Coats Islam

http://triblive.com/news/1811254-74/district-leonatti-book-kerr-report-suehr-norwin-textbook-empire-history

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/05/dawa-in-pennsylvania-school-system.html

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.


This one has so many holes that I would need to type for several hours just to refute the claims that were quoted in the article.

We see yet another example of a school textbook that makes Islam and its spread out of Arabia look pretty nice and also makes Christianity look as bad as possible. What's worse is that a Pastor of a Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA), after reviewing the text,, gave it his approval. Incidentally, the 7th-Grade textbook was approved by an Assistant Superintendant of the school district that happens to be a member of the same Church as the Dhimmi Pastor.


Examples were provided in the articles:

“Religious toleration also helped the Arab Muslim Empire expand.”

“The Arab Muslim empire was generally tolerant towards Jews and Christians.”

“As the Arab Muslims build their empire, Islam spread peacefully both inside the empire and to the lands beyond its borders.”

“Mobs of Christian peasants turned on those Jews who would not convert to Christianity.”

“Medieval Christians would not tolerate even minor differences in beliefs"




What do you even do to begin on this one?


The Arab Muslim Empire expanded by warfare and incessant raiding that depopulated border/frontier regions, thus allowing further gains of territory.


Although some Muslim rulers were happy enough to seize a few Churches and turn them into Mosques and exact the Jizya (tax) from the subjugated Christians and Jews, far more made life quite difficult for them. For one instance, taxation and institutional abuse were so harsh that Christianity was wiped out from North Africa. In Spain and Portugal, the Christian Kingdoms of the North were required to provided enormous sums of tribute, including maidens to satisfy the desires of the rapacious and tolerant Muslims. 


http://books.google.com/books?id=IOdcjBOoC9sC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=one+hundred+maidens+muslims+spain&source=bl&ots=xFpihQlfxG&sig=pTOXx2IrNddQ6LpGFqo4wkMkZ6Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eoa9T--mA6bI6gGfn71Z&sqi=2&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=one%20hundred%20maidens%20muslims%20spain&f=false

One must note that revisionists have jumped though hoops in attempts to discredit the accounts of the tribute of young girls but, aside from proclaiming that it never occurred, have been unsuccessful in their efforts when it comes to providing substantive arguments.


Jews were first persecuted in Spain by Muslims, so much so that the great writer Maimonides took care to note how bad it was for his coreligionists in the Iberian Peninsula.


http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/10/09/muslim-persecution-of-jews-in-andalusia/


"Indeed, although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: “..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us…Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.. "

As far as anti-Semitism by Christians goes, they were the Johnny-come-lately to Jew-hatred and Christian atrocities, although shameful, were few and far between (And that is a major understatement) compared to those committed by Muslims. Here are some samples of what the Koran and Haddiths say about Jews:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/03/antisemitism-in-quran-part-1.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/03/antisemitism-in-quran-part-2.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/03/antisemitism-in-quran-part-3.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/04/antisemitism-in-quran-part-4.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/04/antisemitism-in-hadith-part-1.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/04/antisemitism-in-hadith-part-2.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/04/antisemitism-in-hadith-part-3.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/04/antisemitism-in-hadith-part-4.html

As far as "minor differences in beliefs" goes, what are we supposed to make of the Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, Alawite controversies and the incredible amount of bloodshed that has gone on and continues in Islam even today? Is this supposed to be another example of "tolerance"? For crying out loud, while Christians put aside our differences a long time ago, these guys are still killing and bombing each other.

As I noted, one explanation for the Lutheran Pastor's approval is that the person who approved the textbook for the school district is a member of his Church. I will, though, add this possibility; although I stated that Christians have stopped persecuting each other, some Protestant Churches still cling to old-fashioned anti-Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church is the subject when we speak about Medieval Christianity in the West, I hold that we must allow that the Lutheran Pastor is seizing on a chance to get a shot at the Catholic Church. I have discussed doctrinal differences with Lutherans, including Pastors, on several occasions, and disdain for the Catholic Church is all-too-often part of their beliefs.

Again, to treat the material in this textbook would take hours upon hours of deciding from the thousands of historical accounts that would body-slam the claims in the text. The information is easy to find, so I will encourage the reader to research the historical record.

"Man" Takes Photos Wife Being Mauled by Cheetahs

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-07/news/31614425_1_cheetahs-neck-park-officials

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/05/safrica-man-photographs-cheetahs-attacking-wife/


A vacationing couple from Scotland had visited a game reserve in South Africa. One of the Cheetahs bit an 8 year-old girl's leg. Violet D'Mello, who happened to be there to celebrate her 60th birthday, stepped in to help the girl, and the Cheetahs turned on her. She was bitten several times over a period of about three minutes. During this event, her husband continued to take photos of the attack. A park employee eventually forced the Cheetahs off of the birthday girl with a stick.

I keep trying to convince myself that I have misread the articles.

“But the next thing I knew I was on the floor and the cheetah was right on top of me,” D’Mello told Britain’s The Daily Mail.

“It started scratching me really badly and then I could feel the other one come up too, and one of them got my neck in its mouth.”

“I was just screaming and trying to get my hands up around my neck to protect myself, but I was being bitten all over my legs and down my side near my kidneys.”

Archibald D’Mello said he was so stunned by the attack that he didn’t realize he had kept taking photos, which surfaced online on Friday.

A cheetah gets Violet D’Mello’s neck in his jaws during the attack. (Archibald D'Mello/ZUMAPRESS.com)

One of the horrific snapshots shows a cheetah gnawing on Violet’s neck.

In another, blood trickles from the back of her head as both cats lurk near her head."

What could possibly be going on in a man's head that would cause him to stand back and take photos of his wife, or anyone else for that matter, being injured by any person or animals? Was he simply a coward, or could he actually be that stupid?

Mr. D'Mello, naturally, had someone else to blame. The quote below leads me to think that he was more concerned with getting good documentation for the civil lawsuit that will likely follow this: 

"Her husband said he was angry that park officials told the couples the animals were safe to pet." [Come on man, these are wild animals. There is no way that you did not know that there was an element of danger while among them]

“The park said they didn’t know what had caused the cheetahs to attack but they shouldn’t let tourists in unless they’re sure it is safe,” he said."

According to the FoxNews article, the couple continued with their vacation, presumably yet inexplicably together, after Mrs. D'Mello was treated for her injuries. If I were Violet, I would have slapped my husband in the face and prepared to divorce him.

I often write about the decline of manliness in the West. In this case we do have a fine example of manliness - from Mrs. D'Mello. Her husband is either a sheep, a greedy lawsuit-seeking jerk, or a combination of the two. I don't buy the argument that he is simply a moron.

Safeway Suspends Employee for Saving Pregnant Assault Victim

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/safeway-employees-suspension-for-defending-pregnant-woman-draws-nationwide-protests/

Once again, a man of honor gets in trouble for doing his job-

"Ryan Young, a meat clerk at the Del Rey Oaks Safeway, was minding his own business and doing his job, right up until Quyen van Tran, a customer, decided to beat his pregnant girlfriend in the store, in full view of other customers, and Young himself.

Young was not prepared to stand for this:


“Every few seconds he would turn around and push her and then he actually kicked her,” Young said. “I told him to calm down and he was just irate.”

Young said Tran refused to stop and jumped in to stop the assault."


For this brave and gentlemanly act, Mr. Young was suspended without pay by his employer. His offense? He failed to follow Company policy, when essentially mandates that employees stand around like sheep while innocent people, in this case a pregnant woman, are being assaulted.

This type of tragedy is not new, Wal-Mart has taken the same route with their employees in similar circumstances.

The easy and pathetically weak answer is to state that the employer has no choice but to take this type of action. The standard line is that our litigious society leaves employers civilly liable if their employees take action that could possible result in injures to the bad guy, the employee, or anyone else.

This ignores the truth. While Companies certainly have the right to provide direction for their employees, we cannot have a society in which fear of lawsuits and possible loss of one's job restrict individuals from providing assistance in cases in which  there is a clear and imminent threat to an innocent person.

Companies can of course direct employees to call the police and/or security. They can also have policies in place that recognize that there will be occasions when "going by the book" will result in more harm to a victim than will taking immediate and necessary action. The policy can note that there are instances in which every employee can assist in security matters. Barring that, I would hold that there would not be anything wrong with taking "corrective" action with the employee in a manner that does not cause him to suffer any loss of pay. Did anyone at Safeway consider bringing Mr, Young in to the office, retraining him in company safety polices, (With a proud smile clearly displayed on the supervisor's face) and simply allow him to go back to work? What kind of response can one offer for that suggestion? - "What if if it happens again?".

When dealing with situations such as this one, we have to remember that they are each million-to-one shots. They statistically do not happen. Let's avoid being silly to cover up our ridiculous fears of litigation.

Some may be angered by my suggestion that the employer retrain the employee. In response that that, I ask that people consider the fact that many people who have performed brave acts, but in doing so failed to follow policy, have had to be officially counseled to legally protect all persons involved, including the good guy. This happens to cops, firefighters, and other Public Safety personnel more often than one would expect.

A cop, for example, may have found himself in a situation either not covered by Department policy (Even when they are incredibly detailed) or where the specific circumstances made normal procedures unworkable, but nevertheless knew that he needed to do something. Like Mr. Young, the individual takes initiative and eliminates the immediate threat in an unorthodox manner. No one needs to be punished. He can even be commended for his bravery, but the rules will require that he is instructed that, when that particular act happens again, this is what we need you to do.

There was an occasion in ancient Sparta in which a Spartan soldier was both rewarded and fined for doing a good thing and fined for not going "by the book". During the days of Sparta's decline from power, the Theban General Empaminondas, after previously inflicting massive defeats of the Spartan army, came very close to taking the city itself. A young Spartan man named Isadas, unarmed and unclothed, broke past the ranks of his fellow soldiers and killed several of the enemy (No mean feat when one considers that he was stark naked among men armed and clad in bronze armor). After the Thebans withdraw, the Ephors (Priestly men who enforced Spartan law) crowned Isadas and also fined him for going into battle without armor.

Being crowned (presumably with a wreath of laurels on his head) was such an honor to the people of that time that we can hardly comprehend what Isadas felt. The sting of being fined was probably relatively mild in comparison to the elation that he experienced by being crowned. We can be certain that everyone, including the Ephors, was happy that Isadas did what he did,  but the rules had to be applied.

-The account is in Plutarch's Life of Agesilaus

Since Spartan soldiers were in fact the aristocracy, his family would probably be able to absorb the fine. The ability to have his exploits mentioned by his peers at the men's mess hall was no doubt well worth the financial loss. Other Spartan families may even have secretly contributed to Isadas' family.

Mr. Young, being a food store employee, in all likelihood does not possess the financial resources to miss out on any pay without falling behind.

I hope that Safeway changes their decision. Mr. Young acted as a Western Man should. God bless him.

If anyone finds an official website that is collecting contributions for Mr. Young, please let me know. We need people of his caliber.

Revised: Sedition Acts On Books in NC? - Only for Obama

Added 5/21/12
A link with a video recording of the teachers rant is below. The camera does not show the teacher but the tone, manner, and severity of the teacher's voice is unbelievable. I had though that the text in the post was bad enough, but relying on only the words verses actually hearing them is like seeing a movie version of War and Peace and skipping the book:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-teacher-fights-student-over-president-obama?utm_source=OV+Newsletter+List+2&utm_campaign=d4d2f5d216-OV_Newsletter_May_215_21_2012&utm_medium=email

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-teacher-tells-student-he-could-be-arrested-for-talking-badly-about-obama/

This is a classic-

It appears that a teacher in North Carolina is under the impression that the Sedition Acts, a subject that for so long was almost the only thing that we were taught about John Adams' Presidency, are still on the books.

The teacher had brought up the story about Romney's alleged bullying of a fellow student many years ago:

"A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher."

The teacher affected to believe that, although anything disparaging may be said about someone who is a Presidential Candidate, no such thing may occur if he in fact wins the Office:

“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.”

As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:

“You got [ I wonder is she was ever an English teacher] to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. [ Does anyone want to be what Obama is?] There’s no comparison.” 

Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:

“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.”

The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:"

Something tells me that it was not so much the fact that unflattering comments were being made about the President as much as what particular President one had in mind:

“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.”

Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right."

“I’ll say what I want.”

The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.

“Not about him, you won’t!' "

"The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:

“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.”

To which the teacher responded:"

Now we see when it is OK to speak in a derogatory fashion about a President as long as that President is not Obama:

“Because he was sh-tty.' "

There followed a boldfaced lie which seemed to imply that the Sedition Acts were still in force:

"The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. [No such thing occurred] The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president."

We are in a culture of social and political censorship. It is bad enough when political commentators and a few brave and honest journalists are being targeted, but it is an even greater moral crime when it happens at a grass-roots level. When an authority figure such as a teacher abuses her position to silence youthful critics of the current Goofball-in-Chief, we are pretty much at rock-bottom. In this case, it seems that the students were not even going out of their way to critique Obama rather than simply citing an example that indicates that Romney, if he did in fact do it, was not the only guy in the Presidential race who has bullied someone.

These brave students are to be commended for their actions. I hope that their parents are as proud of them as I am.