Friday, December 13, 2013

An example of why Americans need guns

76 year-old veteran shoots home invader (above)

A burglary suspect, who was shot by an elderly Hampton man after he was found hiding in a closet, remains hospitalized Tuesday.

Police say a 76-year-old man called 911 after he heard loud noises at his home in the 100 block of Patterson Ave. around 2 a.m. Tuesday.

According to police, officers searched the home and located a broken window but no suspect.

Shortly after police left the home, the elderly man found the suspect hiding in a closet.  Fearing for his safety, police say the man shot the suspect in the arm.

According to police, the suspect then ran from the home.

After hearing the gunfire, officers ran to the backyard and arrested the suspect.

The homeowner is described as “an airborne Ranger” and is wearing a 101st Airborne hat. According to the reporter the senior was unfazed about the shooting, and after spending a little time with the reporter to tell his story, he shooed the journalist away so that he could make something to eat.

The suspect was much younger and presumably stronger than the homeowner. How do you think the situation might have ended differently if the old paratrooper didn’t have a pistol in his hands when he encountered the burglar hiding in his closet?


The Mandela Cover-up Unravels

It appears that AIM and blogger Trevor Loudon are among the few sources highlighting the official statement of the South African Communist Party (SACP) about Nelson Mandela having been a high-ranking member. SACP deputy general secretary Solly Mapaila is quoted by a South African magazine as saying it was denied at the time for "political reasons."

The communist Workers World Party, which supports North Korea, has also reprinted the official SACP statement about Mandela. The communists are proud of Mandela and what he accomplished. His false claims of being a non-communist fooled South Africa and the world (except for his domestic and international comrades who were in on the secret). The official SACP statement includes these words: "At his arrest in August 1962, Nelson Mandela was not only a member of the then underground South African Communist Party, but was also a member of our Party's Central Committee."

Politicians lie, but this was a whopper, designed for the purpose of turning South Africa and its strategic materials over to the communists. The perfect front man, Mandela had always denied being a party member and, for the benefit of foreign audiences, publicly rejected Marxism as a "foreign ideology" as recently as a few years ago. It appears that was just a ploy to keep the foreign aid coming. South Africa has been among the top ten recipients of U.S. foreign aid, getting close to $500 million in fiscal year 2013.

Many in the media are calling Mandela a "political prisoner" when he served prison time. But on the Fox News "Special Report" show on December 5, Jesse Jackson admitted Mandela told him that he was planning bombings of hospitals and schools in South Africa when he got caught. That is why Mandela went to prison. He ran Umkhonto we Sizwe, the terrorist wing of the African National Congress (ANC) and South African Communist Party. The white minority made a deal to release him because they feared for their lives against a Soviet-sponsored terrorist onslaught that was documented in 1982 Senate hearings entitled "The Role of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and East Germany in Fomenting Terrorism in Southern Africa."

One of the witnesses before those hearings was Bartholomew Hlapane, a member of the African National Congress's national executive committee and the South African Communist Party's central committee. Bartholemew, who described SACP domination of the ANC, was assassinated in his home in South Africa on December 16, 1982, by an Umkhonto we Sizwe assassination squad. The ANC later admitted to the crime.

President Obama condemned the Boston Islamic terror bombings, saying, "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror." But that is what Mandela was orchestrating in South Africa. And Mandela is Obama's role model. Apparently, it was okay to kill whites in the name of black majority rule.

So how is that working out for the blacks, the supposed beneficiaries of Mandela's revolution?

WikiLeaks is usually a source that our media trust. But little attention was paid to information from WikiLeaks demonstrating that the South African government is now resorting to "forced removals, violence, [and] intimidation" against poor blacks demanding their rights. Referring to a group of black shack dwellers known by the initials AbM, the U.S. embassy cable from 2010 said: "While the ANC claims to be making efforts to clean up slums and provide the poor with adequate housing, AbM leadership claims intimidation and anti-democratic tactics are used against its members by the ruling party."

It's true that Mandela failed to authorize a bloodbath of the minority whites once the black majority took power. But that decision recognizes, as the Chinese communists did, that socialism doesn't work. The whites had to be tolerated because of their economic expertise. However, whites are now getting killed regularly in the "new" South Africa, and the country is being featured on "Genocide Watch" because of the racist dangers there. A spin-off from the ruling African National Congress, the Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) movement, held a rally in October in South Africa featuring banners saying the "Honeymoon is over for white people in South Africa." The group is openly Marxist-Leninist.

Interestingly, a column in the far-left Huffington Post hints at the truth, noting that Mandela "spent much of his life as a radical Marxist allied with global communist luminaries..."

In addition to the evidence of Mandela's secret membership in the Communist Party, those "global communist luminaries" deserve some attention. He admired Fidel Castro, praised his "brother in arms" Yasser Arafat, and was a big fan of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi. He was awarded the Soviet Union's International Lenin Peace Prize. Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Nelson Mandela on his 95th birthday in July and "gave a high assessment to Nelson Mandela's role in developing friendly Russian-South African relations, which have now reached the level of a strategic partnership." Indeed, Russia and South Africa have become strategic partners in the BRICS group. BRICS refers to Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

An objective source of some of Mandela's famous quotations is the book, In the Words of Nelson Mandela, edited by Jennifer Crwys-Williams. They include:

    "Islam has enriched and become part of Africa; in turn, Islam was transformed and Africa became part of it."

    "The people of Libya shared the trenches with us in our struggle for freedom." (Spoken at a banquet in Tripoli, Libya in 1997).

    "He [Muammar Gaddafi] helped us at a time when we were all alone, when those who are now saying we should not come here were helping our enemies." (Spoken at the start of his 1997 trip to Libya).

    "My brother leader." (referring to Gaddafi).

Gaddafi was the terrorist leader who killed 189 Americans, most of them college students, by bombing Pan Am 103. The year was 1988. Gaddafi was also behind the La Belle bombing in Berlin in April of 1986. This killed two Americans and a Turkish woman and injured well over 200 persons, including 41 Americans.

In a story about the 1997 visit to Libya, The New York Times noted: "Although Mr. Mandela had twice visited Libya before, this is his first trip since becoming President [of South Africa] in 1994. No Western leader has visited Libya since the sanctions were imposed after Colonel Qaddafi refused to turn over suspects in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland."

But Mandela was thankful Gaddafi gave his terrorist movement weapons. He didn't care about the terrorism that took American lives. Later, Gaddafi renounced terrorism, paid restitution to the families of Pan Am 103 victims, and gave up his own nuclear program. Nevertheless, Obama authorized his overthrow and he was killed by a mob in Libya.

Bill O'Reilly said on his Fox News show that Mandela "was a communist, all right? But he was a great man. What he did for his people was stunning. ... He was a great man, but he was a communist." Throwing out the word, without documenting it, leaves people without adequate information and O'Reilly vulnerable to the tired charge of "McCarthyism."

The notion of a good communist, considering the bloody history of the movement, seems absurd. But sadly, that is some of the best coverage of Mandela that we have seen.

The left's hero worship of Mandela-as well as of Obama-is to be expected. Strangely, similar coverage came from Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak, who claimed Mandela "embraced constraints on his power," was a George Washington-type figure, a friend of Israel, opposed terrorism, and "did not turn his back on the United States and her ideals." He went on Mark Levin's radio show to repeat some of these dubious, and even ridiculous, claims.

Pollak quoted Mandela during his treason trial as saying, "I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities." Mandela also declared at the time that he was not a communist.

Now we know better. Or do we?


Free Hunter Yelton

Affection demonized:  Meet the littlest casualty in the war on men

Hunter Yelton, sex offender (!)

Hunter Yelton of Cañon City, Colo., is accused of sexual harassment. Hunter Yelton is 6 years old and in the first grade. "He has a crush on a girl at school, who likes him back," reports Colorado Springs' KRDO-TV. "It may sound innocent enough," the station intones. But in Barack Obama's America, even a small boy can become a sexual suspect.

"It was during class yeah," Hunter tells the station. "We were doing reading group and I leaned over and kissed her on the hand. That's what happened." His mother continues explaining:

"[The girl] was fine with it, they are 'boyfriend and girlfriend.' The other children saw it and went to the music teacher. That was the day I had the meeting with the principal, where she first said 'sexual harassment.' This is taking it to an extreme that doesn't need to be met with a six year old. Now my son is asking questions . . . what is sex mommy? That should not ever be said, sex. Not in a sentence with a six year old," said Hunters' [sic] mom, Jennifer Saunders.

Hunter spent Monday at home, under suspension from school. The school-district superintendent says, in KRDO's paraphrase, that "Hunters' [sic] actions fit the school policy description of 'sexual harassment.'  . . . The school district also says Hunters' [sic] parents may believe that kissing the girl at school is overall acceptable--but that's where the school disagrees."

Clearly buffoons are in charge of the school and the district, but what does that have to do with Obama? The answer is that these buffoons are following orders from Washington.

In April 2011 Russlynn Ali, then assistant education secretary for civil rights, issued a directive in which she threatened to withhold federal money from any educational institution that failed to take a hard enough line against sexual misconduct to ensure "that all students feel safe in their school." The directive's preamble declared: "The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students' right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime."

The Ali directive has received attention mostly for its application in higher education, including our Saturday exposé of Auburn University's comically unprofessional and shockingly unjust Discipline Committee. But the mandate to prevent and punish "sexual harassment" applies to all educational institutions that receive federal funding, including elementary and secondary schools.

"If a school knows or reasonably should know about student-on-student harassment that creates a hostile environment, Title IX [of a 1972 civil rights law] requires the school to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects," Ali wrote. The music teacher and other school officials were faithfully if ridiculously executing that command when they investigated the tip from the kids who tattled.

The Ali directive does stipulate that "the specific steps in a school's investigation will vary depending upon . . . the age of the student or students involved (particularly in elementary and secondary schools)." But that's the only allowance it makes for the difference between small children and physically mature adolescents and adults. It includes no acknowledgment even of the existence of innocent children's play, much less any exhortation not to get carried away like they did in Cañon City.

Given the threat of federal action for insufficiently zealous enforcement of "sexual harassment" rules, overzealous enforcement--as silly as it ends up looking--is rational. In "Sexual Harassment Panda," a classic "South Park" send-up, pupils at a fictitious Colorado elementary school accuse each other of sexual harassment, leading to a lawsuit styled Everyone v. Everyone, in which the same lawyer represents both sides. Perhaps Russlynn Ali saw the episode and didn't realize it was satirical.

As amusing as the story of Hunter Yelton is, however, it is an example of a dire and widespread problem. "Sexual harassment" rules are ostensibly sex-neutral, but in practice they are used primarily to police male behavior. Feminists like Hanna Rosin note with triumph that girls and women do better in school than their male counterparts. One reason is that normal female behavior is seldom stigmatized or punished in the name of "civil rights."

And while college "justice" is often downright oppressive, the excesses of contemporary feminism know no age limits. As the story of Hunter Yelton demonstrates, the war on men is also a war on little boys.


Fall in crime in Britain 'overstated', says expert

The fall in crime levels has been “over-stated” because of mistakes and dishonesty in the way offending is recorded by police forces, MPs have heard.

Prof Mike Hough, a member of the Crime Statistics Advisory Board (CSAB), told an all-party committee it was impossible to say how much crime was dishonestly recorded by police officers in an attempt to improve clear-up rates.

The comments will further undermine confidence in official government statistics which claim crime is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.

Last month the public administration select committee heard from junior police officers who said crime figures are regularly skewed to make police forces’ performance appear far better than the real picture.

Prof Hough, of Birkbeck, University of London, said: “The police are overstating the rate of the decrease in the fall in crime.

“There are systemic reasons for thinking there is quite a lot of misinterpretation. I would suspect that outstrips deliberate, wilful dishonesty - but that is a guess.”

Prof Stephen Shute, the chairman of the CSAB, told the committee: “There is a question about the extent to which police are manipulating the crime recording process either to inform external performance targets or to improve the way their are perceived in the locality or within the force.

“That may come about for a variety of reasons.  “It may not be due solely to dishonesty and deliberate misapplication of the counting rules. That may be part of it.  “It may be the police officers don’t throughly understand the counting rules.”

In November, junior and retired police officers gave evidence that crimes are deliberately down-graded or not recorded at all, in some cases because senior ranks have applied pressure to meet performance targets.

Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the committee, said it should be a “matter of great concern” that witnesses have previously told MPs that about 10 per cent of crime appeared to be wrongly recorded by police.

The CSAB was set up by the National Statistician, following a 2011 report into crime figures, to give independent advice to the Home Office, police forces and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: