Friday, July 31, 2015
A New Zealand multiculturalist
They're everywhere, disrespecting cultures other than their own
A taxi driver who sexually assaulted an unconscious teen girl in the back of his cab has been jailed for eight years.
Mohammed Ahmed Khalil Daradkeh, 35, was sentenced on Wednesday after appearing in a court in Christchurch, New Zealand.
The court heard Daradkeh's 19-year-old passenger passed out in his cab due to a combination of medication and alcohol, after being put into the car by friends at the end of a night out, according to the Christchurch Press.
Rather than taking his victim home, as instructed to do so by her friends, Daradkeh drove to a secluded area off a freeway leading out of Christchurch, where he parked the car and sexually assaulted the young woman.
The 35-year-old partially undressed the woman as she slept and indecently assaulted and sexually violated her, the court heard.
Judge Stephen O'Driscoll said he considered the attack to be calculated, not opportunistic as the defence claimed.
'It was clearly opportunistic against this particular victim but I think there are a number of matters that indicate to me that this wasn't what might be described as a spontaneous sexual attack,' Mr O'Driscoll said.
The security cameras in the car were also illegally modified so they could be switched off. Daradkeh admitting he had 'feelings' for his victim and to deliberately driving to a remote area.
'That indicates to me a degree of planning, sophistication, and thought about what you were going to do to your vulnerable passenger,' Mr O'Driscoll said.
The judge also said Daradkeh seemed to have a lack of remorse for his crime, which was shown in his attempts to blame his victim for the incident.
Daradkeh had recently become a New Zealand citizen after migrating from Jordan eight years ago
Boy Scout Board Decrees Homosexual Leaders Okay
The National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America voted 45-12 to allow openly homosexual adults to be troop leaders. While Monday’s decision leaves an exception for troops sponsored by religious organizations, homosexual activists are already saying they will challenge, erode and destroy the exception designed to respect religious conscience.
Boy Scouts President (and former Defense Secretary) Robert Gates said, “For far too long this issue has divided and distracted us. Now it’s time to unite behind our shared belief in the extraordinary power of Scouting to be a force for good.”
Since Gates took the helm of the BSA in May 2014, he’s personally supported rolling back the ban. In May, he called for changing the policy. Despite Gates' assurances of unity, this top-down decree to the groups meeting in church basements and communities nationwide threatens to rend the organization.
The Mormon Church said it’s consider splitting from BSA to create its own scouting organization. And Rev. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention said this decision will probably “freeze” the relationship between Southern Baptists and the BSA.
Gates brought his political agenda to the BSA, and, as a result, religious liberty is being threatened and the BSA is cheapened. Furthermore, the change is the net effect of having a bunch of wealthy corporate guys fighting for advertising dollars leading the board of a national grassroots organization. There’s clearly a huge disconnect between the political agenda of the board and the culture of Boy Scout troops.
Lone Star Supremes Stand Up for the People
Good news from the Texas Supreme Court today. As you may recall, Houston Mayor, Annise Parker, and the Houston City Council passed a controversial pro-LGBT ordinance in late May 2014. Among other things, the law, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance — dubbed “HERO” — allowed transgendered persons to sue businesses that prohibited their use of their preferred bathroom. There was overwhelming opposition to the law in Houston and that triggered an effort by the citizens to repeal HERO by referendum.
The repeal campaign was led primarily by a group of Houston pastors and churches who collected twice the number of signatures required to get the repeal option on the ballot. According to the city secretary, Anna Russell, the petitioners collected a sufficient number of signatures. However, the Mayor and the City Attorney, David Feldman, defiantly refused to recognize that a sufficient number of signatures had been collected.
This decision led to the pastors and churches suing the City. Along the way, the city administration issued subpoenas in mid-October 2014 to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions. The First Amendment-crushing subpoenas instructed the pastors to provide documents in their possession — including sermons, emails, instant messages, text messages and other materials — that related to HERO. A national firestorm ensued. In fact, on November 2, 2014, Family Research Council led an effort along with sponsoring organizations and other partners to support the pastors and those seeking repeal by holding a national simulcast from Grace Community Church in Houston. The “I Stand Sunday” event drew over 7,000 attendees and was joined by hundreds of thousands via the internet.
The City rescinded the subpoenas in late October, but the litigation continued. Amazingly, three months ago a Texas district court judge ruled that the petitioners had failed to gather enough valid signatures to get the repeal measure on the ballot. Things looked bleak.
Well, [Friday], the Texas Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Court concluded that the City Secretary had certified the petition and that brought the “City Council’s ministerial duty” to go through the repeal process into effect. The Court held that the Houston City Council must stop enforcement of HERO and reconsider the ordinance. If it does not repeal HERO by August 24, 2015, then by that date “the City Council must order that the ordinance be put to popular vote during the November 2015 election.”
This is a tremendous victory for the rule of law in Houston. That said, this onerous anti-HERO of an ordinance is still on the books. The Mayor and city government had acted dishonorably to thwart the will of the people when they disallowed petition signatures, but, more dangerously, the subpoenas issued to the pastors were meant to intimidate political opposition and free speech.
Fortunately, Texas has a state supreme court with sufficient honesty and integrity to call a halt to this political thuggery. Many states, however, do not. In the meantime, the people of Houston need to mobilize for the repeal vote that lies ahead. But for today, this is a vivid reminder of Galatians 6:9, “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.”
The feminized USA
The United States has embarked, or been embarked, on a headlong rush into matriarchy, something never before attempted in a major country. Men remain numerically dominant in positions of power, yes, but their behavior and freedom are ever more constrained by the wishes of hostile women. The effects have been disastrous. They are likely to be more so.
The control, or near control, extends all through society. Politicians are terrified of women. The president of an Ivy university is fired, and replaced by a woman, if he makes the obvious observation that women are not much good at mathematics. Women dominate the schools and universities. A Nobelist in biology has to apologize profusely for having said that in laboratories women cry when criticized. Women have forced the lowering of standards for hiring police and firemen, for the military. They have made life miserable for small boys. The beat goes on.
The pathological egalitarianism of the age makes it career-ending to mention that women in fact are neither equal nor identical to men. The differences are many and most of them are obvious:
Women are less curious than men. They will learn to drive or use a computer, but will have no idea how either machine works.
They are totalitarian. A man is willing to let girls be girls and boys be boys. Women want all to be girls or, more accurately, to behave according to female standards.
Men enjoy competition; women deplore it. “Lel’s have a cooperative game led by a caring adult.”
Men prefer freedom to security; women, security to freedom. Wear your helmet on your bike. Use sunscreen. Dodge ball is violent and dangerous. Don’t swim without a lifeguard.
Women prefer emotion to substance. College is now more about feeling good and social arrangements than about academics. Note that if a man suggests that women are not terribly good at math, they do not respond with counterevidence, which would be substance. They become furious, and get their way by what amount s to a vast hissy-fit.
Women hate each other; men do not. In any office, for example, ninety percent of the interpersonal problems will be between women.
Men are more intellectually engaged than women. Note that in think-sites of the web, such as The Unz Review, both the writers and the commenters are overwhelmingly male.
Women have more emotional range than men, being both kinder and meaner. A woman is more likely to care for a hurt puppy. In a divorce, she will be much more vicious than the man. He wants to get out, she wants to get even.
Women have less intellectual range than men. Fewer women than men are extremely stupid, and fewer women than men extremely smart; the disproportion increases with IQ, there being almost no women at the highest levels. This is the glass ceiling.
Women are subject to hysterias; men are not. (For readers under fifty, “hysteria” comes from the Greek for “womb.” The ancient Greeks thought the condition was caused by a disorder in this organ. It isn’t, but they had they knew in which sex it occurred.)
A pertinent example is the current fascination with imaginary rape. Further, they are more obsessed by far than men with political correctness, which is also a form of totalitarianism and a search for security.
Women now hate men; men just wish women would shut up.
It is the nature of women to complain, endlessly, of everything. This has been a staple of comedy from Xantippe to the present. The meddlesome, complaining mother-in-law is a stock figure, not the father-in-law. The language reflects this. It is not called “bitching” because men do it. Likewise we have shrew, nag, scold, harridan, virago, vixen, fishwife, termagant, and henpecked.
Women want to intrude on men, to leave them nowhere to be exclusively among other men. Men do not reciprocate this. If men try to open, say, a bar only for men, women explode. If women wanted to open a bar exclusively for women, men would not care.
Women have a poor sense of social boundaries or, in plain English, of knowing what is and what isn’t their concern. It amounts to generalized mother-in-lawing. In Mexico, where I live, it is invariably American women who want to tell Mexicans how to manage their society. A man cringes at the thought. Mexico isn’t his to run, and he knows it.
It is worth noting that women have little understanding of men. They may say, resignedly or ruefully, “Boys will be boys.” They have no idea of why boys are boys. They know how to manipulate men, yes: Flash a leg, stick their chests out, cry, or act helpless. They don’t understand men any more than a bear trap understands bears.
Women, puzzlingly to a man, do not seem concerned with performance or effectiveness. They must know that a woman who cannot carry her end of a stretcher should not be half of an ambulance crew. Yet if barred from the job, they resort to political pressure and have the standards lowered.
Certainly it is not from lack of concern with the patient. Women are more compassionate than men. Rather they seem not to make the connection between hiring standards and carrying an unconscious victim from a burning building. Similarly they do not want men to be killed in combat. Somehow, and this is a mystery to me, they cannot see the downstream consequences of having soldiers who cannot handle the physical demands. Short time horizons? Inability to imagine anything so alien to them as combat?
In reading the news, note that almost invariably it is the females of the species who complain of microaggressions, of “triggering” words that make the feel unsafe, of uncomfortable environments and the like.
In the past, when men were in control of women and directed them, women were of great value to society. They were fine teachers, having absorbed the masculine idea that school was about learning things. An admixture of male teachers and principal insured discipline, which women on their own could not—being controlled is not the default mode for boys—and so there was no need for the police to drag boys from school. Today women make good doctors, dentists, and shock-trauma nurses. It is only when they begin to make policy instead of effecting it that disaster befalls.
Differences so profound will affect political choices profoundly, as witness the conversion of the schools into misandrist hives for the promotion of appropriate thought or, more correctly, appropriate feelings. The desire to protect anyone but white men from any offense, however mild, is both totalitarian and mildly lunatic. It now dominates national life.
Where will this lead? Stay tuned.We are going to find out.
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.