An Hairy Man

Taverners like women. Women are fine. Well, many are. We quite approve of chaps too, when they are fine, upstanding fellows. 

There are differences between men and women, despite what the zozchial engineers would have us forced to believe. One only has to see a fine head of hair on a pretty gal to understand that. 

Men with hair like that would raise a few eyebrows, although a few poncy chaps (not at all upstanding) do try to look like women these days. They never seem to quite pull it off though. A proper chap looks like this......

Hair has always featured in both fashion and culture. Whoever saw an ancient 'Hero' without wild hair?  To aspire to Greatness, a chap must be able to grow his hair. In the right places. That is, on his face.

First verse of the fourteenth chapter of the Second Book of Kings: 
'And he said, "Behold, my brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man."

A corrupt huirsuit pursuit !  Esau's non-upstanding Bro had the hide to pretend to be hairy; a goat hide !  

Ladies these days are likened unto Topiarists, shaping their hair even in the most out of the way places and even shaving it all off in those places - at the behest of the Gillette razor company. But in ancient days back, beyond 50 years ago, a bushy gal was as sought after as a bushy chap.

Except in the Military. 

Armies of note throughout history, particulalry in the 'modern era', say, the last 2000 years, have eschewed the hairy face.  Why, I know quite well. You try wearing a helmet and visor with a beard.  The sharp sting of a hair pulled out mid-joust can be a fatal distraction.

In the British Army, beards are a 'Privilege' that has become rare. 

The Only (British) Army Rank Allowed to Have a Beard on Parade

Meet the Pioneer Sergeant, the holder of the only position within the British Army allowed to have a beard when on parade.

Pioneer Sergeants have existed since the 1700s. The tradition began when every British infantry company had one 'pioneer' who would march in front of the regiment.

He would wear a 'stout' apron, which protected his uniform whilst he was performing his duties, and carry an axe to clear the path for anyone following behind.

"Ello, ello, cobber. Where did 'e get that 'at? 

It was also the Pioneer Sergeant's duty to kill horses that had been wounded in battle. He would often have to cut off one of the stricken horse's legs so that its rider could receive a new animal - each had a number branded onto its hoof to prevent false claims, such as if a cavalryman had sold his mount.

Pioneers in those times would also carry a sawback sword, pickaxe, billhooks, shovels, and axes. They were traditionally the largest, strongest and most imposing members of the company.

The pioneer sergeant also acted as the blacksmith for the unit. As a result, he was allowed a beard to protect his face from the heat of the forge. Nowadays the Pioneer Sergeant is usually responsible for carpentry, joinery and similar types of work.

In modern parades, Pioneer Sergeants still wear their ceremonial aprons and carry their traditional axes, which act in place of a bayonet.

That's not to stay there aren't exceptions to the rule though. Other Army members can sport a beard in certain circumstances.

Disguised as a Taliban.

Soldiers can grow a beard for medical reasons, such as in the case of a temporary skin irritation, or, more commonly for religious reasons.

It is prohibited, for example, within the Sikh religion to cut one's hair. As a result Sikhs within the British Army are allowed to have beards.

Lady Solders are forbidden to grow beards.
Such prohibition is just Patriarchal Oppression according to feminists.

Members of the special forces may also wear beards when behind enemy lines or on covert intelligence operations.

There have also been reports in recent years of British Army members serving in Afghanistan having beards or stubble to try to blend in with Afghan men, who see beards as a symbol of virility and authority.

I am advised that Pipe Majors in the Royal Regiment of Scotland are allowed a beard. Infantry Pioneers (Currently Pipes and Drums in the Scottish units meaning both the Pipey and Drum major may wear a beard on parade) 

The Royal Artillery have 'The Battle Axe Man' 74 Battery the Battle Axe Company 32 Regiment RA, he must be the tallest man in the Battery who sports a full beard and as a Battle honor he also carries a Battle Axe sporting a golden eagle on ceremonial parades.

Interestingly, other branches of the Armed Forces have wholly different attitudes towards facial hair.

In the Royal Navy, full beards have always been allowed as long as permission is sought and granted, whereas moustaches, which are permitted within the RAF, Army and Royal Marines are forbidden.

But anyone wishing to grow a beard in the Navy must have a 'full set,' that is, a full beard covering the whole jawline, joined to a moustache.

Yes, there is Morality of sorts at sea.

And commanding officers can order an individual to shave off his facial hair if it becomes clear after around six weeks that he cannot grow a proper full set.

Navy members should then keep their beard, once approved, for at least six months. 

Members of the RAF, on the other hand, may not have beards in any circumstances (unless they are Sikh). Moustaches may be worn, but only on the condition that it does not extend below the edge of the mouth -  so no "handlebars".

Indeed, one RAF Flight Lieutenant was so keen not to lose his impressive 'tache that he refused an order from an American general to trim it whilst on a posting with the US Air Force 366 Fighter Squadron in Afghanistan.

I am grateful for all of this interesting stuff to a fellow sitting quietly in the corner of the UK room, supping his pint from a dimpled glass.

http://forces.tv/42849745

RAF pilot refuses US order to trim moustache

An RAF pilot has been ordered to trim his handlebar moustache by an American General who took offence at its length, but the British serviceman was not prepared to lose his whiskers without a fight.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2119950/RAF-pilot-refuses-US-order-to-trim-moustache.html

The British airman, who sports a handlebar moustache in the proud tradition of the RAF, refused to comply when his superior officer in Afghanistan took offence at his facial hair.

Showing a bravado akin to that of Biggles, he fought back, eventually convincing the general that his generous whiskers were in line with regulations laid down by the Queen herself.

Fine man. Tell those Yanks to go pull someone else's chain !  The last time the Americans tried to tell an English chap what to do, he burned the House down. Only after a generous splash of white-wash did it get the name, White House. 

The moustache was once such a part of the RAF uniform that rules during the Second World War stated: "The whole of the upper lip shall remain unshaven."

Flt Lt Ball was told to cut his back while on a posting with the American Air Force 366 Fighter Squadron, where he operates an F-15 fighter-bomber.

The general said that US pilots were only allowed to grow small moustaches and insisted that Flt Lt Ball followed suit, but he refused.

Instead the RAF fighter pilot decided to go above the head of his superior officer and consulted regulations approved by the Queen which set out the permitted size of an RAF moustache.

Flt Lt Ball measured his whiskers and to his delight they did not contravene the rules. He took his findings to the general, and after a frank "exchange of views" was allowed to keep the facial hair intact.

Flt Lt Ball said: "The yanks are not allowed to grow a full-length tash. After I was told to trim mine down I had to dig out the Queen's Regulations to prove I was not breaching our own code."

In 2007 the RAF relaxed its restrictions on facial hair for men serving in Afghanistan, because beards are thought to be a sign of status in the country.

 I have been known to refuse a few orders of my own in my time !  I was even ordered by an Air Commodore to trim my sideburns back to a more 'standard' attribute. I kept them despite! Airships need thrust.

But right now you must be in need of a drink, so place your order.

Pax.

Ignore Them and They Will Go Away

As if !  When the customers crowd the bar, I do not dare ignore them !  Not that they will riot or break things, as they are good folk who just clamour for Grace, and I am charged by my Supplier to fill their pots, tankards, glasses and even their horns should they offer them.

But good folk elsewhere are all too easily ignored.

To get the attention of the Media these days one needs only a few hundred stone-throwers and the cover of darkness. The recent march by thousands in France was an exception. 

The stone-throwers, swearers, thugs and rent-a-mobs are almost essential these days for even a skerrick of interest to be shown by the media. Better still if banners are carried threatening to behead anyone for criticisng that ancient paedophile-rapist-murderer, Mohammed. Anyone standing up and marching for freedom, even for Life itself, are likely to be ignored unless there is a fracas caused by opponents. 

As was the case last week when Hundreds of Thousands of people came to Washington, the Town Hall of Hilary's Village, to defend Life.

The media was silent. It didn't even bother to put its collective fingers in their ears and shout Lalalala.

Get twenty homosexuals with banners demanding 'Eeekwalletee or your wallet' and the media will be there counting the gold lame hot pants. Get a slut march with twenty stupid girls who leave their clothes on the pavement and parade in their knickers and the media will be there to gawp at their breasts and take snaps for the front page. 

But bring 200,000 mums and dads, kiddies, grandparents, prams and banners, and walk in polite and friendly order and the media are off elsewhere.  

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

The liberal media's pro-abortion bias is out there for all to see

The Annual March for Life, which attracted over 200,000 participants from around the country, marked the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationally.

The response to this massive event from the big three networks?

ABC: 0 minutes

NBC: 0 minutes

CBS: .25 minutes

Nothing at all in Oz either.

If a small fire breaks out in a warehouse in Boise, the TV news in Oz will show it. Lose a cat in Idaho and the regional news  in Wagga Wagga will show the posters on the telephone poles and run an interview with a ten year old girl having a fit.

If these were a few dozen hipsters protesting corporate profits while taking selfies with iPhones, the networks would have wall-to-wall coverage.

But the media cannot be bothered to cover 200,000 pro-lifers who came to Washington in the middle of winter to march for the unborn.

It's shameful. 

If you're throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers, the media will provide sympathetic coverage to your cause.  If you're standing up for the most vulnerable in our society, the media turn a deaf ear.

With each passing day, the media continue to hemorrhage their credibility.

In response, twenty two leading pro-life organizations joined the Media Research Center to sign a statement chastising the networks for their near blackout of the 2015 March for Life.

 https://www.mrc.org/press-releases/abc-nbc-ignore-march-life

 Nineteen leading pro-life organizations joined the Media Research Center to chastise the networks for their near blackout of the 2015 March for Life. The Annual March for Life, which attracted over 200,000 participants from around the country, marked the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The only network that offered coverage was CBS, which dedicated 15 seconds to the March in the context of highlighting moderate Republican opposition to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. 

Meanwhile, NBC , ABC, and Spanish-language networks Univision and Telemundo, completely ignored the March. 

The networks did, however, find time to cover “deflategate,” sidecar dogs in America, and Prince Andrew’s sex scandal.

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacts:

“If these were a few dozen hipsters protesting corporate profits while taking selfies with iPhones, the networks would have wall-to-wall coverage. The media cannot be bothered to cover 200,000 pro-lifers who came to Washington in the middle of winter to march for the unborn.

“It’s shameful. If you’re throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers, the media will provide sympathetic coverage to your cause. If you’re standing up for the most vulnerable in our society, the media turn a deaf ear. With each passing day, the media continue to hemorrhage their credibility.”

STATEMENTS

"If 200,000 people showed up in Washington to protest in favor of almost any other cause, it would be considered national news by nearly every newspaper or network. The decision to ignore America's biggest march yet again shows that U.S. mainstream media, including the Big Three networks, has no interest in reporting on anything that might harm its agenda -- and nothing undercuts that agenda more than hundreds of thousands of mostly young people coming to D.C. to support life." 

John-Henry Westen

Editor-in-Chief Co-Founder, LifeSiteNews.com

“The media blackout of this gigantic march shows how proud these journalists are to wear their politics on their sleeve. They do a disservice to the public, which accounts for why they are held in such low regard.”

Bill Donahue

President, The Catholic League

"Most Americans could be forgiven if they had no idea that 200,000 people took to the streets of the nation's capital every year to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. After all, how would they know? Protests, like Occupy Wall Street, get major news coverage only when they advance the agenda of the mainstream media." 

Brian Burch

President, CatholicVote.org

“We don’t March for Life in the hope of media coverage, but it defies logic that the largest, longest-active and still-growing civil rights movement can be overlooked or judged not newsworthy.” 

Fr. Frank Pavone 

President, Priests for Life

"The intentional refusal to report on nearly half a million people dominated by youth standing for life in our Nation's Capital is irresponsible. While the media turned a blind eye, the tidal wave of life will one day wash away the blood shed of our children."

Mat Staver

Founder and Chairman, Liberty Council

"The mainstream media has proven, yet again, its main interest is to misinform the public. Every year they gladly cover 'gay pride' parades with misrepresentative imagery while choosing to misrepresent America's pro-life majority by deliberately ignoring that we exist." 

Ryan Bomberger

Chief Creative Officer, The Radiance Foundation

“When more than a quarter of a million people come to one city on one day for one cause – how can any real journalist not consider it to be worth covering?   

Yet that’s exactly what happened when the 42nd annual March for Life was held in Washington on January 22.  I’ll bet that every other cause or protest-related rally drawing over 100,000 people to the nation’s capital in the last year was covered and covered excessively, while the March for Life was treated as if it never even happened.” 

Colin Hana

President, Let Freedom Ring

"It’s not surprising when the big media ignore large gatherings in Washington – year after year – of hundreds of thousands of pro-life activists, but it is unprofessional and betrays their absolute bias. As a journalist, senior newspaper executive and media entrepreneur for more than 35 years, I’m genuinely ashamed at what my industry has become. Not only do they avoid debate and discussion of the sanctity of life, they seek to distort the issue by hiding gatherings with the vigor one would expect only in a totalitarian, closed society with a government-controlled media.”

Joseph Farah

Editor and Chief Executive Officer, WND.com, WND Books, WND Films

"When a massive group of 200,000 Americans of every ethnic, racial, religious, age and economic status peacefully unite for a cause that speaks to perhaps the most fundamental pillar of our society, it is news.  Trying to pretend otherwise is irrational, irresponsible, and unprofessional."

Mario Lopez

President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

"The mainstream media either ignores the annual March for Life or they lie about it. They lie about it by not showing the hundreds of thousands of pro-life marchers instead focusing exclusively on a handful of pro-aborts as if that is the story. No matter. We are winning without them. We are winning in spite of them. All the better for when we finally win.”  

Austin Ruse

President, C-FAM (Center for Family and Human Rights)

"The left-wing media’s pro-abortion bias is obvious in its reporting priorities.  Zero mention of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who participated in this year’s March for Life, but plenty of ‘news’ about deflated footballs instead.  Pathetic.”

Gary Bauer

President, American Values

“The hundreds of thousands that marched peacefully last Tuesday did so to give voice to the voiceless. The network press doesn't report on the March for Life because they are cowards who don't want to risk offending those who already have voices.” 

David Bozell

President, ForAmerica

"It is truly inexcusable for the media to ignore the March for Life, one of the nation's largest annual human rights demonstrations.  Despite media censorship, the pro-life movement grows every year, attracting more and more women and young people who understand the fundamental truth that all human beings, irrespective of age or ability, have equal value and ought to be protected in law."

Penny Nance

President, Concerned Women for America

"It amazes me that the media can ignore a half of a million people peacefully raising their voices in protest but act like sharks in a feeding frenzy over the Ferguson and New York protests.  Perhaps if we walked with our arms up and chanted 'hands up, don't abort' or 'I can't breathe,' they would have covered it. Just as black lives matter, all lives matter.  Their silence shows their bias and their fear of showing the world that this is the pro-life generation." 

Bryan Kemper

President, Stand True Pro-Life Outreach

"Americans are continuing to move increasingly pro-life, and the hundreds of thousands of people at this year's March for Life bear witness to that fact.  Though the media ignores the mass crowds year after year, the grassroots continues to have its intended effect, spreading the truth that every life, born or unborn, is precious and priceless."

Brian Fisher

Co-Founder and President, Online for Life

“The major media networks and papers cannot deal with their narrative being contradicted by the joyful witness of hundreds of thousands. That is why they can’t bring themselves to look at it honestly. If this was a huge annual anti-war rally Anderson Cooper would be doing wall to wall coverage with a desk on the mall. Negating coverage of the annual March for Life – which brings thousands upon thousands to testify to the sanctity of all life – should call all pro-lifers to increased pro-life action.” 

Krista Thomas

Communications Manager, Human Life International

“The mainstream media continues to show its extreme bias on issues like marriage and life with their lack of coverage of the 2015 March for Life, which brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the nation’s capital. Even as network media continue to ignore critical issues of importance to average American families, preferring to highlight meaningless though titillating and trending topics in the culture, they wonder why fewer and fewer Americans turn to them for news and information. They are on a march to irrelevancy.” 

Brian Brown

President, National Organization for Marriage

Other signers include:

Terry Schilling

Executive Director, Americans Principles in Action

Troy Newman

President, Operation Rescue 

Update: The following signatories joined this statement post-publication:

"The mainstream media can seemingly crank out endless stories about deflated footballs or large amounts of snow in certain portions of the country. But when well over half a million people come to the nation’s capital to speak out on the human rights issue of our time, they seem inconvenienced in having to report anything – if they report anything at all. With polls showing a majority of Americans oppose abortions, and a majority of young Americans as well, it’s well past time for the media to wake up and acknowledge that."

Steve Ertelt

Life News

"Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans come to Washington in the dead of winter to rally on behalf of the unborn. And every year, the media ignores or downplays the significance of the pro-life movement. The egregious bias proves that cronyism extends beyond simply handing out checks, it extends into our culture. Fortunately, most Americans see through the spin and continue to fight for the most vulnerable among us." 

Mike Needham

CEO, Heritage Action for America

"The continued media blackout on abortion disregards the primary obligation of journalism: to accurately report, investigate, and tell truth without bias. While mainstream media perpetuate a silence on the March for Life, the unjust killing of 3,000 preborn children in the womb by abortion continues each and every day. We must speak for society's littlest and weakest members, and give voice to those who are the victims of the greatest human rights abuse of our day."

Lila Rose

President, Live Action

Jill Stanek

Blogger, JillStanek.com

The customers at the Tavern's many bars stood and cheered these vocal folk. We raised our glasses. I even broke out the 'Special Reserve Fine Furrin Bevvie of Distinction' for everyone to have a taste. 

I will be in my usual spot outside the Baby-Killing Centre in Hobart on Tuesday at 2pm should anyone care to join me saying the Rosary. For the babies.

WE WILL NOT GO AWAY.

Pax.

Tongue Tied.

It is astonishing the things one is just not allowed to say these days. Most of the customers in the Tavern speak their minds quite readily and consider their thoughts carefully before engaging their mouth and tongue. This is not so that they do not offend the customer on the next bar-stool but that they get things as close to correct as possible. 

But that does not mean 'Politically Correct'.

A politically incorrect elderly gentleman Knight and King can very easily get condemned and 'banned' these days for addressing a highly intelligent but fragile feminist with a friendly 'm'dear', as happened recently. (I will still welcome her in the Tavern though. The politically incorrect are the last practitioners of real tolerance - as long as she doesn't pee on the carpet.)

Plain decency and manners and friendliness used to be enough to guide discourse, along with Truth and clarity of course. It remains so in the Tavern. But elsewhere in the great Hilary's Village beyond the hedge, people must discern the changing rules on a daily basis.

I am grateful to J.J. Ray for bringing some examples today. 

http://snorphty.blogspot.com.au/

The vast incorrectness of "colored"

Someone should tell the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)

British actor Benedict Cumberbatch has apologized after describing black people as 'colored' on US television, saying he is 'an idiot' and is 'devastated to have caused offense'.

"The game's afoot, Watson. In my mouth"

The 38-year-old Sherlock star was widely condemned after using the racial term during a debate on the lack of diversity on British screens on the PBS talk show Tavis Smiley last Wednesday.

But on Monday night, he issued an apology for his 'incorrect' and 'offensive' use of the phrase, saying: 'I'm devastated to have caused offense by using this outmoded terminology.

'I offer my sincere apologies. I make no excuse for my being an idiot and know the damage is done.' 

A term that was routine up until a few years ago is now the deepest depths of wickedness, apparently.  Where will it end?

Indeed, 'people of colour' determined the term themselves! Apparantly what is wanted and demanded one day is forbidden the next. 

Charlie Hebdo killers should NOT be called 'terrorists', claims BBC executive Tarik Kafala

Tarik is no doubt a Muslim

The Parisian extremists who murdered 17 people in a series of attacks including the Charlie Hebdo massacre should not be called 'terrorists', a senior BBC executive has said.

Tarik Kafala, who runs BBC Arabic, said the term 'terrorist' was too 'loaded' and 'value-laden' to describe Said and Cherif Kouachi and their accomplice Amedy Coulibaly.

BBC Exec. Of course.

The Kouachi brothers shot dead 12 at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and Coulibaly killed four at a Kosher deli after shooting dead a policewoman. 

All three were eventually shot dead by French special forces after the Islamists all burst out of their hideouts two weeks ago.

Mr Kafalam runs the BBC's largest non-English language TV, radio and online news services, which have a weekly audience of 36million people.

He told The Independent: 'We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that 'two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine'. That's enough.

Another attempt to cover up what poison Islam is

Named after SS Nazi war criminal: World's largest ship sparks outrage as it arrives in Europe

The arrival of the world's largest ship in Europe has provoked outrage after it was revealed it was named after a SS Nazi war criminal.

The Pieter Schelte, which is so big it can lift oil rigs out of the water, is docked in Rotterdam after being constructed at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering shipyard in South Korea.

But as Holocaust Memorial Day nears, anger has erupted after it was revealed Pieter Schelte Heerema was a Dutch officer in the Waffen SS. 

The vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush told the Observer: 'Naming such a ship after an SS officer who was convicted of war crimes is an insult to the millions who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis.  'We urge the ship's owners to reconsider and rename the ship after someone more appropriate.'

Schelte was the father of Dutchman Edward Heerema, the owner of company Allseas, who commissioned the building of the ship. 

He was an officer in the Waffen SS during the Second World War, when he acted as a director for the Dutch East Company.

It is thought he was responsible for recruiting Dutch men to be put into forced labour in Nazi-occupied territories in Eastern Europe.

However, he is reported to have left the SS in 1944 as he lost sympathy with the Nazis and joined a resistance party, fleeing to Switzerland.

He was tried and sentenced to three years in prison for war crimes after the war but was released early and went to Venezuela  where he set up a engineering company.

It seems to me that the man is entitled to honor a father who  joined the resistance to the Nazis.  It seems that his father was in any case an office worker rather than an armed combatant

Criticizing Islam, Questioning Immigration Policy is Hate Speech according to Toronto Star & Canadian Press

The recent terror attacks in Paris have led to a barrage of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant comments on the Facebook pages of federal politicians and their parties in Canada — much of it plainly visible to the public.

'Managing' racist, sexist, homophobic and harassing material is just one of the new challenges facing parties who want to have an active social media presence, grounded in the concept of free speech and open dialogue.


A Jan. 7 post on Stephen Harper’s Facebook account, in which the prime minister said he was “horrified by the barbaric attacks in France,” received approximately 575 comments. Some six dozen — expressing support for blocking immigration from Islamic countries, closing Canada’s borders or just criticizing Islam — were still on the page more than two weeks later.

How shocking! Islam was criticized in light of the of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre! Because naturally it had nothing to do with Islam.

Oh the horror! People actually questioned the wisdom of allowing immigration from Islamic nations! Forgive my hatefulness but I wonder if that has anything to do with the daily litany of horror that Islam visits upon the world?

But the most awful horrid hateful thing was that some people actually discussed closing our borders! Next those citizens will want rights like free-speech!

Former Miss Turkey, 26, facing trial after being arrested for posting satirical poem that criticised the country's president

A former Miss Turkey is facing trial for posting a satirical poem on social media that criticised her country's president.

The arrest of Merve Buyuksarac, 26, follows a crackdown in the country on critical media in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris.

She didn't get the Big Picture, did she.

Although officially Turkey is secular, 99.8 per cent of the population are registered as Muslim and there has been heated debate over freedom of expression in the wake of the Paris massacres.

Now it appears the Turkish crackdown is extending not just to monitoring the media, but also to its readers.

Officials confirmed that the model had been taken before prosecutors and questioned over the social media posting that they said had insulted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Merve, an educated young professional who works as an industrial designer and writer, ended up in court in the Caglayan neighbourhood of the western city of Istanbul.

Looking nervous and flanked by armed police, she told prosecutors that she 'may have quoted a poem' from the weekly humour magazine Uykusuz.


The judge, however, ruled to release Buyuksarac unconditionally, pending a date for the trial set to take place later in the year. 


Fortunately I was only banned from Facebook by a fragile feminist from Hilary's Village who smelled a moment of power which went to a very large empty space in her head. I do not feel it necessary to apologise on TV, go to trial, defend thugs and murderers while being paid by the victims nor even protest ships in Rotterdam.

There are better things to do.

There is the Crypt floor to mop, for a start. I must get to it.


Pax.

For God's sake !

The Rich Hypocrites Talk...but don't Walk

My Bouncer had to ask a chap to leave the premises the other day. I admit that he  - the chap - was behaving himself and not pissing on the carpet, but what he was saying was getting just too funny. There was a clear and present danger that many customers would piss their pants laughing.

Mr Jeff Greene was he, who recently spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, saying he believes people in the United States need to stop aiming so high and start living with less. 

"America's lifestyle expectations are far too high and 

need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, 

better existence".

Mr Greene ran for the Democratic (but of course) Senate nomination in Florida in 2010.  Clearly he wants his views heard and to be 'Law'.  

You know he's a democrat because he has abandoned the English language and grammar (fewer, not 'less'). It is what happens when you learn 'DoublePlusGoodSpeek'. Indeed, anyone can pen a non-English sentence, as you will see me try below.

The only issue Americans took with the 60-year-old's opinions was, well, everything.

He owns a $195 million palace in Beverly Hills, which has 23 bathrooms and a rotating dance floor, as well as four other blue ribbon properties, and is famous for throwing wild parties on a 145-foot yacht.

Personally, I have nothing against owning a Palace or Yachts. I have no problem with rotating dance floors - as long as they don't spin too fast and all the ladies topple off their ridiculous high heels. 

I do not even have a problem with people owning jet planes either. But when so many of the people who were invited to Davos this time around, to discuss the awfulness of climate change and the dangers caused by profligate human beings using carbon fueled electricity to cook their lunch and heat their hovels, arrived by their own private planes that the Swiss Air Force had to open up military airfields for them because the civil ones were overflowing, well.... perhaps I start to see a problem.

Hypocricy.

World leaders traveling to this year’s Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland will reportedly board about 1,700 private jet flights to reach their destination, where ironically the topic of how to tackle “climate change denial” will be discussed.

The annual globalist confab of power brokers, economists, journalists, world leaders, pop stars and titans of industry meets through Friday to flesh out various issues they believe to be affecting the planet.

One of the items on the agenda: “How can we tackle climate change denial?,” a problem threatening the implementation of a carbon tax scheme long in the works.

Oblivious to the irony, forum attendees from all over the world booked tens of hundreds of flights into Geneva, collectively spending hours polluting the airways.

“Roughly 1,700 private flights are expected over the course of the week, which is twice as many as normal, according to WINGX Advance, a tracking firm,” CNN Money reports.

A June 2008 Institute for Policy Studies report, entitled, “High Flyers: How Private Jet Travel is Straining the System, Warming the Planet and Costing You Money,” revealed

“An hour of flying in a private jet burns as much fuel as an entire year of driving.”

“Four passengers flying in a private Cessna Citation X from Los Angeles to New York will each emit 8,892 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. 

This is more than five times as much CO2 emitted by a commercial air passenger making the same trip,” the report added.

“Don’t worry. I’m sure these will be non-polluting private jets powered by carbon offsets and unicorn magic,” jests FrontPageMag.com’s Daniel Greenfield. “They will not in any way add to the heat death of the earth. Unlike you, toting your groceries home in a plastic bag in the back on an SUV.”

Among this year’s meeting attendees is none other than climate change advocate, multi-millionaire and former vice president Al Gore, whose name has become synonymous with the ongoing effort to convince humans we’re the primary cause of global warming, a stance many non-establishment scientists largely contradict.

 http://www.infowars.com/irony-1700-private-jets-descend-on-davos-economic-forum-to-discuss-climate-change/

Yes, I know. The number of the aircraft has been 'challenged'. 

Take a Mandy Rice Davis Moment, and a drink. 

"Well they would say that, wouldn't they?"

1700? It may eventually be more accurately fixed at 1674.

Some really famous and hard-working world leaders attend the conference.  40 heads of state, indeed, as well as 2,500 high-profile business leaders, who will deliberate over issues of economic growth, geopolitics and the internet.

And their entourages of course. It is not just Leonardo De Caprio who has a mob of hangers-on. Where do you think he got the idea from?

Co-chairing the event is Oxfam's executive director Winnie Byanyima, who has said she will use the occasion to highlight the “staggering” global economic gap between the rich and the poor. Just why she is there beats me, but I guess even she needs a break from the poor.

And this guy was there too.....

I bet you are glad he was there.
Everyone else wanted him there so they could try on his hat.
Who the hell is he?

Ah well. Its just a conference. It keeps them off street corners. Until the next one. I understand there is at least one such opportunity for swanning around the world on the Taxpayers (or consumer's) wallet, every month for the next 17 years.

The extravagance is outrageous. And, here's the rub.... these people are so thick that they just do not see that the hoi-poloi are pissed off. (But not on my carpets).

But maybe something is getting through.....

With growing inequality and the civil unrest from Ferguson and the Occupy protests fresh in people’s mind, the world’s super rich are already preparing for the consequences. At a packed session in Davos, former hedge fund director Robert Johnson revealed that worried hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes. “I know hedge fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway,” he said.

Johnson who heads the Institute of New Economic Thinking and was previously managing director at Soros, said societies can tolerate income inequality if the income floor is high enough. But with an existing system encouraging chief executives to take decisions solely on their profitability, even in the richest countries inequality is increasing.

Johnson added: “People need to know there are possibilities for their children – that they will have the same opportunity as anyone else. There is a wicked feedback loop. Politicians who get more money tend to use it to get more even money.”

The panellists were scathing about politicians, Wallis describing them as people who held up wet fingers “to see which way the money is blowing in from.” 

http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/23/nervous-super-rich-planning-escapes-davos-2015

What was that in Revelations about the rich and powerful hiding in out of the way places, under hills etc...?

Drink up and don't hog the candle.

Pax.

It's YOUR Money.

There is a song being whistled around the Tavern's bars today:

“Lord who made the lion and the lamb,
You decreed I should be what I am.
But would it spoil some vast eternal plan?
If I were a wealthy man?”

Now, of course, I used to be quite a wealthy man, m'self. Kings tend to be. But by gollywogs it is astonishing how expensive it can be to run a Kingdom. My people needed quite a bit around the place. But heck, what chap didn't spend pretty well everything he has on his family? The 'smithy' was a fine fellow, as were the farmers and builders; and they worked hard for their Groats. Were it not for their generosity I might have been living in the penury to which I have since become accustomed.

President Obama knows all about that too, it seems. He is using his $400,000+ benefits position to lecture his people about their reluctance to pay for his next holiday, which now that the 'fundraising' season is over will probably be in the next few weeks. Again. 

Even so, no-one ever asks just how it is he is a multi-millionaire on such a modest salary and a family of four to feed and clothe. Three females to boot.

It is not only Kings and Presidents that have big organisations to run - and pay for - but an increasing number of the 'people' in large companies and corporations. Not to mention 'Non-Government Organisations'. They too need holidays.  And $400,000+ salaries. But the people they employ would rather they didn't go on golfing trips (or 'Conferences' as they are often called) in jet planes to exotic places, but rather sell everything off and disburse the proceeds to them.

What they might do for a groat after that, no-one considers. 

Just who the buyers would be is anyone's guess and President Obama won't tell. But he did have a lot to say about the matter, in mantras and sound-bites to make it easier for gollywogs to grasp. 

He was even compared to Robin Hood at some point, although I cannot quite grasp that.

But Anna made it clearer for us as a 'warm-up' to the State of the Union' address that B.O gave. She even got her calculator out.

the-peoples-pitchfork

Shock, horror this morning amongst all the people who didn’t read the Forbes list of the 1549 wealthiest people in the world, Oxfam have used the top 85 to depress us further on #Blue Monday.

The top 85 own 1% of the world’s wealth! 

Nine hundred and ninety billion, eight hundred and eighty-three million, eight hundred and ninety thousand quid all to themselves, just 85 miserable sods? 

Noooo! We cannot have this. Pitchforkers of the world unite! They must give it back to us! We deserve it – they don’t, they are nasty filthy rich people. We can cure them of that. 

What to do? Well, let’s take that 1% of the world’s wealth away from the undeserving rich and share it out, and whilst we are about it, do away with the Royal family.

(Be aware, the French went down this route in 1789, it didn’t work for them!)

Now that the poorest three and a half billion of us are £228 each better off – look up and what do you see? 

Well, Bill Gates is broke – you took it all off him remember, so since most of the happy recipients of that £228 are living in third world countries prone to Malaria, you’d better dig deep in your pockets to fund the research otherwise you won’t live long enough to spend your share of the loot.

There’s something else you’ll notice – yes, there are still a load of filthy rich people ahead of you in that Forbes list! 

Off with their heads!

The only way to cure this is to take all the money in the world off everybody, and share it out equally. 

Yep, all £159,154,173,160,000 of it and share it out amongst the 7,289,064,815 of us.

Look at that! £21,834 quid and 65 pence each and no more rich bastards! 

We’re in the money, we’re in the money….

Just one small point. We owe £104,931,894,022,537.84.

That’s, er, £14,395 each – 

leaving you just £7,439 apiece.

And I’m prepared to bet that you’ll find you have just repaid that £104,931,894,022,537.84 to people who only had £7,439 yesterday and thus created a whole new category of rich bastards for you to hate.

Not only that, but some of that original ‘wealth’ figure was in the form of the value of property – palaces that you just tore down and created new hovels for yourselves; factories that employed you as slave labour that now have no value ‘cos, rejoice! you are no longer slaves…

It took the French 200 years to figure out what they’d done.

Enjoy your £7,439, there won’t be another handout next year, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

http://annaraccoon.com/2015/01/21/the-peoples-pitchfork/

I wonder about the French capacity for sense, however, let alone retention. 

One can calculate, albeit with rather less than the surgical precision clearly used by Oxfam – whose business it is to say these things -  that once the Great Redistribution has been accomplished (and naturally, by which time Oxfam are all out of a job) that a very similar order of things would be established within about a week.  The workshy and the single mothers would be back on benefits and the casino operators will have gathered in the sudden largesse.

Lawyers, guns and money…

But of course, President Obama could not say anything as clear as that, now could he. He barely speaks English, as we all know. He speaks OWO, double-plus-good, NewSpeak.  (As is 'Non-Government Organisation', come to think of it)  He has to be translated and commented upon. Anonymously, of course. You never know who is reading.

The Prince of Thieves

 http://patriotpost.us/articles/32542

During his lame-duck term, Barack Obama intends to pursue what he calls "middle-class economics," i.e., proposals to reduce income inequality through taxation. 

Apparently a one-trick pony, Obama is back to raising taxes on the rich.

In last night's State of the Union Address, Obama explained "middle-class economics" as "the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, everyone plays by the same set of rules. We don't just want everyone to share in America's success, we want everyone to contribute to our success."

By 'fair shot' he meant of course that each and every one of 'his' people have their names written on several of the billions of bullets that he has bought for Homeland Security. 

Except his policies don't give everyone a fair shot, or set the same rules for everyone. And only a few at the top "contribute to our success."

The Hill calls him Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor and middle class. 

As portrayed by a Tasmanian !!

But that's misrepresenting his theft. 

The idea of Obama's "giving" anything to the American middle class, for whom his enmity is all but palpable, is ridiculous, but the notion of his playing Robin Hood insults our intelligence. 

During the Obama era, both the middle class and the poor have lost more ground economically than during any time in the last four decades, yet suddenly along comes Robin Hood to right the wrongs of his first six years.

As Rush Limbaugh astutely explained Monday, Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. 

According to legend, Robin Hood reclaimed the excessive taxes extorted by the sheriff of Nottingham from the commoners in his shire. 

In modern parlance, Obama is the sheriff, 

not the woodsman.

Yet Obama's appeal to those who believe the wealthy steal from the rest of society has served him well. Rush alluded to exit polls in the 2012 presidential election that showed 81% said they voted for Obama because he "cares about people like me." 

For decades, the Left has sweetly whispered into the ears of the unhappy, the aggrieved and the gullible, telling them the rich have stolen everyone else's wealth. 

If only the playing field could be equalized. 

if only everyone had an equal share, all would be peachy.

The socialist utopian dream just will not die because there is always wealth to be redistributed. Obama claims tax hikes will help balance wealth distribution, but not a dime will ever reach a single productive person. 

Ironically, much of what's not swallowed by the gaping maw of government will likely go to Obama's buddies in Big Business, purportedly the Left's most hated foe.

The Left has seized upon a recent study by two neo-socialist economists, who claim the top 1% (written "0.01" to increase its impact) hold 80% of the wealth in the United States. 

But like all lefties in good standing, they leave out relevant facts. In this case, they ignore the wealthiest sector of the nation: 

the United States government.

The federal government forcibly extracted more than $3 trillion from American citizens in 2014 -- the first time it crossed that threshold. 

The study's authors complain about billionaires but say not a word about the trillionaire in the room. 

And according to the latest Forbes list of worldwide billionaires, the aggregate wealth of them all totals only $6.4 trillion, barely enough to finance the U.S. government for a year-and-a-half. 

It's also less than a third of federal debt. Added to the federal government, the states have their own billionaire club, particularly California, which has one of the largest economies (and hence, governments) in the world.

Enhancing its rather extravagant income, the federal government owns vast swaths of real estate inside our borders (including 87% of the land in the West), an asset of enormous value. 

So in comparison, the wealthy in our country, two-thirds of whom according to Forbes earned their wealth, could be among the lowest 1% when compared to government.

The authors conclude that the "public will favor more progressive taxation only if it is convinced that top income gains are detrimental to the 99%." 

So keep feeding them class envy.

We don't mean to be apologists for wealthy corporatists, some of whom -- such as George Soros and Tom Steyer -- use their wealth to buy our political system. (This while leftists hypocritically attack the Koch brothers or other conservative financiers, whose contributions are dwarfed by leftists.) 

Of course, others are admirable people who've made a fortune by grit and guts. 

This nation's founding principles guarantee every person the right to the fruits of his labor. Since the 16th Amendment passed, however, that principle has been turned on its head by busybody activists and government officials -- hypocritical officials, we might add.

Inside the most exclusive club in the world, congressmen and women "earn" more than several average families combined -- on average, just one of them surpasses 18 families' incomes. 

And the Redistributionist in Chief lives the life of royalty on a scale never before witnessed, jetting around in the world's most expensive plane with entourages of hundreds in tow. 

Where does he -- the laughable "savior" of the 99% -- get off demanding higher taxes from a "10% family" earning 225,000 badly devalued dollars?

Unfortunately, as long as Democrats can buy votes with taxpayer money, the class warfare of "middle-class economics" will live on. All Obama did Tuesday night was preview the central message of the 2016 presidential campaign.

The President packed for his holidays.

Ah yes, there are days when I could do with a bit more of that.

But.... I am content.

After all, while having very little in the way of monetary wealth m'self, Oz is not doing too badly as the chart shows.

The Tavern is well supplied with the Best that no money can buy and the well stocked cellars lead to the Crypt wherein lies something utterly Priceless.

Pax.