Trans ....#3... aggression

OK, so yet another continuation of the 'trans' bizzo. The customers are keen to make the point.

There are all sorts of folk in the world, that is true, and most will try to accomodate others. There are laws, you see. And it used to be that the Laws held to account and held in check those who are inclined to robbery and violence, perversion and cruelty. But our society is bending over too far to accomodate just those who would deliberately be that way. In fact the laws are supporting the dissolution of the very society that we have strived so hard to create. 

Many 'new' 'fair' laws are Bull Shyte.

Watch out for Bull Shyte

Personally I have some compassion for those who are 'dis-eased', who have mental problems. They do need help, even - and especially- when their illnesses are mild and easily accomodated.

Someone who thinks he is Napoleon may well elicit some pity for his unreal views. He transgresses reality. But we do not bend over to confirm his meglomania.  If he insists and forces others to bend to his diseased will, it becomes less a transgression and more an aggression. We may have some sympathy with a homosexual who is convinced he or she is more attracted to the same sex than any other normal person is. As long as they keep their sexual activities private, they can even come into the Tavern and have a drink. They need one.

I can even have sympathy and compassion for the genuinely confused young person who thinks they are really in the 'wrong-sexed' body. Their mind is not apprehending themselves correctly. They are almost always 'dis-eased'. 

But when the Law is changed to punish those who would help them find 'ease' or even hinder them from damaging themselves and others, then we have a big problem.

And that we have.

The transgressives are becoming aggressive. 

With help from the Law.

Two items came up in conversation. Dan Gilmore was telling os those wierd places on the West coast in San Francisco and the East coast in New York. 

One might have hoped for a bit of privacy when going to the toilet. We have Gentlemen/Knights toilets here and Ladies/Wenches ones too. We don't let any one lot use the others.

San Francisco's Bathroom Crusade

The human rights commissions in New York City and San Francisco are not at all what their names seem to imply. 

Rather than ensuring the rights of all humans, regardless of their of their biology or their beliefs, they have instead become advocacy organizations for LGBT interests. 

For example, Shaky Town’s HRC introduced a measure that would require gender-neutral bathrooms across the city. But it goes a bit farther than a simple change to the building codes. 

Gender-neutral is code for having some pervert chap interrupt the privacy of a lady or some aggressive, demanding harridan take a chap's place at a urinal.

http://patriotpost.us/posts/40044 

“The measure would mandate that all single-occupancy bathrooms in the city be relabeled as places for all genders, rather than solely ‘men’ or ‘women,’” Time Magazine reports, “and that new buildings constructed in the city have a gender-neutral bathroom on each floor. 

The bill would also go beyond similar laws in other cities by putting in place sweeping enforcement mechanisms, including a complaint process handled by the Human Rights Commission, an LGBT rights organization, and adding these facilities as a standard checklist item for building inspections.”

Tellingly, Time called San Fran’s human rights commission, a city agency, an “LGBT rights organization,” which shows that it’s no longer trying to ensure civil rights — some of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, hello Second Amendment! — but is instead bent on pushing leftist ideology. 

The Big Apple’s HRC recently suggested a regulation that would fine people $125,000 to $250,000 if they were “willful, wanton, or malicious” in assaulting a transgendered person with the wrong pronoun. 

This from a Nation that cannot spell, too !! 

In Democrat fiefdoms like these, accommodation may be the best thing social conservatives can hope for at the moment. Unfortunately, groups like human rights commissions aren’t interested in equal protection under the law. They’re merely the muscle for the Rainbow Mafia, and it’s the model for the rest of the nation.

This is punishing normality.

And it is put in place by the very people elected and appointed to serve society. They are hell-bent on destroying 'normal'.

And they support aggressiveness on the part of nasy, vicious people who cry 'victim'. 

Take the unfortunate farming couple who made a little extra money by letting couples get married on their beautiful property. Their farm. They did not want to be supportive of homosexuals  disgracing both the Institution of Marriage and their farm.

They said no.

The Lesbian couple (hello, we have been here before, with pizza parlours and florist shops) went to Court because they had their feelings hurt.

Heck, the farming couple's feelings were hurt too, but that seems not to matter.

So Dustin Siggins drank his pint and called for another while he told us about it.

Court: Farmers can’t refuse same-sex ‘wedding’ in backyard, fines them $13,000

 Farmers who host weddings in their backyard cannot refuse ceremonies where two people of the same sex are trying to get married, a New York court has ruled.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-farmers-cant-refuse-same-sex-wedding-in-backyard

The court's decision affirmed the state's Division of Human Rights (DHR) ruling against Robert and Cynthia Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farms, after they declined to host a "wedding" for a same-sex couple. 

The Giffords said they would host the reception for a lesbian couple, but the ceremony itself would have to be hosted elsewhere because of their religious beliefs about marriage.

The two argent-grubbing lesbian maggottes (excuse my  French) Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin claim they suffered 'mental pain and suffering.'

Pain and suffering, my arse.

DHR found that the couple violated New York's "places of public accommodation" anti-discrimination law. If the court's decision stands, the Giffords must pay $10,000 in state fines and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple, Jennie McCarthy and Melissa Erwin, for "mental pain and suffering." 

Note how the State takes a huge share. 

This is theft. Grand Larceny by the State. 

Additionally, the Giffords – who say they have hosted a birthday party for a lesbian couple's adopted child, and employed people with same-sex attractions – will have to provide sensitivity training to their staff and prominently display a posterhighlighting state anti-discrimination laws.

Wot? No re-education camp and hard labour?

The suit goes back to a 2012 phone call that Cynthia answered. Erwin and McCarthy wanted to have their wedding on site, something Cynthia said couldn't happen.

In a statement issued by the New York arm of the ACLU, which took on their case, the lesbian women said, "Having your relationship judged as somehow unworthy is incredibly hurtful and disheartening and we want to ensure that other couples do not have to undergo the same treatment."

No it isn't 'incredibly hurtful'. There is no credulity in that claim. It is just fatuous nonsense. 

Erwin and McCarthy say it took them months to find another site to host their "wedding."

"All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards," said Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Caleb Dalton in a statement after Thursday's decision. Dalton, who defended the couple, added, "The government went after both this couple's freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property. The court should have rejected this unwarranted and unconstitutional government intrusion, so we will consult with our client regarding appeal."

In 2014, another attorney for the Giffords told LifeSiteNews, "The entire interaction between the complainants and the Giffords transpired during a two- to three-minute telephone conversation, which, unknown to Mrs. Gifford, was being tape-recorded," Trainor said.

So, a prima-facie set-up. A deliberate entrapment. 

Its setting the police and courts on innocent people in the now-so typical homosexual game of 'Let's You and Him, Fight'.

"After communicating the fact that they chose not to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies at the farm because to do so would violate the Giffords' sincerely held beliefs (that God intended marriage to be between a man a woman only), Mrs. Gifford invited the couple to visit the farm to discuss handling their wedding reception, which the couple refused."

Trainor also says the state's law doesn't apply to the Giffords because their wedding and reception business is on their home property. However, Slate's Mark Stern noted in 2014 that DHR found that "[Liberty Ridge Farms] is a for profit business and directs its publicity to the general public. … LRF engages in widespread marketing to the general public through advertising at a bridal show and on the internet[.] … LRF is encouraging members of the public to lease the use of its facilities and purchase its services. Thus, there is no exclusivity and LRF is not 'distinctly private.'" 

What is one to do when provoked by aggressive lesbians?  And an aggressive State.

I shall leave you to ponder that and come up with your own responses.

Meanwhile a couple of other chaps at a table at the back called out....

Paul Bany said: 

Really? $13,000 fine? For what? For lesbians and gays' mental pain and sufferings? What about million of women and men who follow the traditional marriage that have been abused everyday and they do not received any coin for their sufferings? What is special about this new group of gays/lesbians? The world is totally out of order and it has become worse than Sodom and Gomorrah 

And  David Wills suggested....

I would have said, hey girls, come on in! But I promise you that they would have had the noisiest, dirtiest, dustiest, STINKIEST, experience of their lives. 

There would be a mountain of whatever fiendishly ripe animal shyte was on hand, piled up to the frigging sky! 

They would have been welcomed by humming and snarling old farm equipment, a peanut gallery of as many toothless half drunk hillbillies I could find, and a pasture full of cows on hand being serviced by the randiest bull God ever gave breath! 

Nope, the farmers need to consult with me if they want to help these disordered women experienc e a ceremony "out in nature!" Yes, I would give them nature al right...

I found that a very useful, if slightly overdone suggestion but worth considering.

M'self? I too would host if I had to, here at the Tavern on our extensive and very beautiful lawns.... and I would put a Bull in there too.  

There is too much bullshyte in the laws that are coming to a place near you, so look out. In fact, hand it back.

Pax.

Trans...#2....Gender

OK, so the scotsman in a silky ladies' slip is one thing. (see Trans #1). I continued to pour the single malt. He was in no eagerness to mix or blend and he remained firmly blokey. But the conversation went on in the bars to discuss what further down the slope is looking like.

It was not a pretty sight. 

Several opinions were given by customers and attempt was made to bring some mirth, but that just didn't work.  You see the modern movement toward confusing the genders and excusing the  benders is just not funny and is getting out of hand. It is  not so much an an issue that a man like Bruce Jenner wants to wear a dress, a bra and even a corset, it is his demand to be called a woman. It just ain't going to be so.

Do clothes really maketh the man? 

Even being called 'Woman of the Year does not make it so.

There is more to a car than  just the upholstery

Cats might have something to say about that.

We can almost put up with nutty nonebrities making damned fools of themselves, but what of 'real' people in real jobs. Like the military for example. Several American military personnel have 'changed sex' it seems and so have some Australians.

Go on then: give an order and watch a Knight scoff.

Do any of those people inspire leadership confidence? 

Can you imagine any man actually following those wierdos into battle? 

Yet, the military and governments are bending forward for these people and YOU are paying for it. 

Allowing or even encouraging children to 'be' the opposite gender to which they were born, for faux-gender-equality reasons of the parents or because the kiddy says he/she 'feels in the wrong body', is a disaster waiting to happen. 

And happen it does.

Take young 'Jazz' Jennings for instance. Raised as a girl, this boy has now reached teen years and is upset because boys do not find her/him attractive 'in that way'.. 

Won't find  normal healthy love.

Indeed, she/he is repulsive to them. Hello!! 'She' is actually quite pretty but you are not going to fool some young lad just because the parents are stupid. The boys are uncomfortable around him and (s)he is going to suffer from that discomfort with a growing sense of discomfort of his/her own.

It is cruel.

Or take the tragedy of Leelah, a transgender teen who committed suicide.  Leelah was actually Josh Alcorn who threw himself under a truck. He 'wanted' to be treated as a girl, but his parents did not. Conflict of emotion, family and society ensues.

Except he wasn't a daughter or a sister.

Katy French Talento spoke to the issue in the US room.

Transgenderism: a thought experiment

A recent piece in The Federalist by Stella Morabito captures some of the political and statistical realities surrounding transgenderism.  

(  You can see that piece here.... http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/09/leelahs-law-is-bad-law-and-bad-medicine/  ) It is about young Josh/Leelah.

The ease with which societal elites in academia, medicine, and Hollywood sanction a child's war against his own body and call it healthy, normal, or something to celebrate has its foundation in the contraceptive revolution of our culture. 

Women were told that the very thing that most marks them as a woman, their wondrous reproductive systems, their fertility, is their enemy.   

If only they can break free from the tyranny of their own bodies, they will be free. 

But we cannot break free from our bodies without further destruction. 

Hormonal contraception has brought us all kinds of "liberation" - cancer, unintended miscarriages, the masking of symptoms of reproductive disease until it may be too late to treat or mitigate, changes to our pheromone profile that attract and repel different types of sexual mates, the commodification of children and reproduction, which has led to designer babies, selective abortions and other eugenic trends, and a general disintegration of children's rights as the foundation for the legal structure surrounding civil marriage.

This is just one example of the catastrophic effects of declaring war on our own bodies, not just for an individual who declares such a war, but for many others in the culture who suffer from the effects of this materialist philosophy. 

 We do violence against human dignity when we agree with someone who has decided that his own body is his enemy. 

 We can not escape our bodies, no matter how aggressively we reject, medicate, poison, mutilate or even kill our bodies, as the sad teenager referred to in The Federalist piece did. 

In the end, our personhood is an inextricable combination of soul and body.  To damage one is to damage them both.   

Perverts are already in the classrooms

To reject one is ultimately a rejection of both and the psychological carnage of this self-rejection can not be avoided. The idea that we can separate our true personhood from our body is an ancient heresy that raises its head in different forms in every age.

I wonder if these elites would be quite so indulgent of this materialist assault on human nature if there were a child or a teenager who demanded racial preferences and affirmative action treatment because he claimed that he was truly black, trapped in a white body.  Walk with me through this thought experiment. 

A white adolescent hails from a privileged family in a tony suburb, let's say.  He learns a little about history in school, and about Africa, and the Civil War, and he begins to experience overwhelming feelings of empathy with his black and African brothers throughout the ages. He thinks that this sympathy explains why he's always felt different or isolated from his own family. He begins to feel such unity with his black brothers that he delves more into traditionally black or African subcultures, including the hip-hop music scene, the nation of Islam, and adopts a fashion and hair style more traditionally associated with these subcultures. 

His parents begin to worry about his alienation from them, and especially his increasing despondency, anger and depression. He feels isolated from his family, unfeeling paragons of white privilege that they are. They ask their pastor to meet with him. To no avail. They take him to a Christian counseling practice, and his counselors try to talk to him about the healthy aspects of his sympathies and the perhaps unhealthy aspects in the form of his detachment from his cultural identity, his family and community connections. 

He rejects their efforts as bigoted, racist, and hostile to his true identity as a black man. 

His friends at first think it's funny and quirky, but as he gets angrier and more critical of them for not understanding him, or not wanting to play along with his "black" identity, they distance themselves from him and he grows more isolated and depressed.

As he ages, he wonders why people reject his claims of blackness, why black girls think he's weird and won't date him, and why the African American club at school thinks he's just quaint and odd rather than fully embracing him. 

As he applies for colleges, he lists his race as black, writes admission essays about his people's persecuted past, applies for minority-only scholarships and demands to live in the all-black dorm. When he is admitted to college, and his true race is obvious to his dorm mates, he grows aggrieved that his scholarship is rescinded and he is asked to move to a different dorm. He insists on rushing the black fraternities, and when they reject him, he sues them and the university for all their many expressions of bigotry. 

Change the thought experiment he to a she and what do we get?  Here it is in actuality. A white woman demanding to be considered black. Her name is not Charles nor Charlotte though. It could be Charlatan.

Charlatan. Faux-Black because there is MONEY in it

What do we think about this man? Do we think that the problem is ours - our own intolerance? Are we the ones that need to change, and to resist the information being conveyed about this man by the biological facts of his skin color, ethnic history, and associated genes? Or do we reach out to him in compassion and love and try to address his deep psychological distress without affirming his self-rejection? 

Just asking. 

 Katy French Talento is an epidemiologist and former U.S. Senate staffer and gets a drink for asking.

She has a point though she pulls her punches. But she does show the ridiculousness of blaming those who try to stop the madness.

And a madness of sorts it is. 

Almost every child, teen and adult has wondered what it is like being the other sex. It is natural. It is also natural to gravitate toward the opposite sex, be fascinated by the difference, and generally to rejoice in that difference. Men learn what it is like to be a woman by living in intimate relationship with one, and woman learn about what it is like to be a man the same way.

But the growing mind can be maleable and prone to disfunction. That's why parental guidance and a mature, adult sense and sensitivity is needed.

One would think that the home and school would protect children. Not any more though.

You would hope our courts and law-makers would have sense and sensitivity. They are lacking too, unfortunately.

But perhaps I am pulling my punches now. The societal Institutions are crumbling and have, in the main, taken leave of sense.

Here is what is coming..... Walt Hayer had this to say....

Transgender “Men” Ask Supreme Court to Overturn Texas’ Prolife Law Because They Want the Right to Kill Babies, Too

In a shocking turn of events transgender men (always genetically, and sometime anatomically, women), along with other similar LGBTQ-type groups, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court requesting the current Texas abortion restrictions to be removed. They feel it is important that transgender men have access to unrestricted abortion.

Poor child. It has a Maddy.

At the very least, arguing on behalf of transgender men to have abortions seems specious because if they were truly men they obviously could not get pregnant. However, there are a number of cases where transgender men have by choice, and by accident become pregnant.

 http://joemiller.us/2016/01/trannies-want-to-overturn-prolife-law/#RXIbt8IEtL7SLTeP.01

Transgender men were born women but generally believe they should have been endowed with male genitalia. 

Up until very recently, it was nearly universally recognized that such a condition was a treatable mental disorder. 

Now, many transgender men go through multiple operations in barbaric surgical attempts to become more like men. At the end of such an ordeal, they would physiologically be unable to become pregnant. However, many transgender men choose not to go through the entire process either due to the substantial costs, medical complications, or numerous personal reasons.

One can get easily confused. Here 'transgender men' refers to women who have been altered to look like men. 

Even so, if transgender men truly self-perceive as male, how is it possible that they need abortions? 

Shouldn’t they also be attracted to women as most men are? If that was the case then, a transgender man having sex with a woman could not get pregnant. But, in reality, many transgender men engage in bi-sexual and high-risk activities, creating risks of unintended pregnancies if they have not fully completed transitioning. So then, is it right for them to demand that the Texas abortion laws be changed for them?

Subborning Children

I think we also have to recognise that the pressures to 'normalise' this dis-ease is  from a combination of feminist, homosexual and paedophilia groups who deliberately involved children in order to sexually abuse them. The planting and nurturing of bizarre gender mis-identity ideas in a child is egregious child abuse in itself, and a precurser to more. 

Story books are in kindergartens, deliberately planting the idea. And children are exposed to the most appalling sexual displays increasingly.  It is wicked; it is child abuse; and it is supported by legislators and courts. The taxpayer underwrites it.

This is deliberate perversion. And the PTB want to make it 'normal'

Frankly, it’s likely the Texas abortion law doesn’t even apply to them (the statute refers to “the woman”). Since the law seems to only apply to women, and many of them have legally changed their status to men while still retaining the ability to become pregnant, they are likely not affected by the statute in question.

So what are these activist transgender men and the broader LGBTQ community doing in this case? 

It seems they want to expose themselves to the public and force a degree of public acceptance. 

See it enough and you won’t be shocked any more; the obscene becomes normal with enough exposure. In short, they want the public to accept them as men who can still get pregnant and have periods.

For a sane person, none of this really makes sense except to understand this is all just another effort to rebel against the created order and further deconstruct the Judeo-Christian foundations of western civilization.

A chap in a frock is one thing. A woman dressed as a sailor or a card-sharp is his colleague. Both may be relatively harmless. But behind them, beneath them, reaching up from the Pit, are far darker forces.

In the Tavern we drink deep of the fine stuff and look through the windows, past the hedges, and see a civilisation disintegrating. 

The children cry.

Seek Pax Dei. 

Trans....#1 .....Vestite

We live in an age of aggressive sexualism. It takes several forms, from quite mild adventurism and exploration all the way and building up to complete lunacy.  We get a bit of the milder sort here in the Tavern. We are open to most people, after all, and the bouncer lets most people through the door, albeit on condition.

Take the fellow who came in the other day. He wanted a dram or two of my finest single malt which is not unusual but he did attract the attention of quite a few of the ladies. He was wearing a Kilt, you see. 

Need I say that some ladies were interested in what was beneath ?  They were in for a surprise, and so were some of the regulars. He had to take his shirt off to emphasise his masculinity.

Slipped into something comfortable.

Even then eyebrows were raised.

We knew that the Kilt was made of heavy material of a manly, rough sort, and as he explained, he prefers some sort anti-chafing under it. So he wore a half-slip. A Ladies' one (Well they don't make them for chaps, do they).

Ladies don't seem to wear slips very often these days (such a shame) so even they were interested ! 

Cute: feminine. No mistaking.

Now I cannot say that I am a fan of chaps wearing clothes made for ladies, but I could see his point. I stopped any of the ladies (and him) exposing his underpants lest his proclivities extended there too and he might have caused a riot. Not that I would have cared one way or another mind you (except for the riot of course - they tend to pet precious beer on the carpet) but I did not want the Bouncer over-extended.  Indeed, back in the days when Knights such as m'self wore even tougher stuff - steel plate and chain mail - it was quite usual to wear a silk shift underneath. Silk stopped the rust shards getting to the skin.

A Knight is often thought to have worn a 'token' from his lady but we forget that such tokens were, er... varied. 

There is a long history of men wearing women's clothes. It has always been frowned upon.  But as Camiile Paglia demonstrated and documented in her massive tome 'Sexual Persona', it is women who are the transvestites par excellance. And that continues today.

It is an oddity of 'equality' that society accepts women wearing men's clothes but not the other way around. It must have a lot to do with inherent aspects of masculinity and femininity, but that is for others to discuss.

Today though it is ridiculous and there is a 'feminisation' of our society that seems to derive much 'pleasure' in driving masculinty into the ground under a high heeled shoe.

There are even fashion wierdos putting dresses on men! Weird is the result.

To make sure the dress does not clash with the colour of his eyes, he wears sunglasses.
Its what dorks do.

I have no problem with ladies wearing y-fronts or men wearing whatever they want to out of sight, but unsightly dresses on an unsightly body is well... er... wierd. Who would want to go out like that?

OK, so Roman soldiers wore skirts and Alexander the Great too, but legend has it that he had shapely legs.  But the chaps today who 'might' gravitate to dresses and skirts are hardly soldier material, let's face it.

Of course, what he and his lady get up to in the privacy of their home is their business but I would instruct my bouncer to draw the line at some attires in the bars.

Yes, it is not usual and certainly not in public. They would be derided and no doubt there would be a movement to force changes to the law so that those who laughed and pointed at chaps in lingerie and dresses would be fined and jailed. 

But women of course can wear what they like. No-one can comment or they will be fined and locked up. 

Even Princesses wear men's clothes.  Can you imagine Prince Chuck turning up to a function in a dress? I very much doubt he had much of a say in what Diana wore. She seemed to wear anything she fancied but a seat-belt.

The tavern has several lines we draw. Skirt length for instance. If the scotsman had bent over to reveal his knickers we would have given his arse a taste of size ten boot, yet we have had the occasional woman attempting to show us her taste in knickers, and even what she had for breakfast,  which has resulted in a flick with the towel and a swift escorting to the stables.

Women seem to revel in exposing themselves. I can see the attraction, being a red-blooded chap, but it can be taken too far. 

But in the 'entertainment ' biz, which has completely colonised most of the world and its mind, the transvestite woman is almost revered.

She is never called out for it. Indeed, she gets awards despite it.

They strut around as faux-men at will.

Now, again, what folk wear has always been a question of 'fashion' and nowhere recently (say 150 years) have men been encouraged into dresses. Until now. And the 'freedom' to wear whatever one wants, and that may well include a chap dressed in silks and satins under his suit, is used as an excuse to drive 'gender' out of clothing and force children into confusion. Even about themselves. 

From there, the handrail at the top of the slippery slope gets oiled and peters out after a very few yards.

And so we find the transexuals thrust upon us. 

I did not ask, and neither did anyone else, just where the scottish chap in his ladies' underwear kept his dirk.

Some people have strange places for those too.

Mr Knife-Nose is mad. He would not last two minutes even in the UK room. But so are many these days.  Mad, that is. And bad. The transgender madness/badness is a spreading virus. It is affecting everyone even down to small children in school.

But that is for another time.  Trans #2 time.

Pax, and C.Y.A.

Recycling

It's not that hard. It takes thoughtfulness, innovation, investment and dare I say Capitalism, to 'make good' with what we discard. (All things Lefties seem to hate)

You do not have to be a Greeny. After all, there are few enough examples of greenies doing anything but condemn, especially condemn capitalism. But you can do your bit as some others do.

Take the left-reviled Chick-Fil-A business in the USA.  This is what happens to their rubbish.

Tavern customers remember the furore about Chick-fil-A. The company was 'ostracised', nay, persecuted for repudiating 'gay rights'. Not that they ever refused service to gay people. They simply did not support gay 'marriage'.

Their stores were picketted and the media joined in the hysterical denunciations.  Even presigious institutions showed their cowardice in the face of such gay intolerance. That is, intolerance by the gays.

Chick-Fil-A Is Not Welcome at Johns Hopkins University

Johns Hopkins University is saying no thanks to Chick-fil-A. The student government feels the on-campus presence of the Atlanta-based chicken chain would be a "microaggression" against the LGBT community.

http://www.eater.com/2015/4/23/8479689/chick-fil-a-johns-hopkins-resolution-lgbt-anti-gay

This week the Baltimore college's Student Government Association "approved a resolution that called on administrators to put to a halt any discussions or plans to bring a Chick-fil-A to campus" in light of the fast food chain's controversial anti-gay marriage stance. 

Hmmmmm. 'Microaggression', eh?  That would be a big Macro-aggression denying a business access to premises, wouldn't it?

I guess they only take stuffed chooks as students at that 'University'. The Administration does not seem to have the brains of live chickens. Best avoid sending your kids there.

The furore threatened to destroy the business, but the fine and upstanding amongst the American people supported the fast-food compnay in an (until then) unprecedented show of defiance to the lefty intolerants.

Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar Despite Bad PR

In the latest sign that all press is good press, Leon Stafford of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Chick-fil-A's sales soared 12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately-held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders.

Chick-fil-A caught a great deal of flak throughout the year after its president Dan Cathy came out against gay marriage and in support of the "biblical definition of the family unit." 

Gay rights activists staged protests at locations around the country, and some even called for a boycott of the brand.

But if the uproar dampened enthusiasm for the brand among pro-gay rights consumers, it also inspired vigorous backlash from some conservative (and politically apathetic but poultry-loving) customers. Soon after the height of the controversy, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee dubbed (via a Facebook posting) August 1 Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, leading to record sales throughout the chain.

Good old reliable Huffington. They reserve the 'backlash' word for almost any counter-response to gay atrocity. 

These latest sales data are just further proof that all that negative coverage didn't hurt demand for chicken sandwiches among Chick-fil-A's core consumers.

Good to see them thrive. They stood for what are now seen as 'old', Traditional Values, as opposed to  what the left has dubbed 'American Values'. 

Take a stand too, in what you do.

Recycle Traditional Values, based on Christendom.

Tolerance can go too far. Love the Sinners but hate the Sins.

Do not be afraid.

By the way, we do fine chicken dishes here in our Restaurant too.

Pax

Ass-ylum

Occasionally someone raises the issue of  asylum seekers invading Europe, and while 'anglophile' is peripheral to the EU, it is front and centre in Oz and in this Tavern. We have largely stemmed the tide of death at sea of death-dealing muslims trying to illegally gain entry here, which is a bit ironic when you think of it, and yet we still have a moral confusion about being 'compassionate' and 'christian'.

But we shall leave the clarifying of the moral imperatives until the end of this piece.

The Lords and Masters (and Mistresses) of Europe  however - and that includes Britain - have all the moral certainty of shellfish. They are innundated with 'multiculturalists, all taxpayer funded, of course, who use taxpayer funds to influence Gummunt policy. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, for a start, it makes Asses of us all.  (And that's the animal, not the American body-part).

The Gummunts in Britain as well as Germany have no qualms about imposing their very modern 'values' on everyone regardless of  tradition, laws or protest. And to make matters even more confusing, the public is not informed by the media who bend the knee instead of waving the stick.

The Oz policy of refusing entry to anyone who tries to come illegally is still challenged by the morally challenged. We 'process' illegal 'asylum- seekers off- shore on a Pacific Island.  We have in the past done that here in Hilary's Village too. It was near suicide.

Tasmania is an Island just south of Mainland Oz. We are assailed with ‘demands’ that we should be the main ‘processing’ centre for illegals for the whole of Oz. We even had a ‘detention’ place set up in a village outside of Hobart. It was barbed-wired and just for males. Women illegals were ‘accomodated’ in hotels in the city.

The 'detention centre' in little Brighton, just ouside Hobart.
Population 3150.

What is notable is the nexus between local gummunts and state gummunts which lobby for this very atrocity as it attracts federal funds. Bugger the  more sane of the Tasmanian taxpayers. They get villified by the gummunt and news programs when they call for caution and sanity. Oh, apart from the ‘compassion-poisoned’ mob who hang out the welcome flags and feature on every TV program about the issue. The gummunts just love them.

Some people in Brighton like the idea too. The shopkeepers for a start. They benefit from having hundreds of thousands of dollars from Taxpayers in Brisbane and Syndey being spent in their stores.  Those taxpayers are not consulted and do not see a bag of crisps.

In Britain the 'debate' is kept well clear of the news. But occasionally some stupidity leaks out. Just for a moment before some nebby shuts debate down before it starts.

But the talk in the UK room  by DWestonFront the other day lifted the lid a little. You will not have seen any mention of this in the news media so be astonished.

Suicide Notes: #1 

UK – Being Earnest on Earnley

A curious thing happened on December 1st 2015 at the Chichester Observer. They published and then removed two articles about the modest parish of Earnley in Sussex.

Specifically, these pieces focused on the fact that Earnley was due to receive 200 “asylum seekers” seeking refuge. They of course followed the modern refugee profile consisting of males between the ages of 18-40. Best of all, these cultural enrichers would be sourced from our dear friends in Calais.

 http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2016/01/11/suicide-notes-1-uk-being-earnest-on-earnley/

Locals in the area, with a population of just over 400, were naturally delighted horrified at the prospect. The Observer published a piece quoting a number of Earnley residents on their fears. 

I would give you a link to the piece, but the Chichester Observer kindly removed it the very same day it went up. Even the Google cache of the page is no longer available.

Fortunately I saved a copy.

Here is what the locals had to say for themselves:

“I walk with my mum and two young children in the village weekly. It has a population of less than 400 across three hamlets.

“It has no street lights, no pavements, no transport links, no shops, no police station. And they want to leave us with 200 male asylum seekers with nothing to do.

“I feel sick. Just one poorly screened individual and I am walking alone in a tiny village with two young children.

“I feel so vulnerable, my parents and the rest of the village are terrified.”

The asylum seekers would be 'security cleared' so Earnley Concourse ‘would not be a detention centre’, the parish council has said.

Bracklesham Bay resident Graham Bray added: “This is a totally inappropriate location for this purpose and must be rejected completely.

“This would ruin the ambience of this lovely village.”

‘Would not be a detention centre’? Oh what a relief for the residents! 

This would mean of course minimal security, if any, and they would have the run of the town. As you may have guessed, this mass dumping of human trash was (surprise!) nothing to do with Earnley’s residents or its nearest local council. It was  “a Home Office project independent of either Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council.” 

Yet again, residents were simply told what was going to happen, not asked. 

Shortly after the “Earnley residents ‘terrified’ by asylum seeker plans” story quoted above was removed, another piece went up for a few hours before also being pulled, entitled “Chichester community ‘need to welcome asylum seekers'”. I also saved this one.   

It presented the polar opposite perspective to the now memory-holed article prior. In it, we find out that residents in Earnley and surrounds actually can’t wait for the human deluge:

Sarah Nunn helped organise a candle-lit vigil for Syria’s stricken refugees in Chichester in September.

Bracklesham resident Mrs Nunn said: “We need to welcome asylum seekers into our community because they are people in desperate need.

“We have all seen the photos. Who would put themselves, let alone their families into such danger if they were not fleeing for their lives?

“We, in Sussex, have so much in comparison, the least we can do is be welcoming.

“Is that not what we would want for our family if we were in their shoes?”

Commenting on the Observer Facebook page, Scarlett Lee Silvester said: “I look forward to their arrival.

“It’s nice to have a cultural diversity. Perhaps when they do arrive they could provide better transportation links if the residents are so worried.”

That last sentence was one of only two to give any indication at all that something was amiss. The second one stated only, “The news has divided opinion locally.”

No sh*t! Really?

Now depending on at what time you happened to read the Chichester Observer, you would have received a very different picture of the local sentiments. 

Anyone living in the area though is probably painfully aware of the kind of travelling clown show that purports to represent ‘local views’ but does anything but.

The only reason I picked up these two stories at all before they both went down the memory hole is that I have written a suite of web scrapers that I launch occasionally (they tie up the computer for a while even with multiple threads) to scan the front pages of local media for certain keywords/terms – which currently include ‘refugee’, ‘Syria’, ‘asylum seeker’ among others.

I’ve started doing this every couple of weeks to see what important stories are being reported locally, but fail to reach the national media and therefore national consciousness. I previously did this with keyword searches on fuel poverty and have been absolutely stunned by some of the stories that would be of national but that just end up buried or otherwise ignored. I suspect many don’t make it to the print editions either, so even less (Ed. Fewer) people see them whilst the hacks in question can pretend they’ve carried out some kind of due diligence.

Given neither of the two stories above lasted 24 hours, I was curious to find out what was going on. The Chichester Observer don’t like to pick up the phone it seems, but they *did* respond to email after a few days. Here is what they said:

“There were people making some legally problematic comments across social media relating to the story where the residents raised their concerns so we felt it was the best course of action in the circumstances to take that story down. Had we left the more positive story there it would have been unbalanced so we took that down too, leaving the one that was purely factual.”

Now, credit to them for pulling the other piece too. I do wonder if some kind of editorial battle was going on behind the scenes over this. Someone (I hope) genuinely wanted to accurately report the sentiments of local residents even if another member of staff thought it more important to present the usual activist regressive left talking points. The ‘factual story’ in question that was left up is linked just below.

 http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/local/200-asylum-seekers-coming-to-earnley-1-7089957

Without researching it, you would have no idea there was any contention, never mind that 2000+ people signed a petition against the asylum seeker centre, with many leaving hostile comments against ‘the project’.

None of this detracts from the general feeling of unease at the prospect that they just don’t want to air certain opinions. 

“Problematic comments across social media” in response to the first story is just pure bullsh*t. People are livid about this being forced on them *and* being told to ‘shut up, racist’ too. The paper is not liable for how people react to this on social media.

Yet the only reaction I ever see from people who should know better and who should learn from it, is to double down. 

What is wrong with these people?

And so back to the moral issue. Let us look at what is wrong with them.

Firstly, and of frankly lesser importance (as 'twas always thus) the 'authorities'  care not a whit for the hoi-poloi. What 'ordinary' people wish is neither here nor there to those who gain bureaucratic power. They do not consider the wishes of a mere 400 people when they have 200 foreigners to house, who share with them absolutely no commonality of tradition, law, moral ethos of even washing habits.

They are autocratic 'do-gooders'. They want to look good, in the eyes and plans of other bureaucrats further up the greasy pole, and, importantly, attract large budgets. Taxpayers' money, that is. In the bad old days the Lords would simply take it. Now the 'appointed' bureaucrats simply take it.

Secondly and more importantly ('Twas ever thus too) is the substitution of a false 'morality' in place of the real one.

The Good Samaritan parable was the response of Christ to a Lawyers' challenge to define ones neighbour.  An ostensive definition.  The samaritan chap was not out looking for robbery victims. He didn't advertise for them to come looking for him for help. He didn't give them a taxpayer-funded home. He didn't give the poor sod a dancing girl (they didn't have TVs in those days) or a piccolo player to entertain him.

He paid from his own purse. For a night or two at an Inn. 

That was all.

He was kind to a man he had encountered who needed some help.

It was 'personal'.

Charity. 

He did not tell anyone.

He did not invoice the taxpayers, or the Romans.

He was a straight down the middle sort of fellow. 

Any virtue and be turned into a vice and Gummunts are exceptionally 'good' at doing just that. Do-gooders too.

I have heard 'christians' say that Christ as a baby was a refugee. True. But no-where in the 'flight to Egypt' is there any note about Egypt providing taxpayer-funded housing, furniture, food, language lessons or anything else. Even at Christ's birth the Landlord of the Inn did not recieve a demand from Joseph to give up his own living quarters.

The bureaucrats of Chichester (I doubt there were many in Earnley) were not offering their own homes and charity. The 'supporters' did not either.

I have no problem with people putting their money where their mouth is, but I do have a problem with them demanding my money. As much has been said in the Tavern a few times before.

In Tasmania we have a number of very charitable folk, mostly associated with Churches of one Christian sort or another, who band together to give assistance to refugees. I have no issue with them spending their time and money being 'Good People'.  However even they are subject to the arbitrary rules of bureaucrats and rely upon the taxpayer funded 'Gummunt Depts.

Hereward said in the bar, about the Earnley matter....

If it comes to pass, that, Earnley is invaded, who will report the resultant crime wave? Or, years down the line will it just become a very small replication of the appalling events in Rotherham? 

We are not free, we don’t have anything like a free press and the people of Britain are not consulted, this land has no democracy. 

In any event, who in their right minds would grant permission for a mass movement, which since circa 1997 has seen the UK population rise (from ± 57m) to an estimated 75 million and don’t quote me 62.5 million that’s just HMG ONS bollox. 

Inundated, unsolicited, by people with which, we have no links, worse even than that – most of the new arrivals hate everything Britain stands for, their ways are inimical to our own traditions and culture. Conclusion, this is deliberate ethnic cleansing and Earnley unfortunately for them, are in the front line.

Coming to a small town near you very soon.

I wonder how many homeless British-born people there are in the UK? And Oz-born in Oz  for that matter. I don't see much effort to accomodate them.

Charity starts at home and on our own streets. 

Pax.