Monday, February 20, 2012

THEY SOLD TRIGGER. BOY IT'S REALLY GETTING BAD..... HAPPY TRAILS

Posted by BH 10:29 pm 2-20

They Sold Trigger!
THE END OF AN ERA     REMEMBER OUR CHILDHOOD!!!
The Roy Rogers Museum in Branson , MO has closed
its doors forever.
The contents of the museum were sold at a public auction.
Roy Rogers told his son, if the museum ever operates at a
loss, close it and sell the contents.
He complied.
Here is a partial listing of some of the items that
were sold at auction...
Roy 's 1964 Bonneville sold for $254,500, it was
estimated to sell between 100 and 150 thousand dollars.
His script book from the January 14,1953 episode of
This Is Your Life sold for $10,000 (EST. $800-$1,000).
A collection of signed baseballs ( Pete Rose, Duke Snyder
and other greats) sold for $3,750.
A collection of signed bats (Yogi Berra, Enos Slaughter,
Bob Feller, and others) sold for $2,750.
Trigger's saddle and bridle sold for $386,500
(EST. 100-150 K).
One of many of Roy 's shirts sold for $16,250 and one
of his many cowboy hats sold for $17,500.
One set of boot spurs sold for $10,625.
(He never used a set of spurs on Trigger).
A life size shooting gallery sold for $27,500.
Two fabulous limited edition BB guns in their original
boxes with numerous photos of Roy, Dale, Gabby, and
Pat sold for $3,750.
A collection of memorabilia from his shows entertaining
the troops in Vietnam sold for $938.
I never knew he was there.
His flight jacket sold for $7,500.
His set of dinner ware plates and silverware sold
for $11,875.
The Bible they used at the dinner table every night
sold for $8,750.
One of several of his guitars sold for $27,500.
Nellybelle sold for $116,500.
A fabulous painting of Roy , Dale, Pat, Buttermilk,
Trigger, and Bullet sold for $10,625.
A black and white photograph of Gene Autry with a
touching inscription from Gene to Roy sold for $17,500.
Dale's horse, Buttermilk (whose history is very interesting)
sold below the presale estimate for $25,000. (EST. 30-40 K).
Bullet sold for $35,000 (EST. 10-15 K). He was their real pet.
Dale's parade saddle, estimated to sell between 20-30 K,
sold for $104,500.
One of many pairs of Roy 's boots sold for $21,250.
Trigger sold for $266,500.
Do you remember the 1938 movie The Adventures of Robinhood,
with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland?
Well Olivia rode Trigger in that movie. 




~~~
Trigger was bred on a farm co-owned by Bing Crosby.
Roy bought Trigger on a time payment plan for $2,500.
Roy and Trigger made 188 movies together.
Trigger even out did Bob Hope by winning an Oscar
in the movie Son of Paleface in 1953.
It is extremely sad to see this era lost forever.
These were the great heroes of our childhood, and
they did teach us right from wrong, and how to have
and show respect for each other and the animals
that share this earth.
You and I were born at the right time.
We were able to grow up with these great people
even if we never met them.
In their own way they taught us patriotism and honor,
we learned that lying and cheating were bad, and sex
wasn't as important as love.
We learned how to suffer through disappointment and
failure and work through it.
Our lives were drug free.
So it's good-bye to Roy and Dale, Gene and Hoppy,
The Lone Ranger and Tonto.
Farewell to Sky King and Superman and Sgt. Friday.
Thanks to Capt.. Kangaroo, Mr. Rogers and Capt. Noah
and all those people whose lives touched ours, and made
them better.
It was a great ride through childhood.
HAPPY TRAILS MY FRIENDS

AND THEN THERE'S THE U.S. FORREST SERVICE AND THE SIERRA CLUB ?

Posted by BH 10:06 pm 2-20 from Don


Typical Gov't bonehead idea. 
COYOTE HUNTING AND YOUR GOVERNMENT

The Sierra Club and the U.S. Forest Service were presenting an alternative to the
Texas ranchers for controlling the coyote population.

It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried and true method of shooting
or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a "more humane" solution to this issue.
What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive. The males would
then be castrated and let loose again. This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club
and by the U. S. Forest Service.

All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes.
Finally an old fellow wearing a big cowboy hat in the back of the conference room stood
up, tipped his hat back and said,
"Son, I don't think you understand our problem here. These coyotes ain't fuckin' our sheep; they're eatin' 'em!"

The meeting never really got back to order.

The old fellow in the big cowboy hat got a standing ovation
 

FROM MY FRIEND " THE HARDWARE LADY" (Inside Joke) . READ THIS ? BH

Posted by BH 9:28 pm 2-20
From ER


UNEXPLAINABLE, INEXCUSABLE --

I challenge you to read this and NOT have the will to pass it on.
 
[]
 
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay on retirement.  While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full-pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.

[]


Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
AMEN ?

GE Step's up Support For Chevy Volt. WHY ? Well HERE'S WHY ?


Posted by BH 7:01 pm 2-20

Last week, Greencarreports.comreported that crony corporation, General Electric, will be purchasing only Chevy Volts for employee use. The move will help General Motors proclaim that the Volt is a success (and help ensure that GE sells more charging stations) as thousands of orders for the vehicle hit the books, conveniently timed to coincide with the run up to the 2012 presidential election.
The Volt has not caught on with the majority of consumers as the benefits of traveling 20 to 45 miles on an electric charge before getting about 30 miles per gallon on premium fuel do not outweigh the cost of over $40,000. The wealthy purchasers who have been able to afford the car defend the vehicle and proclaim it to be a technological wonder.
GM has had various unsubstantiated excuses for the low sales of the Volt ranging from lack of supply to a right wing conspiracy that disparaged the vehicle. The GE orders are also being coordinated with a multi-million dollar ad blitz for the Volt. There has not been any reasonable explanation as to why GM is spending so much for a car that loses money for them and sells in such small numbers. Government Motors seems to have dug a deep hole as they over-hyped prospects for the Volt only to see the vehicle rejected by the tax-paying masses that paid to bring the car to market. The GE purchases now will be pointed to as evidence of success for a subsidized vehicle that can not survive without huge taxpayer handouts and support from crony corporations like GE that have a vested interest in the success of the vehicle.
The above mentioned report was written by a Chevy Volt supporter who gives a viewpoint that the GE purchases are based on a desire to save money over time for the company. Nonsense. The author also realizes that GE makes money selling charging stations for the vehicles, one of the primary reasons the company supports the vehicle. GE is probably the biggest beneficiary of green handouts of the Obama Administration with its hand in wind power and EV development, which if successful will result in even more profits from power grid infrastructure contracts in addition to the charging stations. GE has also committed to buying some of the first Volts built in China, as long as they get the contract to build charging stations there; another example of how blatant the crony capitalism is.
One of the most telling statements in the Green Car Reports article quoted a memo sent by GE to employees and stated, "If no electric power is available, driving the Volt using only its gasoline range extender is permitted." This statement gives evidence that GE has no grand benevolent plan to save the planet. In essence they are telling employees, drive the vehicle, even if you don't want to charge them you can run on fuel. GE also tells employees that they can not opt out of the program and will not be reimbursed for vehicles that are not Chevy Volts. So, GE will let you drive a Volt for free and run it on gas but will not reimburse you for driving an all-electric Nissan Leaf, polar bears be damned!
We should see a huge pick up in the percentage of vehicles that are sold to fleets when future sales figures for the Volt are released. Given the deceptiveness of Government Motors regarding the Chevy Volt, it is possible that GE is able to get their employees into Volts and manage to have GM record the sales as going to individual buyers rather than to fleets. GM should be questioned as to how many of the future Volt sales go to crony GE or its employees.
The Obama Administration, which also has a vested interest in the success of the Chevy Volt, has upped the ante as well. They now want wealthy purchasers of Chevy Volts and other EVs to receive $10,000 in federal subsidies in addition to the typical thousands offered by states. The goal of having a million EVs on the road within a few years should be reached if enough taxpayer dollars are spent on the fiasco. Crony corporations like GE will help with their purchases. So, $10 billion in tax credits will be spent to obtain a goal of a million EVs. And while crony GE and the rich buyers of EVs have wealth redistributed to them from working-class taxpayers, the American public gets nothing for the handouts.
I have heard the criticisms from those that think an American auto company should be supported, regardless of how much was taken from taxpayers. To those I would say buy a Ford, a company that didn't get bailed out and pays taxes. Bailed-out GM owes taxpayers billions of dollars and pays no taxes thanks to tax law changes made by the Obama Administration which were designed to help the company while the President campaigns on the "success" at GM. After all, shouldn't we support those that pay their fair share?
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.  

BLOCKBUSTER REVELATION! - MINI Documentary - Illegal Obama "Propped Up" By Congress!

Posted by BH 6:05pm 2-20

You be the Judge, We are Checking ?
Discussion:  Now if you were in Congress, Sitting There, seeing all these 2nd Amendment item's come down, would you start asking around like
 " What's this all about" ?  Bet you would hear from someone on one side of the isle the real truth.  Why did they not tell us ? Why are they still
 Quiet ?  Why does this keep hitting a brick wall ?   Something Stinks in the Wood PILE ?
 


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPLETE AND FINISHED ?

Posted by BH 9:03 am 2-20

No English dictionary has been able to adequately explain the difference between the two words   COMPLETE   and    FINISHED, in a way that is easy to understand.
Some people say there is no difference between   COMPLETE   and   FINISHED.
However, there is a difference. If you marry the right woman, you are  COMPLETE.
If you marry the wrong woman, you are   FINISHED.
When the right one catches you with the wrong one, you are --
--- COMPLETELY FINISHED!

Muslim Capitol Bomb Plotter Was Illegal Alien Bush/Obama Wouldn’t Deport

Posted by BH from DS 8:17 am 2-20

By Debbie Schlussel

Amine El Khalifi a/k/a Sidi Mohamed Amine El Khalifi, the Moroccan national who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol Building as a suicide bomber, is exactly the kind of illegal alien the Bush and Obama Administrations told ICE agents NOT to deport, not to round up. Hands off. You see, until the plot in which FBI agents set up El-Khalifi, he was an illegal alien who’d been here for over a decade without a criminal record. And beginning with Bush–but made doubly official under Obama–ICE agents were ordered not to arrest or deport illegal aliens without a criminal record. And El-Khalifi, like hundreds of thousands of illegal alien Muslims in our midst, fit the bill. Just because they don’t yet have a criminal record, doesn’t mean they won’t plot to blow America up. Sadly, no one is making that point. . . except me.
islamiccrescent.jpg
fbi.jpgcolclink.jpg

Famous But Incompetent: FBI Terror Stings Designed to Avoid Calling Out Mainstream Terror-Supporting Muslim Community; Taking Stigma Away from Muslim Illegal Aliens Who Should Be Deported, But Aren’t
El-Khalifi was here illegally at least as early as 1999 (probably earlier), when his tourist visa expired. And he’s been here ever since because deporting people like him wasn’t a priority. It means nothing that 19 Arab Muslim hijackers here on visas were the ones who mass murdered 3,000 Americans. Instead, when we were deporting illegal aliens, we were generally going after Latinos. But how many of the 19 hijackers were named, “Juan”? Now, we aren’t going after any illegal aliens at all, regardless of religion, nationality, or ethnic background. And there are plenty of other Amine El Khalifis in our midst–Muslims here illegally, ready to either commit some terrorist act or easily convinced to do it or help somebody else do it. In this case, the FBI put him up to it, but there are plenty of other cases, where somebody else will put him up to it, and the bomb won’t be inert. And, yes, El Khalifi was considering targeting synagogues and U.S. military installations, too. You think Muslims need FBI cajoling to consider those targets? Think again. Oh, and by the way, El Khalifi, now 29, had been here since he was 16. So, he’s yet another of a gazillion exhibits which belie the liberal claim that exposure to American culture makes Muslims like us better. Didn’t seem to work for Nidal Malik Hassan, either. Or the 19 hijackers. Or former American grad school attendee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Etc.
As you’ve probably noticed, until now I didn’t write anything about El Khalifi, though the plot was unmasked by publicity-seeking FBI and Justice Department officials on Friday.  That’s because his plot, like most of the others in recent years was a sting by the FBI–in which they set up a few loner Muslims around the country with no ties to the Muslim community in these phony plots. The FBI deliberately picks this kind of Muslim for the plot, so that the PC FBI can avoid going after the organized Muslim community which supports and enables exactly this kind of behavior.  I’m sick of it because it’s so obvious and yet I’m the only one who seems to get it, even though top FBI officials have openly said this is exactly the M.O. I’ve written about this before (here and here), and I’ve noted that whenever these plots are uncovered to the media, the FBI makes statements about how the mainstream Muslim community in America is “moderate” and would never do such a thing.  It’s all by design and a lot of BS.
As we all know, the FBI could easily pick any big-time imam or mainstream Muslim community leader and have the same result. While not all of them are courageous enough to be terrorists, they are all willing and ready to help somebody else do it. And, as I’ve written, the FBI has looked the other way on giant terrorism money-laundering plots involving big-time mosques and Muslim community leaders, and the agency has deliberately ignored other terrorism support and enabling by the mainstream Islamic community, instead choosing to honor and have iftar dinners with this crowd.
That’s what you should take away from the Amine El-Khalifi plot–that the FBI continues to avoid going after the real problem in the America with regard to Islamic terrorism: the mainstream Muslim community at large. The FBI would rather continue its PC campaign with them and kiss Muslim ass. AND that Amine El-Khalifi is exactly the kind of illegal alien about which both Presidents Bush and Obama told ICE agents: hands off.
Like I said, one or more of the many Amine El-Khalifis in our midst–whom ICE isn’t allowed to arrest or deport–will succeed in killing a lot of Americans because he (or she) was allowed to stay here illegally for decades, untouched. And one or more of the Mohammed Al-Mainstream Al-Muslimeen will do it, too.
Hope that shawarmeh at the iftar dinner was tasty, Robert Mueller.

GREG HUNTER'S USAWATCHDOG REPORT MONDAY FEB 20, 2012

Posted by BH from GH 8:11 am 2-20

Inflation Everywhere but MSM Says NOT

20 February 2012 No Comment
 
By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 
It seems every chance the mainstream media (MSM) gets, it tells us things really aren’t that bad.  For example, the headline from the Associated Press (AP) said, Consumer prices on the rise, but inflation outlook is benign.”   Who approves the headlines at the AP?  Prices are rising, but there is no inflation?  Aren’t rising prices the main ingredient of inflation?  The story goes on to say, “Consumer prices rose modestly in January on higher costs for food, gas, rent and clothing.  But economists downplayed the increase, saying inflation will likely ease in the coming months as prices for raw materials level off.”  (Click here for the complete AP story.) 
I wonder where the people who write for the MSM shop for groceries and buy their gasoline.  Maybe they have a time machine and magically go back where prices are a lot lower for everything.  But for those for us eating and heating our homes today, things are not getting cheaper and inflation is a problem!  Look at this from a different AP story where the headline says it all, “Gasoline prices are highest ever for this time of year.”  The story goes on to say, “Gasoline prices have never been higher this time of the year.  At $3.53 a gallon, prices are already up 25 cents since Jan. 1. And experts say they could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April.  ‘You’re going to see a lot more staycations this year,” says Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. “When the price gets anywhere near $4, you really see people react.”  (Click here to read the complete AP story.) 
Do the writers at the AP read their own stories?  Do these reporters not talk to each other or read the rundown (a list of stories every reporter is working on.)  Do the editors for the AP not want some sort of continuity?  I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, but those are the ones I am asking to myself.  In another story from CNBC a little more than a week ago, the headline read, “Get Ready for $5 Gas This Year: Ex-Shell CEO.”   (Click here for the complete CNBC story.)   Do you think this is signaling the “inflation outlook is benign”?  Oh, Iran just cut off oil exports to French and British firms.   A report from Reuters said, “Iran has stopped selling crude to British and French companies, the oil ministry said on Sunday, in a retaliatory measure against fresh EU sanctions on the Islamic state’s lifeblood, oil.”  (Click here for more on the Reuter’s story.)  This is around 700,000 barrels a day cut off to the EU from Iran.  Do you think this will make gasoline cheaper in the coming weeks and months?  This is financial war, but what if there is a shooting war?  You think gasoline prices will be heading south or go up to that $5 a gallon mark?   
“Inflation outlook is benign.”  I don’t think so, and neither does economist John Williams from Shadowstats.com.  The Federal Reserve concentrates on what it calls “core” inflation.  That’s just about everything except energy and food.  I don’t know who lives without energy and food at their “core,” but this is what the Fed focuses on as its main predictor of inflation.  In his latest report, Williams said, On an annual basis, “core” CPI-U inflation moved higher for the 15th straight month, up to 2.28% in January, from 2.23% in December.  When Fed Chairman Bernanke used his jawboning in a successful effort to debase the U.S. dollar in the global markets, in advance of announcing QE2 in November 2010, annual “core” inflation was at 0.61%.”   (Click here for the Shadowstats.com home page.)  So-called “core” inflation has more than tripled since late 2010 and “Inflation outlook is benign”?   
By the way, if inflation was computed the way it was in 1980 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it would be 10.5% annually according to Shadowstats.com.  It is said a picture is worth a thousand words; in this case it’s a chart from John Williams.  As I finish this post, ask yourself, where do you think inflation is headed? 

A HYPOTHETICOL INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY (FICTION)

Posted by BH from DH 7:22 am 2-20

By Michael Yon

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/a-hypothetical-interview-general-martin-dempsey-fiction.htm 

4-star-general-flag-1000

18 February 2012
dempsey-and-campbell-1000General Martin Dempsey is the highest-ranking member of the US military.  He directly advises the President.  Lieutenant General John Campbell is Chief of Army Operations.  A bigwig.  Both men have publicly supported keeping Red Crosses on MEDEVAC helicopters that come under direct fire in Afghanistan.
Removing the Red Crosses does not force us to arm the helicopters.  But why not take the common-sense step of removing the Red Crosses so as not to alert the enemy that the helicopters are unarmed?  Many people want to know the answer.
In response to growing public concerns, Campbell has been interviewed on CBS and FOX, while Dempsey has written directly to Congressman Todd Akin.  Both Dempsey and Campbell have underlined the fallacy that it’s a good idea to alert the enemy that our MEDEVAC helicopters are unarmed.
And so, this morning, I made an imaginary phone call to General Dempsey and we conducted this hypothetical discussion:
Michael Yon:  “Thank you General Dempsey for taking my call about Army MEDEVAC issues.”
General Dempsey: “I used to love your work before I started reading it.”
MY: “Thank you, Sir.  This call is being electronically recorded for future use.  Are you okay with this?
GD: “Yes.”
MY: “Let’s begin.  Both you and Lieutenant General John Campbell have highlighted that you believe Army Dustoff MEDEVAC helicopters should continue to wear Red Crosses.  Let’s suppose you decide never to arm the helicopters.  That’s a separate issue.  Do you believe that the crew of an unarmed helicopter should be forced to alert the enemy that they are unarmed?”
GD: “Well that’s a good question.  I’m glad you asked.  According to the Geneva Conventions, helicopters wearing Red Crosses are not allowed to carry offensive weapons.”
MY: “Sir, I’ll repeat the same question using different words.  Is it a good idea to alert the enemy that our helicopters are unarmed?  Even if you decide to continue to fly unarmed, why alert the enemy?”
GD: “The problem with arming Dustoff helicopters is that it adds weight, and in the high-hot conditions of Afghanistan, this can reduce our patient load.”
MY: “Sir, that was not the question.  I’ll repeat.  Why alert the enemy that we are unarmed?”
GD: “Michael, you repeatedly confuse the ideas of MEDEVAC versus CSAR.  CSAR is Combat Search and Rescue, and the Air Force Pedros do a fine job at CSAR.  Pedro also does a fantastic job augmenting Dustoff MEDEVAC duties in Afghanistan, but the fact is that the US Army is tasked to provide MEDEVAC, and as you yourself have written many times over the years, they perform magnificently.  Bringing CSAR into the discussion muddles our sincere objectives.”
MY: “Sir, is it a good idea to walk late at night through dangerous parts of Washington, DC, singing at the top of your lungs, ‘My pockets full o’ money!  I got lots an’ lots o’ money!  Big big money!  I ain’t got no gun, I ain’t got no knife, I cain’t run too fast ’cause my pockets full o’ lots an’ lots o’ money!’ Sir, is that a good idea?  Would you tell your grandkids to do that?”
GD: “Have you lost your mind?”
MY: “Sir, you are not answering a simple question.  Why do you force young troopers to go into combat while alerting the enemy they are unarmed?”
GD: “The applicable statements of the Geneva Conventions specifically spell out what is required and expected of signatories.   That the enemy behaves a certain way does not mean we need to behave that way.  The Geneva Conventions were written for a reason.  And it’s important not to confuse CASEVAC with MEDEVAC.  The US Army is tasked with providing MEDEVAC in Afghanistan, and they have a 92% success rate.”
MY: “Let’s circle back to that.  I’ll not touch the 92% ‘success rate.’  There is evidence that this is a fraudulent number.  That’s a separate and serious matter for another day.  But on to the second question: When landing by helicopter on some small bases in Afghanistan, you’re apt to see a sign that says, NO SALUTE.  What does NO SALUTE mean?”
GD: “Son, I thought you were in the Army.  No salute means that you are in a combat zone and therefore should not salute the officers.  Saluting tells the enemy who the officers are.”
MY: “General Dempsey, in other words, it’s not always a good idea to alert the enemy who is who on the battlefields.”
GD: “You get the picture. “
MY: “When you meet with the President, or go to the Congress, I’ve see you wearing bright shining stars on your shoulders.  Eight of them.  Four stars on each shoulder.  Yet when you go to Afghanistan, you wear black stars.   In Afghanistan, someone must be very close to see that you are a general.   Why is that?”
GD: “Well, that’s a silly question.  A high ranking officer doesn’t want to stand out on the battlefields.”
MY: “General Dempsey, you are what is called a ‘flag officer.’  What exactly is a flag officer?”
GD: “The short version is that a flag officer is a general or admiral who is authorized to wear a flag over his headquarters, or on his vehicle or aircraft. “
MY: “When you are present at your office, your staff flies a red flag with four white stars to tell everyone the chief is in his teepee.  But if you jet off for the day, they take down that flashy flag while you are away.  Right?
GD: “That’s right.”
MY: “And your driver takes a little facsimile of those four stars and pops it onto the dashboard when you drive, right?”
GD: “It shortens lines.”
MY: “And sometimes flag officers have flags on their aircraft?”
GD: “It’s authorized.”
MY: “But you don’t advertise those stars in Afghanistan, do you?”
GD: “That would be a bad idea.”
MY: “General Dempsey, the motto of the infantry is ‘Follow Me!’ Were you an infantry officer?”
GD: “My branch was armor.”
MY: “Have you heard the motto ‘Follow Me!’?”
GD: “Our military leadership lives by that motto.”
MY: “General Dempsey, when you buzz around Afghanistan, you fly in heavily armed, unmarked helicopters.  All the senior leadership does this.  I see them.  On the small bases, your stars are black and nobody is to salute you.  You are surrounded by security, including additional air support, often in the form of F-16s, A-10s, Apaches, and Kiowa Warriors.  Despite all these protections, and going incognito, you will not be landing on hot LZs.  Yet that is exactly what we expect of Dustoff MEDEVAC crews.  The fact that Dustoff are even going to an LZ means that it’s probably hot or very high risk.”
flag-draped-caskets-1000
MY: “Sir, let’s get back to the only question I’ve wanted you to answer.  The only question I care about today: “Why do you force young people to go into combat unarmed, while alerting the enemy by wearing Red Crosse

OUR FUTURE IF WE DON'T WAKE UP ?

Posted by Bh from DH 7:18 am 2-20

By Melanie Phillips

http://www.melaniephillips.com/when-a-seven-year-old-is-branded-a-bigot 

The word 'Orwellian' has become over-used to the point of cliche. Yet there is really no other way to describe the deeply sinister, upside-down onslaught upon common sense that has extended even into the school playgrounds of politically correct Britain.

The aim was originally to create a kinder, gentler world - with a commitment to eradicating racial or any other type of prejudice.  
 
Supporters of these beliefs profess to loathe and detest bullying, with teachers instigating school playground patrols and 'anti-bullying weeks' to stamp out this hateful practice.  

And yet, in pursuance of these aims, we have witnessed the rise of the widespread state-sponsored bullying of children.  
 
The latest example was the experience of a seven-year-old boy from Hull, whose mother was astounded to be told by his primary school to sign a form admitting he was racist.  

So what was the heinous act this child had committed to cause him to be branded in this way? Why, merely to have asked a five-year-old boy in the playground whether he was 'brown because he was from Africa'.

What on earth is racist about that question? It does not express a hateful dislike of, or racial superiority over, another person on account of the colour of their skin. It merely wonders, in a child-like way, about the reason for that colour.

It is thus a perfectly inoffensive question from a curious child. The reason for the five-year-old's brown skin is, indeed, that his ancestry lies in another continent.
 
So how can a correct assumption constitute a prejudice? The school's gross over-reaction suggests that racism is being redefined to include not only hateful references to someone's colour, but any reference to it at all.

Real racial prejudice is, indeed, a horrible thing. But such wildly inappropriate labelling is to trivialise and thus effectively deny the harm done by truly vile attitudes.
 
What's more, it is particularly odious to hang the label of racist round a child's neck. Witch-hunts are bad enough in themselves; but to make a child their target is really quite obscene.  

Because of their immaturity, children cannot be held to account for their behaviour in the same way as adults. When the young killers of toddler James Bulger were tried for his murder, there was uproar among progressive folk over the fact they were being made to stand trial because they were just children themselves.  

Yet it would seem that those whose collective heart bleeds for child killers are nevertheless intent upon branding seven-year-olds as enemies of the people - just for displaying an attitude that some bureaucratic Big Brother wannabe deems to be beyond the pale.  

The seven-year-old from Hull was by no means an isolated example. The extent of such state-sponsored bullying amounts to a kind of playground Inquisition.
 
Last year, it was revealed that teachers were branding thousands of children as racist or 'homophobic' following what were merely playground squabbles.  

In total, 34,000 nursery, primary and secondary pupils - including more than 20,000 pupils aged 11 or younger - were effectively classed as bigots for so-called 'hate speech'.  

One child was called a racist for calling a boy 'broccoli head' (on the basis the vegetable looks a bit like Afro hair); another was said to be homophobic for telling a teacher: 'This work is gay.'

A six-year-old was said to have been reported by his school to the local authority after telling an ethnic minority friend: 'Your skin is the colour of poo.'  
 
A ten-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boy a 'Paki' and 'Bin Laden' during a playground argument in which the other boy had called him 'a skunk' and a 'Teletubby'.  

Back in 2006, after a 14-year-old schoolgirl asked a teacher if she could sit with a different group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu, her teacher actually called the police.

The girl was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted, photographed and placed in a bare cell for more than three hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence, and then released without charge.

Ludicrous, or what? Yet this over-reaction is actually mandated by law.
Under the 2000 Race Relations Act, teachers are obliged to report any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or anyone else as 'hate speech' - even if it is committed by a child.  

Of course, it is not just children who are being subjected to such vilification on the grounds of offending some interest group or other. Last week, Channel 4's advertising campaign for the sequel to its hit show My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding was attacked as racist for saying it was 'Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier.'  

What on earth is offensive about 'gypsier'? If a sequel to the film My Big Fat Greek Wedding was advertised as 'Bigger. Fatter. More Greek', would that be said to be racist? Of course not.

This witch-hunt is going on all the time. Last year, a beach bar singer on the Isle of Wight was arrested for performing the song Kung Fu Fighting after a complaint to the police by a man said to be of Chinese origin.

On another occasion, following a complaint that he was inciting hatred against homosexuals, police interrogated a Christian cafe owner and reportedly threatened him with arrest for repeatedly playing on a small flat-screen TV a 26-hour-long DVD in which a narrator reads the whole of the New Testament. After an outcry, the police backed down and apologised.

And who can forget the experience ten years ago of farmer and writer Robin Page, who was arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred after making a speech at a pro-hunting rally that began: 'If there is a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged, lesbian lorry driver present, I want the same rights as you.'  

Such reaction by the police and other officials in responding to trumped-up claims of 'hate speech' is the kind of behaviour we associate with Eastern Europe under communism.  

So how on earth has Britain, the historic cradle of liberty, got itself to the point where it conducts witch-hunts against children for expressing 'forbidden' views?  
 
It all stems from the collapse of socialism, after which left-wingers shifted their focus from economics to issues of group identity.  

Instead of attacking the capitalist West for oppressing the workers, they attacked mainstream society for oppressing marginalised or minority groups that were held to be victims of the majority.

Hugely aided by human rights law, such groups then became immune from criticism and were encouraged to complain about their treatment.  
 
Moreover, how people felt became much more important than anything they actually did. So if such a victim group claimed to have been insulted, that was regarded as proof that an insult had actually occurred.

This replacement of objective reality by subjective feelings was a recipe for turning truth and justice inside out.
 
When George Orwell created his fictional 'thought police' and 'Ministry of Truth', he was attacking Stalinism and its attempt to re-configure human psychology itself.  

Incredible as it may seem, that's what we have in Britain with 'political correctness', which should more properly be called cultural Stalinism - a regime of oppression and intimidation in which even innocent children are being branded as bigots.  

A kinder, gentler world? No, this is where freedom dies with a boot stamping on its face.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...