Tuesday, January 24, 2017

The Ghost Ships

Occasionally someone comes by and shows me some snaps. I especially like to see those that CherryPie takes as they sit nicely in my heritage memories. But here is a stranger showing something I find extraordinary.

In Southern Maryland, about thirty miles south of Washington, D.C., the Potomac River forms a shallow bulge called Mallows Bay. It’s an incredibly scenic place full of wildlife such as water fowl, heron and bald eagle. 

The adjacent land is a county park with hiking trails, picnic areas and a launch for small boats and paddle craft. But the central attraction of Mallows Bay is its so called "ghost fleet" consisting of the rotting and rusting remains of nearly 230 ships.

The ghost fleet was part of an unprecedented shipbuilding program undertaken by the U.S. to assist its European allies during the First World War. When America entered the war, the allies had an acute shortage of vessels. Nearly half of all ships leaving for combat were getting sunk by German torpedoes. And not just military vessels; even merchant and passenger ships were targeted.

In April of 1917, American President Woodrow Wilson set up an Emergency Fleet Corporation and ordered a thousand steamships to be built under a pressing deadline —the ships were to be readied in only 18 months. 

At once, a million men went to work cutting timber, expanding shipyards, laying rails and building machinery. It was a huge undertaking, and for a short time, the US became the largest shipbuilding nation.

But no matter how hard they tried, the targets proved to be unrealistic, and by the time Germany surrendered, only a few hundred vessels were completed. 

None of them ever set sail, 
because it was discovered that the long transatlantic journey required so much coal that the ships could not carry much cargo. Besides, steamships were slowly becoming obsolete.

For a few years, the ships wallowed in the James River before the government sold them to the Western Marine & Salvage Company. The company towed the ships to Mallows Bay with the intention of scraping them for valuable parts and metals. But before they could do that, Western Marine went bankrupt. 

In the 1940s, another shipbuilder took over operations but the profits were so low that the ships were left behind again.
Over the decades, the wrecks constituting what has been called the largest collection in the Western Hemisphere has been slowly reclaimed by nature, creating a new wetland ecosystem supporting diverse life forms. The hulls have sprouted trees and shrubs which now host fishes, turtles, otters, ospreys and eagles.

In 2015, Mallows Bay was declared a National Marine Sanctuary, and listed as an archaeological and historic district on the National Register of Historic Places.

Hmmmm. What else would they do with it? 

One day, maybe in another 30 years or so, perhaps 60, it will be beautiful. Now it is just an astonishment. 

It is just a little reminiscent of Scapa Flow in the very north of the British Isles where the WW1 German fleet was scuppered.
 They mostly went to the bottom and now serve as a place for divers to explore in near freezing waters.

Now, I must go and mop the floors of the crypt and count the barrels.

Take a look at Cherie's Place for much older (and often just as warlike) remains.


Monday, January 23, 2017

Monstrous Regiment of Wimmin (1)

The election of an American President is none of Australia's business, nor any other Anglophile nations', but that does not stop busybodies having a violent and appalling say in the matter. And the most vocal busybodies are, of course, the 'left' and particularly its Regiment of Wimmin that has been constructed, trained, equipped and deployed all too often. They can be turned against any chosen 'hate-figure'. 

The media here is almost fully in Thrall to the left and our 'talking heads' and assorted TV nonebrities have been assailing the ears and eyes of decent people. Several prominent folk dropped in with things to say, amogst them Pamela Geller. And Chris Kenny. A chap quite local to the Tavern had a few words to start them off and we kept the best 'til last, as they say. Reg Andrew Watson was bought a round after speaking up thus:
The left still is in trauma mode regarding Donald Trump's election, including television journalists in Australia. The problem is of course, they only speak to themselves and to their converted. People like me are just turned off and am not listening. I will make up my own mind. 
I was stirred by two who were being interviewed on television and were protesting against Trump with screwed up faces and voicing rhetoric, which had been planted in their brains. 
While calling out love, they espoused 'hate'. 
They actually were calling what is good bad and what is bad - good. 
I was reminded of the verse in Isaiah, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.'(5:29) RSV.
Pre-election, well- planned demonstrations have been held in Oz and the UK, where, in Leicester - it is reported by James H - a woman threw a traffic cone that narrowly missed Mr Trump by a mere 5802 miles.  It is not as though such demonstrations could or would have any effect at all on the Inauguration, but the Monstrous Regiment and its cohorts do not tip their knitted hats to logic or reason.

Just where the wimmin in America found the airfares for them to gather in Washington from all over the country is anyone's guess although one Mr Soros is said to have very deep pockets.  And we must not forget the taxpayer whose pockets have been rifled and his stores had a shovel put through to fund the thousands of 'wimmin's groups' that litter the nation. And gather they did. 

Of them and their sistas in other nations doing the same, Chris Kenny had a few words: I pulled pints for all hanging on his words.
Act of mass petulance: 
spare us the shallow arbiters of morality
Yesterday’s “women’s marches” in the US and around the world were, at their core, anti-democratic. This was just mass petulance.
Sure, everyone has a right to protest. But this wasn’t about anything President Donald Trump has done: he was only installed on Friday.
These protesters were stomping their feet at the outcome of the election. Everyone hates losing and elections are important but there are always losers.
Smashed windows and burned cars on Friday, chanting crowds and ranting pop stars on the weekend, but Trump is still President.
We’ve had silly debates about comparative crowd sizes (parade envy?) and fake news stories about a bust of Martin Luther King being moved from the White House (it wasn’t) and, yes, some of this nonsense has been fuelled by the President himself.
Tell us just how, Chris. It could not have been his 'pussy-grabbing' comment, shirley? I read it and saw the transcript. He said he and his colleague 'could' grab a pussy because the women groupies..... 
would allow any rich or famous man to.
These women, all, have complained about men objectifying them. !
It was a criticism of such women rather than an intent on his part. 
But such media sideshows, aimed at mocking Trump, tend to fuel his support outside the Beltway. They amplify his core message — the theme of his inauguration address — that an outsider has moved in to shake up the Washington political and media establishment.
There wasn’t one clear policy or action the weekend protesters were rallying against. 
They are united against the Trump presidency — the vibe of the thing.
Fair enough — they all have the right — but the time to stir up opposition to Trump was in the lead-up to the election. A mass movement of people marching to polling booths in Democrat states won by the Republican nominee would have made a difference.
Not enough of them were enthused about Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, who was, at best, pedestrian, offering only more of the same.
At best, yes. But at normal was a liar, an anti-woman, anti-baby, anti-life harpy.  More of the same (as Obama? "? I think she would have imposed her own vicious mind on the further deterioration of America.
So the political imperative for the protests was belated, on the one hand: the election is done. And it was premature, on the other: Trump hasn’t done anything yet.
There was, of course, the feminist element — these were women’s marches. Clinton lost the election to a man who, on any objective level, lacked the political experience or character traits to make him an ideal candidate.
The fact Trump was able to win was an indictment on Clinton herself and her campaign. She chose to run in large part on identity — vote for me because I am a woman — and this didn’t work with enough women, let alone men
Yet she is offered up as the martyr.
(Many Trump critics point to the popular vote — winning that has never been the aim of the US presidential contest. So campaigns are tuned to winning individual states rather than a national majority. Who knows what the result would have been with different campaigns aimed at winning the popular vote. It is disingenuous and weak to try and change the terms of the contest after losing it.)
In the past Trump has said and done many things that most of us would regard as crass and sexist. Even during the campaign some of his references to Clinton were, to use a word, deplorable.
But accurate, nonetheless. 
Yet if feminists want to rail against injustices to women, there are far more pressing issues around the globe than oafishness in the Oval Office; especially when you recall that Clinton defended her own husband when he was exposed for exploiting and harassing women from that same presidential office.
Whether it is female genital mutilation, forced marriages, rights to education and work, domestic violence and even the right to show faces in public, there is no shortage of outrageous subjugation of women around the world, with elements of it replicated even in Western democracies such as the US.
Protest against that.
Now we have Hollywood actors who live behind secure walls in multi-million-dollar mansions decrying increased fortification of the US border. And the stars of shallow, violent and amoral movies offer themselves as public arbiters of political morality. Spare us.
This is no defence of Trump — he has, after all, been a birther. But the protesters claim moral superiority. They claim higher aspirations.
If Trump grates with you — wait for him to do something in office and then criticise it.
Better still, if you are a US citizen, mobilise next time to vote for a better candidate in order to defeat him.
That’s how democracy works.
This monstrous Regiment, being mindless and sent hither and thither, can be easily taken over by 'sleepers' and infiltrators who cannot be said even by Chris Kenny to having America's interests at heart. Or yours. 

According to the Women’s March website, the purpose of their march taking place right after President-elect Trump’s inauguration day is to advocate for “demonized” groups including LGBTQIA, Muslims, etc. 

The Women’s March has partnered with several Islamic groups, including Hamas-linked CAIR (CT), the Muslim Women’s Alliance, Arab American Association of New York, and the Women for Afghan Women. While the movement strives for intersectionality between various groups – ethnic, religious, or otherwise, these groups cannot coexist without first assessing that their values align.

What seems especially odd about the feminist-LGBTQIA-Islam conglomerate is that the Islamic movements are directly opposed to the aims of mainstream feminists. 

While mainstream feminists advocate for freedom of expression in clothing, CAIR maintains that Muslim women should wear “loose-fitting, non-revealing clothing, known as hijab, or khimar”. 

According to CAIR’s guide for educators, Muslim boys and girls may not take same-sex communal after-sport showers, and that Muslim students should not be forced to participate in coed swimming classes. 

CAIR also insists that Muslims may not want to shake hands with teachers and administrators of the opposite sex – but as a “sign of personal modesty”. 

How does CAIR know what each Muslim is thinking when he or she refuses to shake a person’s hand? It could very well be out of condescension towards women – which is prescribed in the Quran.

And it was at this juncture that Pamela put down her dink and spoke up.
Women’s March Organizer is a vicious Jew-hater with ties to Islamic Terror
Notorious Islamic Jew-hater Linda Sarsour is one of organizers of Saturday’s Women’s March. 
Ironic, of course, we have never seen Sarsour stand against the gender apartheid, honor violence, or the oppression and subjugation under Islamic law. 
No, what Sarsour agitates and incites against is the Jewish state and its people.
Born in 1980 in Brooklyn, New York, Linda Sarsour is a Palestinian-American community activist who has served as executive director of the Arab American Association of New York (AAANY) since 2005. She is also a board member of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York (MDCNY), and a member of the Justice League NYC.
An outspoken critic of Israel, Sarsour supports the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that uses various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and court rulings to advance the Hamas agenda of permanently destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state.
Vis-a-vis the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, Sarsour favors a one-state solution where an Arab majority and a Jewish minority would live together within the borders of a single country. She made clear her opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state when she tweeted in October 2012 that “nothing is creepier than Zionism.”
 Falsely maintaining that “Palestine existed before the State of Israel,” Sarsour seeks to help “bring back a Palestinian State for the Palestinian people.” 

To advance this agenda, Sarsour has tweeted images of fraudulent maps claiming to depict the “Palestinian loss of land” that supposedly occurred between 1946 and 2000.

As the head of AAANY, Sarsour has played a central role in pressuring the New York Police Department to terminate its secret surveillance of Muslim mosques and organizations suspected of promoting extremism or terrorism, and to curtail its use of “stop-and-frisk” anti-crime measures. 
In 2011 she worked in conjuction with Communities United for Police Reform, a coalition to advance the passage of the Community Safety Act (which expanded the definition of bias-based profiling and created an independent inspector general to review police policy in New York City). Sarsour also succeeded in pressuring City Hall to close New York’s public schools for the observance of the Islamic holidays Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.
In May 2012 Sarsour tweeted that the so-called “underwear bomber,” an al-Qaeda operative who on Christmas Day 2009 had tried to blow up a Detroit-bound passenger jet with explosives hidden inside his underwear, was actually a CIA agent participating in America’s “war on Islam.”
In 2013 Sarsour campaigned for New York City mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio. After de Blasio was elected, his office repeatedly featured Sarsour in press releases supporting the mayor’s positions on education and other matters. Moreover, his Mayor’s Fund pledged $500,000 to AAANY in 2016.
In a February 2015 appearance on Rachel Maddow‘s television program, Sarsour lamented that a nationwide epidemic of “Islamophobia” was responsible for “anti-sharia bills trying to ban us [Muslims] from practicing our faith,” “mosques being vandalized,” and Muslim “kids being executed” in the United States.
In August 2015 Sarsour spoke out in support of the incarcerated Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Muhammad Allan, a known recruiter of suicide bombers.
In October 2015, Sarsour posted on Twitter a photo of a young Palestinian boy clutching two stones as he stared down a group of Israeli soldiers, and labeled it “The definition of courage.” When numerous Twitter users, including Queens Councilman Rory Lancman, subsequently criticized Sarsour’s controversial post, she tweeted in response: “The Zionist trolls are out to play. Bring it. You will never silence me.”
On Melissa Harris-Perry‘s television program on December 12, 2015, Sarsour lamented the allegedly long list of “attacks on [Muslim] individuals and on mosques” that had been perpetrated by Americans who — by misperceiving all Muslims as potential terrorists — were themselves “engaging in terrorism against the innocent [Muslim] community that has nothing to do with [terrorism].” 
Sarsour also scoffed at the notion of Muslim integration into American society: “We can’t change who we are. This is how we look [with Muslim attire]. We can’t integrate and assimilate…. We’re gonna look like this when we walk out into the streets of our cities when we’re traveling in this country.”
In 2015 as well, Sarsour co-founded MPOWER Change, “an online organization that enables [Muslims] to respond [to key events] in rapid, nationwide, coordinated ways as a community.”
And how easy with that when there is all the State and Federal funded wimmin's groups. 
According to, Sarsour “has attended numerous rallies sponsored by Al-Awda, promoted and solicited donations for their events, and … spoken at their rallies. Sarsour has also solicited donations for the Hamas-affiliated Palestine Children’s Relief Fund.

What is clear is that these people do not hide. They announce themselves. They are in clear view. But our Governments and security services, our police and our media turn a blind eye or actively deny that such evil terrorists are amongst us.

Supported by mindless but well funded Feminist groups who have clout, these wimmin have not a working brain amongst them if they think that the Islamists will treat them better than they are already. As for the LGBTwossnames.... well their brains are addled. Islamists kill them but they seem studiously unaware.

That is why Trump has a job ahead. The swamp he has to drain is immense. 

Thankfully, I just have to pull pints and wash the floors.


Oxfam at it again

My interest was taken by a program on the TV the other evening. It was one of those programs I rarely watch which shows what happens when a company Boss goes under-cover as a worker in his/her own business. They can be quite interesting and informative but I have just so much time and many customers to serve. But this one was about the Oxfam CEO. In the UK.

Many, many people are touched by Oxfam's efforts. It is a 'good' and'moral' biz in many people's eyes.  We are mostly neighbourly folk who like to lend a hand and donate the odd fiver where we can.  Oxfam is a good instutution. 

But is it? I ask not as a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic that has not a kind bone in his body, but as a reasonable Knight and Crypt-floor-washer who sometimes has a fiver to spare.

It was interesting and informative and I did learn a little, so it was not a waste of time. I discovered that the nice, decent man, Mr Goldring had a heart and a modicum of business sense (although from which business guru I do not know as the jargon  and mantras are all the same). 

I also learned - as he did - that trying to get personal details of passers-by down on a form by a street collector is a hiding to nothing.  Someone may be happy to put a fiver in the tin but does not want to give name and address, email and phone details.

He didn't know that. It did show him why his collections are down.  


He also learned that the fairly big (several hundreds of thousands of UK Pounds) little-boat-building exercise for people whose village livlihood had been washed away in a tsunami was a complete waste of those donors' fivers as the fleet of boats they were building on the Oxfam buck were too small and frail to reach the fishing grounds. 

He visted an 'Op Shop' where the "fabulous lady" (a rather well upholstered one) running it was better suited for another reality show - Horders. His efforts to 'dress the window' came under her withering gaze and pursed lipped critique. The place was a jumbled mess, and he promised to spend many fivers on refurbishing it. He didn't fire her, ala Donald in 'Apprentice', of course. 


A large scale something in the Philippines had him pretending to be a worker digging latrines and stirring something chemical, dusty and corrosive into the waste muck, without protection from the chemicals and in kit suitable for the arctic rather than the tropics. He gave the supervisot lady a free ticket to her Engineering exams. 

All very entertaining and illustrative. And a waste. Hey, look. Running a big biz is difficult and mistakes get made. He can be thankful that it is Other People's Money and does not come out of his very handsome salary.

People with lots of money - like Mr Goldring - can afford to be generous. So it was also illustrative to see Oxfam berating would-be possible, likely donors. Jeff Jackoby was having a pint and explaining.

The fabulous wealth of the 'Oxfam 8'
OXFAM GRABBED headlines on Monday with a report claiming that the world's eight richest men own as much wealth as the world's poorest 3.7 billion people — half of the planet's population.
The report was released in Davos, Switzerland, at the start of the World Economic Forum, an annual powwow of high-powered business and political leaders. The executive director of Oxfam International, Winnie Byanyima, {Paid in donated fivers. Many of them} seized the occasion to portray the gap between the world's superrich few and extremely poor many as a moral and social calamity.

"It is obscene for so much wealth to be held in the hands of so few when 1 in 10 people survive on less than $2 a day," she said. "Inequality is trapping hundreds of millions in poverty; it is fracturing our societies and undermining democracy." 

Oxfam's proposed solutions are the usual leftist nostrums: higher taxes, a "living wage" for employees, more government spending.

Headlines notwithstanding, Oxfam's "new" finding is the same-old, same-old it trots out every year. In 2014, Oxfam reported that the world's 85 richest people have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest; in 2015, it shaved the number of multibillionaires to 80; in 2016, the number dropped again, to 62. Now Oxfam claims the world's poorest half is out-owned by just eight men.
To be sure, it's a striking statistic. It's also irrelevant.

The eight superbillionaires singled out by Oxfam are Microsoft founder Bill Gates, investor Warren Buffett, Mexican telecom mogul Carlos Slim, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Spanish clothing magnate Amancio Ortega, Amazon creator Jeff Bezos, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg, the financial-services entrepreneur and former New York mayor.
Besides being unimaginably rich, the eight men have a few things in common that ...

Oxfam doesn't dwell on.
To begin with, all eight men earned their extraordinary wealth. Through ingenuity, talent, and immense effort, 

they created enterprises that provide hundreds of millions, even billions, of human beings with goods and services that make life better, healthier, safer, and more affordable.
Moreover, the Oxfam Eight didn't grow their fortunes by preventing other people from growing theirs. Their wealth may equal that of half the people on Earth (though Oxfam's methodology is dubious), but the world's poor have been climbing out of poverty at the fastest rate in human history. 
Walk, sure, but gimme yer moolah

Byanyima rightly bewails the fact that "1 in 10 people survive on less than $2 a day" — what she omits is that over the past 30 years, the number of people living in such extreme poverty 

has fallen by nearly 75 percent. 

Johan Norberg, writing in Spiked Review, provides hard numbers: Worldwide, an average of 138,000 people climb out of extreme poverty every day. Since 1990, the world's population has grown by more than 2 billion, yet the ranks of those in extreme poverty has shrunk by more than 1.25 billion.
It is, in Norberg's words, "the most important story of our time: Poverty as we know it is disappearing from our planet."
Just as capitalism made it possible for Gates, Zuckerberg, and the others to reach the highest rung on the economic ladder, it is making it possible for billions of men and women to climb up from the lowest rung. Oxfam's billionaires are richer than they used to be. So is almost everyone else.
The populist left is forever railing against wealth and those who earn it. Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labor Party chief, last week suggested the imposition of a maximum-wage law that would put a ceiling on the amount of money Britons can earn. But tearing down the rich has never yet succeeded in raising up the poor.
Of course, the super-wealthy ought to share their great fortunes. Not because wealth disparities are "obscene," as Oxfam says. And not because the economy is a zero-sum game, with the rich getting richer only as the poor get poorer. But as a matter of goodness and gratitude — the timeless moral principle that from those to whom much is given, much is required.
Oxfam's megabillionaires agree. 

They have all given vast amounts to charity, using their wealth to do good for enormous numbers of people in need, in danger, or in pain. Gates has donated more to charitable causes than anyone, ever. Buffett and Zuckerberg have pledged to give away more than half of their wealth to philanthropy, as have scores of other billionaires.
Wealth is good, and the more people who can create and earn it, the better. All decent people should worry about what the very poor lack. 

If you obsess instead about what the very rich have, you're doing it wrong.
I was musing on this. There is such a lot of envy in the world and this Oxfam bleat is just that. It is also called Covetousness.  There is a Commandment about that.

The very first human beings, Adam and Eve (so we take as read) were Socialists. They committed more that simply one sin. Yes, disobedience was one but we often miss the other. They coveted. 

OK, the Devil had a part in it but one wonders how far the old snake would have got if Adam and Eve were not inclined to covet their neighbour's goods in fine socialist fashion (as it was to become).

Their (only) neighbor was far more generous than any Oxfam donor or CEO. My Supplier had given them the entire shebang; Gardens, animals, lakes, rivers, hills and dales and ten million fruit-bearing trees. 

He just kept One tree for Himself.

But they had to have that one too.

Don't be like Adam and Eve, eh?


Saturday, January 21, 2017


The hoo-hah is over and The Donald is on the throne that Obama built. What was turned from a Presidency into a Kingship is likely, soon, to be dismantled and returned to what was envisaged soon after the first Revolution in America - which was fought over Kingship. It now remains to be seen just how the Donald will go about the business of America.
The inauguration speech by The Donald bodes well. He used the word 'WE' 45 times and 'I" just three times. Let us all hope that it was not a 'Royal' we.

The riotous mobs cried and shouted: they screamed abuse. They are good at that. But their dismay and confusion as to how such a 'calamity' could have ever occurred in the nation Obama built so recklessly and imperiously is easily explained. 

Brendan O'Neill, ever a sound voice in the UK room of the Tavern, gave his view. Well, some of the most pertinent and personal reasons anyway.

I pulled a pint for him as he addressed the sooty snowflakes beyond the Tavern's hedges.
Trump! How did this happen?
It happened because you banned super-size sodas. 
And smoking in parks. 
And offensive ideas on campus. 
Because you branded people who oppose gay marriage ‘homophobic’, and people unsure about immigration ‘racist’.
Because you treated owning a gun and never having eaten quinoa as signifiers of fascism. 
Because you thought correcting people’s attitudes was more important than finding them jobs. 
Because you turned ‘white man’ from a description into an insult. 

Because you used slurs like ‘denier’ and ‘dangerous’ against anyone who doesn’t share your eco-pieties.
Because you treated dissent as hate speech and criticism of Obama as extremism. 
Because you talked more about gender-neutral toilets than about home repossessions. 
Because you beatified Caitlyn Jenner. 
Because you policed people’s language, rubbished their parenting skills, took the piss out of their beliefs.
Because you cried when someone mocked the Koran but laughed when they mocked the Bible.
Because you said criticising Islam is Islamophobia. Because you kept telling people, 
You can’t think that, you can’t say that, you can’t do that.’
Because you turned politics from something done by and for people to something done to them, for their own good.

Because you treated people like trash. And people don’t like being treated like trash. 
Trump happened because of you.

"Yes Obama et al, all you dirty snowflakes", he could have added... 

"You Built That"

I reckon Brendan deserved a pint or two. 

If you want to see some snaps that give a sound overview of the Inauguration, have a look at JH's scrapbook. 

The highs and the lowlives. 

I hope the New President cleans out the swamp effectively and quickly. The stench reaches around the world.

But, cheer up. Let's finish this with a song.

Friday, January 20, 2017


The mind boggles more frequently by the day. In a few hours 'The Donald' will receive the official acclaim of the American People and be inaugurated at their #Nth/st President and Commander in Chief of their mighty military. Unofficially the people are divided, which is the legacy of the #Nth/st minus one. And the boggling? That is due to the masses of thick, sick and lazy Democrats who so strongly object to their democratically elected President. 

Many don't want him because he once mentioned doing something rather rude and adolescent to the private parts of ladies. He proposed 'grabbing'. Just what he would do then, he didn't say, but using a knife on them did not feature. Don't ask Bill Clinton what he would do.

Meanwhile the aformentioned outgoing, past President for eight, long, disastrous years was raised as a Muslim who do do nasty things with knives to ladies private parts, and he advocated for more and more Moslems to be brought into America.  He pressed for the Moslem causes more than any westerner in history.  Those Moslem causes included killing homosexuals, stoning women to death, old men 'marrying' pre-pubescent girls, and women mutilating the sexual parts of little girls. The Democrats and general mobs of lefty ratbags said nothing. The feminists said nothing.

Here in Oz we face the same blind leftism regarding Islam, even spreading into the more-expected conservative politicians. They say little or nothing either.

My friend Lori was in just the other day and she said, " The Royal women's hospital in Melbourne opened a special clinic dedicated to treating Female Genital Mutilation in 2012. They treat approx 600 to 700 per year!!!!! How evil is this that such barbaric cruelty is occurring in our state of Victoria in Australia."

Even I was taken aback at that. I had not known it. Perhaps it has been in the newspapers of on TV and I missed it. 

I did however listen to Caroline Overington who came by. I pulled a pint and shook my sad old head as she spoke about the very subject. Almost.

March on, but remember girls mutilated at home
Now, I’m a feminist, obviously. I believe in equal rights for women: to work, to vote, to drive, to travel. But the Women’s Marches around the nation this weekend has me worried.
It has me sad that clever, articulate, successful women today can be such dullards as to even admit to being a feminist. To me it is like claiming being a kiddy-fiddler  and being proud enough of the depravity to put it in a newspaper column.
The Women’s Marches have been organised so Australian women can “show solidarity” with American women as Donald Trump becomes president.
Why should Australians show any solidarity at all? Did she seek solidarity for the President of Uganda when he took power? Or the Chinese chap?  What is it to do with her? 
The organisers hate him, obviously. 
He’s the pussy-grabber. 
The misogynist-in-chief. 
The group behind the Women’s March has a Facebook page that promotes Meryl Streep’s speech at the Oscars,; and the hashtag LoveTrumpsHate. And that’s fine.
Hate is fine, eh, Caroline?  None of this 'love everyone' stuff for her.
Trump was democratically elected but nobody has to like him, and protests against government are an important part of democracy too. So, march away.
But where, I wonder, is the thousand-strong march, the loud protests, the hashtags and the Twitter campaign for women and girls suffering the vilest forms of misogyny right here at home?
A good question, and I am glad she asked it. I only wish it was a rhetorical question and she provide the obvious answer. But her 'feminism' precludes that. 
Last week the Australian pediatric surveillance unit at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in western Sydney released a report on female genital mutilation in this country. It found 59 brutalised girls. But here’s the line you don’t want to miss: the study’s author, Elizabeth Elliott, said “most of the procedures on the girls were performed overseas”.
Rather a low count considering what Lori told us. Has someone been releasing manipulated statistics? The authorities in Oz are masters of that dark art.
The key word in that sentence is “ most”. Most of girls had been cut overseas. But some were Australian-born. Meaning they had definitely been cut here. It’s very likely that some of the others had been cut here, too, after they arrived. Of the 59 — according to the report, that’s a gross underestimation of the actual numbers — only 13 were referred to child protection services. 
Why only 13?
These were girls whose parents — usually their mothers — had taken them to have them cut.
Ahhha, a slight nod toward the answer. It is women mutilating girls so we must tread very carefully lest we be accused to stopping woman doing whatever they want. 
What will happen to them next? Will they be shoved into an arranged marriage with a much older man to whom they already may be related? Because that, too, is happening.

Last October, a young Iraqi girl, Bee al-Darraj, told The Australian that she knew several girls from her former Islamic school who had been sent to Iraq to be married, while still underage. Nothing was done. 
She knew one girl who gave birth while underage in a public hospital in Sydney with her 28-year-old husband standing by. Nothing was done. 
She knew girls in Year 9 who were married and had 30-year-old husbands picking them up from school. Nothing was done. 
(To be clear, there’s no suggestion the school knew, for to know and not report would be a gross breach of mandatory reporting obligations. What we’re talking about here is child rape.)
No. There is no suggestion - a phrase no doubt pressed upon her by a lawyer somewhere. To expect a school, staffed predominantly and often wholly by women to adversly report a matter that would call a woman into question is almost entirely unexpected.  And who in the school would? The duty teachers who are 'in a relationship with' a schoolboy or girl, or was 'having an affair' with one of her underage charges? 
Last week, we had a prominent cleric, imam Ibrahim Omerdic, 61, charged with conducting a child marriage between a girl under the age of 16, and a man aged 30.
This is real, and it is happening here, and it is right now. Dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of girls are suffering vile abuse, but it’s like screaming in an abyss. Where is the march? Where is the hashtag?
Indeed. Where? 
Genital cutting is not as fancy a topic as Hollywood pay for women, obviously, but it’s a creeping tragedy that threatens the freedom of all Australian women. A freedom our grandfathers and great-uncles died for. A freedom the feisty Australian suffragettes of yesteryear, with their dry wit and their long skirts and their button-up boots, once marched for.
Oy Vey, Caroline. Australian women had the vote without marching a step. It was given to them in Perth first to counter the large number of men in Kalgoorlie who threatened to vote against Federation. It had nothing to do with 'equal rights for women'. 
I get that there’s cultural sensitivity. People don’t want to be accused of racism or bigotry.
And who would be first to shout that, m'dear? 

Lefties. Feminists. Neck and neck even when one is not the other. 

I had to pour m'self a cooling ale !
They don’t want to discriminate. But what about the discrimination against girls going on right now in Australian schools? Don’t believe it? Cast your eye over this, the official uniform list for the al-Faisal College in Sydney’s west.
She showed the list here:

Boys’ summer uniform 
Blue school trousers Short-sleeve blue school shirt (with logo) Black school shoes School hat School tie
Boys’ winter uniform 
Blue trousers Long-sleeve blue shirt (with logo) Blue jumper (with logo) School tie Black school shoes Blue socks School hat
Girls’ summer uniform 
Blue summer dress (ankle-length) Long-sleeve blue school shirt Knee-high navy socks Black school shoes School hat/sky-blue scarf
Girls’ winter uniform 
Blue tartan school dress (ankle-length) Long-sleeve white shirt Blue jumper (with logo) Sky-blue scarf Black school shoes Navy stockings School hat.
What jumps out? Only the girls, from age five, have to wear long sleeves, even in summer.
Only the girls have to wear skirts to the floor (ankle-length) summer and winter. The hijab, or head covering, also is compulsory for girls, from age five. It is compulsory even for sport. The boys scamper about in short sleeves.
My mind was now aboggle. Caroline has seamlessly moved from the subject of cutting the clitoris from a small girl - indeed, thousands of small girls - to a consideration of sleeve and hem lengths in school uniforms. I needed a short  whisky chaser to my fine Ale. 
A friend of a friend who is a teacher at the school recently sent out some pictures of children at the school receiving certificates at an assembly.
The boys are relaxed and grinning. The girls are swathed in so much fabric you can see only their faces. You support this, with your taxes.
It’s blatant discrimination. It tells girls that there is something sinful about them, something that will drive men to distraction, something they need to keep covered while out in the world.
The sight of your wrists, or ankle, or forearm is offensive and wrong.
Now, Australian women are smart, and most of them are very used to carrying more than one bucket at a time. Meaning: they know that you can adore pretty clothes and still want equal pay.
Likewise, you can be outraged by female genital mutilation, and forced marriage, and lousy school uniform codes, and Donald Trump. But which is more important? Macho bragging about pussy-grabbing in a trailer on the set of The Apprentice? Or acts of extreme violence against girls — and the rights of girls — here and now?
Yes, it’s possible to carry more than one bucket, so, if you’re marching this weekend, good on you, that’s your right — but maybe also carry a placard for your Australian sisters, suffering vile misogyny as we speak.
They’re hidden from view but they deserve attention, too.
I am no longer astonished at the waste of time and effort and money our media hands to women who then cannot stick to the point long enough to make the point, even when it is of such importance.

Little girls are Mutilated. Lets bring in women's pay and some fashion notes!

The Prof, JJ Ray muttered something from a corner table. He was miffed too.

CAROLINE has some restrained comments about the butchered genitals of *Australian* Muslim girls.  I would add:  "What about Clemmie?" Alleged feminist Clementine Ford wrote recently and angrily about the rude way some young Australian men at a car rally spoke to some of the women present.  
Where is her sense of values?  There is no record of any women being hurt by men at the Summernats but there is ample record of what some Australian Muslim families do to their daughters.  If rude car-freaks burn up Clemmie, female genital mutilation should set her on fire.  But there is no record of that.  No rage at all. 
It is quite clear that Clemmie, like most so-called feminists, doesn't care about women at all.   

All that drives her is her hate of her fellow Australians -- in the best Leftist tradition.   

She is a towering hypocrite and a nasty piece of goods. 

She should be proud that even while in a drunken mob, young Australian men did women no harm. Her misdirected anger defiles Australian society.   

Does someone have to perform a clitoridectomy on her to get her attention to it?   

I think it would take that much.

Being rude and crude is a matter of poor manners. It could be seen as adolescent bravado. It harms no-one. 

Mutilating a little girl's genitals Traumatises.

It is almost the ultimate sexual abuse, but do not expect anyone in our government or abuse industry to do anything about it.

But hey, we don't want to get a mother in trouble now, do we.

And we do have to remember that all cultures are equal. 

Need a pint, "Bigot"?

Perhaps Caroline should think about her multi-grievance feminism and listen to this :