‘Multiple Men’ Were ‘Ready to Take a Bullet’ for Us, Says Shooting Survivor

Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 9.34.25 AM
Screen shot of a tweet by ABC’s Good Morning America. Interestingly enough, this video clip has been removed from the link above. Do they not want to promote, or even admit to, male heroism? Is that just too far removed from the dominant narrative, in today’s media?

Source: ‘Multiple Men’ Were ‘Ready to Take a Bullet’ for Us, Says Shooting Survivor

As “Mister Rogers” used to say, “look for the helpers.”

“Toxic masculinity” – or the protest against it – is all the rage these days, in the Left-wing media and academic world. America, so the currently-dominant narrative (a la #metoo) goes, is a land of misogyny, a “rape culture” in which sexual exploitation, assault, and violence against women women is commonplace.

I will not here discuss the incredible twisting of any rational definition of “assault” required to get to this number (and even then, it may well be a fantasy). Nor will I dwell on the fact that some of those same Leftists are willing to welcome with open arms a genuine rape culture, that of Islam (see “grooming gangs” in Britain, and the incredible spike in rapes in Germany and Scandinavia, linked to Moslem migrants).

I will, instead, point out that the horrible tragedy of the Thousand Oaks shootings in California showed positive masculinity at its best. The Daily Signal reports,

“While we were all dog-piled at the side, there were multiple men that got on their knees and pretty much blocked all of us with their backs towards the shooter, ready to take a bullet for any single one of us,” Teylor Whittler, a woman who had been in the club during the shooting, said Thursday morning, reported ABC News.

“And just the amount of people who made sure everyone got out OK or if they were out … they made sure, they went around to every single person around them and asked them if they were OK and if they needed a phone to call their family … just in general any way they could help. It was awesome,” she continued.

And these were just the anonymous heroes; ordinary, decent men doing what ordinary, decent men do, when others are in danger.  There were others, too, as I have elsewhere noted; known, individual examples of courage and heroism:

Sheriff’s Sgt. Ron Helus, 29-year veteran of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, who was gunned down responding to the incident; 23-year-old Cal Lutheran alumnus Justin Meek, who died shielding his sister and others from the gunman with his own body; Sean Adler, a 48-year-old married father of two, who apparently died attempting to disarm the gunman; former Marine Daniel Manrique, who “ran in to help people escape the violence and ultimately gave his life protecting others.”

This is what men – real men, not either über-macho @$$holes or testosterone-deprived nu-malesdo. It is what all men are supposed to do: to protect, to care for, to defend, and to give help and succor to those in need, and especially to those who may not be able to care for and protect themselves, in a given situation. And if necessary, to lay down their lives for those they are protecting: following the example of Christ Himself, dying that others may live. That is what true manhood, true masculinity, is all about. God bless them!

A day in the life of an English “Bobby” (policeman) in 1959 – ah, the good ol’ days!

One year ago today, British & Commonwealth Forces posted this lovely video on their Facebook page, with the following commentary:

The British Policeman (1959) – a Public Information Film produced for the Colonial Office.

This portrait of a British Policeman was commissioned by the Colonial Office to promote Britain’s Police Service to the colonies and Commonwealth states.

Released in 1959, this film upholds one of the Central Office of Information’s (COI) founding principles and the reason for its commitment to producing Public Information Films. In December 1945 the incumbent Prime Minister Clement Attlee stated it was important “a true and adequate picture of British institutions and the British way of life should be presented overseas” through such films.

Following a ‘typical’ day in the life of Police Constable Jack Edwards, the film shows his ‘typical’ duties over an eight-hour shift. The film portrayal of PC Edwards as a guardian of law and order in 1950s Britain, understandably looks dated, when compared to today’s modern Police Service.

This film made available courtesy the UK National Archives.

How times have changed – and not particularly for the better, either!

Nota Bene: Why are British policemen known as “Bobbies”? Why, ’tis an affectionate and respectful nod to Sir Robert Peel, their founder:

“The concept of modern policing has its roots in pre-Victorian England, when the British home minister, Sir Robert Peel (1778-1850), oversaw the creation of London’s first organized police force. Before Peel’s 1829 reforms, public order had been maintained by a mix of night watchmen, local constables and red-coat-wearing army soldiers, who were deployed as much to quell political troubles as to deal with local crime.

“In creating London’s Metropolitan Police (headquartered on a short street called Scotland Yard), Peel sought to create a professionalized law enforcement corps that was as accountable to everyday citizens as to the ruling classes. When Peel’s opponents complained that the creation of the new police force would restrict personal liberties, Peel responded, ‘I want to teach people that liberty does not consist in having your house robbed by organized gangs of thieves, and in leaving the principal streets of London in the nightly possession of drunken women and vagabonds.’

“Instead of the resented red coats, Peel’s patrolmen wore black jackets and tall wool hats with shiny badges. They went out armed only with a short club and a whistle for summoning backup, walking regular beats and working to gain the trust of the local citizens. Robert Peel’s system was a success, and by the mid-19th century large American cities had created similar police forces. In London, the policemen were so identified with the politician who created them that they were referred to as ‘Peelers’ or—more memorably—’Bobbies,’ after the popular nickname for Robert.”

Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson is freed on bail | Daily Mail Online

Tommy Robinson has been freed from Onley prison near Rugby today after appealing against his contempt conviction

Judges have sensationally freed the ex-EDL leader, 35, after ruling it was ‘unfair’ to give him 13 months in prison during a ‘muddled’ court case held just five hours after his arrest.

Source: Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson is freed on bail | Daily Mail Online

Sometime justice does occur, after all! While Tommy Robinson’s sentence was not overturned, the ruling – which has the practical effect of releasing him on bail until his case can be re-heard – does deliver some pretty scathing judgements on how the case was handled in the first place:

“Today appeal judges ordered Robinson be released on bail and he will face a fresh contempt of court hearing at the Old Bailey in London ‘as soon as possible.’

“Tommy Robinson streamed an hour-long Facebook Live at an Asian [Britspeak for Pakistani Muslim] sex gang trial outside Leeds Crown Court in May and was later arrested and jailed for 13 months after admitting being in contempt of court – but was freed on bail today [July 31st].

“His case has sparked protests across the UK and a groundswell of support among the right in America, who claimed his incarceration violated freedom of speech.

“President Trump’s former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon led the calls for his release and called him a ‘solid guy’ and the ‘backbone of this country’ while in the UK last month.

“Two weeks ago Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, appealed against his 13-month jail term for contempt of court claiming the punishment was ‘excessive’ and the hearing was ‘rushed.’

“The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction saying the decision to jail him within five hours of his arrest ‘gave rise to unfairness’ and ignored court rules.

“A panel of three senior judges also criticised Judge Geoffrey Marson QC, the judge who sent him to prison, saying he gave ‘no clarity’ about what parts of Robinson’s Facebook Live video were in contempt of court.

“[Marson] ignored the fact the film was deleted shortly after his arrest and also denied Robinson the chance to defend himself properly by not adjourning the case to another day, the ruling said.

“Robinson’s successful appeal caused supporters to cry with joy and cheer wildly before chanting ‘Tommy’s coming home’ to the tune of England football anthem Three Lions.”

As I say, it’s not over yet! But this is certainly a positive development, not least for Robinson’s own physical safety and psycho-emotional well-being. Thanks be to God!

Excellent news – British activist Tommy Robinson released on bail!

Statement from pro-British, anti-mass-immigration activist Tommy Robinson upon his release from a prison he should never have been sent to in the first pace. The battle isn’t over, by a long shot! But this is excellent news, and long overdue. God be thanked!

The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement | Imprimis

However inexcusable every act of police brutality is, there is a larger reality behind the issue of policing, crime, and race that remains a taboo topic.

Source: The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement – Imprimis

We are in the midst of a swirling controversy, here in the United States, around the growing trend for professional athletes – particularly, but not exclusively, football players – and others to “take a knee” (kneel) during the National Anthem, as a protest against alleged police violence against “people of color,” particularly African-Americans.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of Americans see this as a mark of disrespect, if not flat-out assault, against the the anthem, the flag, and by extension, the “Republic for which it stands” (in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance). I am inclined to agree, although I take a somewhat more nuanced stance than some in that I can see that some of the protesters are well-meaning, and behaving with a reasonable degree of respect despite kneeling.

Nonetheless, I have some real issues with this practice, on at least two levels. First, the flag is or should be a non-political sign of the nation itself, our ideals and values at their best, as well as our history and heritage – which, while not without fault, has been by and large a positive one for our people, and for the world. We do not have a monarch, to serve as a supra-political unifying figure; for us in the United States, our flag – and other forms of iconography related to it, including the Anthem – serves that role.

Protesting the flag, including the National Anthem, is a de facto protest against our nation as a whole, not just political views, leaders, or perspectives on social issues with which one may legitimately disagree. And the very fact that one cannot be arrested and imprisoned, or worse, for disrespecting the flag or other national icons seems, to me, to be a very good reason to treat them with even greater respect!

But secondly, it’s not just that disrespecting our flag, and by extension our nation, is intrinsically wrong-headed – it’s that the premise behind it is wrong, too. This is, perhaps, the real issue, and it is one which is rarely discussed… the 900-lb gorilla in the room, as it were. And the fact is, there is not a war against blacks by the police, as those protesting imply (or sometimes flat-out state); in fact, quite the contrary is true.

As this article points out,

“Twelve percent of all white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by police officers, compared to four percent of all black homicide victims. If we’re going to have a “Lives Matter” anti-police movement, it would be more appropriately named ‘White and Hispanic Lives Matter.’”

In contrast,

“Every year, approximately 6,000 blacks are murdered. This is a number greater than white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the national population. Blacks are killed at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Los Angeles, blacks between the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30 times the national mean.

“Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. The astronomical black death-by-homicide rate is a function of the black crime rate. Black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic male teens combined. Blacks of all ages commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at eleven times the rate of whites alone.

“The police could end all lethal uses of force tomorrow and it would have at most a trivial effect on the black death-by-homicide rate.”

The folks “taking a knee” to protest the killing of blacks by police officers should instead be protesting the astronomically high rate of black-on-black violence, and more broadly, the disproportionately high rate of violent crimes committed by blacks. As this article also points out, police respond aggressively, not out of racism, but to protect law-abiding citizens in high-crime areas:

“The geographic disparities are also huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian.

“As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge. Every time there is a shooting, the police will flood the area looking to make stops in order to avert a retaliatory shooting. They are in Brownsville not because of racism, but because they want to provide protection to its many law-abiding residents who deserve safety.”

The whole article is excellent – well-written, and well-researched. It makes clear that those “taking a knee” – although many may be well-meaning, I will grant them that – are deeply misguided in their assumptions, as well as their approach.