Friday, February 27, 2015

Was Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran Wrongly Terminated?

Image result for kelvin cochran fire chief
Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran

In an interesting case, Atlanta Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran was recently terminated (, reportedly over a self-published book entitled “Who Told You That You Were naked”? (

In the book, Cochran, a devout Christian, described homosexuality as a perversion and made clear his own belief that Marriage is Biblically defined as being between one man and one woman.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Cochran’s book identifies the Chief as a devout Christian and as the city's fire chief, equivalent to the FDNY’s Chief-of-Department.

Those views immediately drew rebuke from others in government. Atlanta City councilmember Alex Wan, who is openly gay, asked Mayor Kasim Reed to investigate whether Cochran's views have affected LGBT employees. Initially, Chief Cochran was suspended for 30 days.

Ultimately Chief Cochran was fired because of “concerns that his now very public anti-gay views would create a work environment that was not welcoming to his gay subordinates.”

The Supreme Court seems to offer little comfort to Chief Cochran, as Justice Antonin Scalia explained in his majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, “the right of free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

SOME have interpreted this to mean that so long as Atlanta’s anti-discrimination policies apply equally to discrimination that is motivated by faith and discrimination that is motivated by some other reason, Cochran’s free exercise rights are not implicated here.

That’s NOT at all so clear cut. “OFFENSE,” like pornography and beauty lie entirely within the eye of the beholder. Religious people rightly take offense to many secular views, just as more secular people take some offense to many religious views.

That’s why attempting to legislate based on “offense,” leaves everyone subject to the whims of whatever is the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. One day secularists prosecute the religious for “offense” and “bigotry,” the next the religious take power and prosecute the secularists for the same. That’s a nightmare.

The 1st Amendment, like it, or not, protects ESPECIALLY (in many ways SOLELY) intemperate, obnoxious, “offensive,” even revolutionary speech and ideas, because ONLY such ideas require such protections.

In my view, Chief Cochran has as much right to state his views as does Alex Wan to state his.

The ONLY valid reason for terminating someone like Chief Cochran would be some actual criminal/illegal act, of which “offense” (whether legitimately legislated, or not) DOES NOT rise to that level. IF Chief Cochran had actively encouraged/coerced subordinates to purchase his book, OR, if he actively sought to exclude homosexuals from the Atlanta Fire Department, for no other reason than their being gay, THOSE would certainly rise to the level of criminal acts, BUT merely stating/writing his beliefs, while “offensive” to some, does not and SHOULD NOT rise to any level of criminality, any more than a homosexual merely stating his/her own beliefs.

Attempting to criminalize “offense” is a dangerous road that often turns back on those naïve souls who were merely looking to reduce “offense.” Naïve policies are generally bad policies, fraught with unintended consequences.

Is Al Sharpton on the Way OUT at MSNBC?

Image result for Al Sharpton
Al Sharpton

Full disclosure; I do not like Al Sharpton, at all. I believe he's a con-artist, a racial arsonist and a bigot-for-profit. I stand by my earlier assertion that MSNBC's hiring him was equivalent to a network hiring Tom Metzger of the Aryan nation (the ONLY white group leader who has actually inspired racial violence over the past fifty years) as a host.

Hiring Al Sharpton remains as much a stain on that network as hiring the likes of Metzger would've been. Some stains just don't ever wash off...and this (in my view) is one.

Having said all that, while I'm deeply saddened that MSNBC hired Sharpton, I don't take any pleasure in his on-air demise, just as I wouldn't take pleasure in the on-air demise of a Tom Metzger either. I'd have been deeply saddened to see that person hired and would consider it a plus when they're off the air, but I'd take no personal gratification from another person's misfortune.

An MSNBC source has reportedly told the Daily Beast: “Going left was a brilliant strategy while it lasted and made hundreds of millions of dollars for Comcast, but it doesn't work anymore. The goal is to move away from left-wing TV.”

IF that's true and Comcast has belatedly seen the light, then that's to the good, BUT I remain skeptical. For one thing, the statement DOESN'T ring true. Going far-Left has been a disaster from the start for MSNBC...always the cable news door mat. Keith Olbermann couldn't beat FNC or CNN, neither could Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton has been so much of an embarrassment that his legendary teleprompter gaffs were even fodder for uber-liberal SNL..."Sta Lois....I mean, St. Louis..." Funny stuff, but waaaaay too close to the humiliating reality.

Will MSNBC change course?

And to WHAT, exactly? A "little LESS Left," or "As Left as the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC)?

Seriously, WHERE do they go from here?

A Home Invasion & Rape in Las Vegas Highlights Media Malfeasance

Image result for Cytherea

There’s some interesting banter around the net about “feminists ignoring the brutal rape of a former porn star (Cytherea) during a violent home invasion at her Las Vegas home” (;

“Police were called about 10 p.m. Jan. 19 to a home in the 9200 block of Weeping Hollow Avenue, south of the intersection of Blue Diamond Road and El Capitan Way, to investigate a report of a home invasion, robbery and sexual assault.”

Two children and three adults were inside the house, according to reports. Police say they were robbed, held at gunpoint, and Cytherea was raped, after a gang of attackers kicked in the door to the home.

Three suspects, Qumaire Rainey, 18; Edward London, 17; and Casey Franks, 16, were arrested by Metro detectives, who were working with the North Las Vegas Police Department on a related case.

Police Lieutenant David McGrath investigated what he called a ‘rare case’, in which a gang of teens kicked in the door of a random home.
“This family didn’t know these individuals,” McGrath told KLAS.

All three suspects face numerous felony charges for the Martin Luther King Day attack, and will be arraigned in Las Vegas Justice Court this morning.

Police have acknowledged that the suspects have criminal histories and knew each other from detention.

HOWEVER, I think that banter overlooks a much bigger issue – the national media has completely overlooked this crime...while, at the SAME time having heaped unwarranted attention and unverified agreement with such obvious HOAXES as the Duke lacrosse Rape hoax, the recent UVA rape hoax and the dubious claims of Columbia Coed  Emma Sulkowicz.

This media obsession with certain kinds of rapes (those allegedly committed by straight white males, Cytherea’s attackers were all black) exists at a time when female rape rates are at their lowest level in decades, domestic violence is at its lowest rate ever, in short, NOTHING about this obsession makes any sense.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Is Multi-Culturalism Failing in Europe?

Image result for Cherif and Said Kouachi
Cherif and Said Kouachi

Image result for Amedy Coulibaly
Amedy Coulibaly

At first glance, Europe seems to have a different kind of “jihadist problem” than the USA does. Far more Muslims seem to be radicalized in places like London, Paris, Denmark and Belgium than in the U.S. and Canada.

But, perhaps the most recent “jihadist” phenomenon isn’t as much about “radicalization,” as it is about social, cultural and moral alienation.

That was highlighted in a 60 Minutes piece that aired last Sunday (February 15th, 2015).

Interestingly enough it highlighted the suburban ghettos surrounding Paris as (unofficial) “No-Go Zones,” places where tourists are warned away from and French Police rarely patrol.

Our own national media embarrassingly enough, played dumb (OK, maybe it wasn’t “playing,” it’s not that much of a stretch for many of them anyway) a short time ago, feigning incredulity over such “No-Go Zones,” as if we haven’t had and still HAVE them here in the USA. Tourists to New York certainly ARE warned away from specific neighborhoods and as recently as the 1970s, there were entire Brooklyn neighborhoods where the NYPD rarely patrolled and into which outsiders rarely ventured. Those were unofficial "No-Go Zones."

The sad fact is that “multi-culturalism” appears to be failing in Europe...and perhaps throughout the entire West.

Fact is moralities differ around the world and two of the most discordant moralities are the Sharia moral code of Islam and the Judeo-Christian moral code of the West. Sharia morality is unalterably opposed to “gay rights” of any kind, opposes any kind of gender equality and prescribes public executions and amputations for a wide variety of crimes from the most violent criminal acts to adultery (mostly for female adulterers) and homosexuality, as well as “Honor Killings,” where male family members must kill, or throw acid in the faces of female family members accused of adultery to “cleanse the shame from that family’s name.”

Just as strict Islam is horrifically intolerant and indecently violent to Westerners, Western culture is hopelessly and relentlessly decadent and corrosive to the eyes of those steeped in Sharia’s morality.

Much of the terrorism we witness in the West today, especially recent European terrorist events like the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the recent terrorist shootings in Denmark come down more to a clash between two incompatible moral codes than anything else.

That DOES NOT bode well for either the future of Western anti-terrorism, nor for multi-culturalism either. Some cultures simply aren’t miscible. Not every difference can be paved over with good intentions and “honest dialogue.”

French criminologist Xavier Raufer describes the phenomenon of this “new kind of terrorist,” as “hybrids.” They are career criminals who’ve often become radicalized in prison. Raufer notes, “Of course. Those are the only ones that are left. You know, jihad as an ideal has degenerated along the last 10 or 20 years. Fifteen, 20 years ago the bin Laden type. Now you have common criminals and thugs. One day they drink beer, the next day they smoke pot, the third day they are in a mosque. So, those are totally unstable people. They are human bombs, you know. They can explode any time.

“Cherif Kouachi is a perfect example of that hybrid phenomenon. He and his brother Said were orphans of Algerian descent who ended up in foster care. As a teenager, Cherif was more interested in rap than religion. This video, shot by his friends, documents that period in his life when was he smoking pot and chasing girls. He worked as a pizza delivery boy, but his life changed in 2003 when he became radicalized by a group of young Muslims in this Paris neighborhood. They were angry about the American invasion of Iraq and set up a recruitment ring to send young French Muslims to fight jihad against U.S. forces. But Cherif was arrested the day before he was due to fly and he served 20 months in jail for his part in the conspiracy.”

Vincent Ollivier was Kouachi's lawyer at the time. He said that his client was a bit of a coward who was actually glad to be caught. Ollivier claims that Kouachi “was a lost and confused young boy. And he talked to the judge to me and to the court later that he was relieved of being arrested because he was afraid to go to Iraq and he thought that it - wouldn't come back - at least in one piece. So he was kind of relieved to be arrested, yeah.”

One investigator involved in the case told 60 Minutes that, “Cherif and his associates were dismissed as "mad dogs and morons" who posed no serious threat.”

Without question, there ARE more secular Muslims, who regard religious dictates about as strictly as most “Reformed,” or more secular Western Christians and Jews, but all devout Muslims adhere to Sharia law, THAT is their moral code and it would appear that Sharia’s morality is simply incompatible with the modern Western moral code.

One thing overlooked by both Raufer and Ollivier is that such “hybrids” are, most likely, so easily “radicalized” because they were born into an alien morality (alien to the Western moral code, at any rate) and so predisposed to be extremely conflicted about living within such toxic, decadent cultures.

That prospect is overlooked because it HAS TO BE overlooked by those who desperately want to believe that the Western ideal of multi-culturalism can be preserved, no matter what.

Recent developments cast some serious doubt on that Western presumption.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Defining Tolerance....

A Rogue's gallery of Ideological Bigots;

Image result for Craig Stephen Hicks
Craig Stephen Hicks (Anti-Theist killer)

Image result for Rosemary Lehmberg
Rosemary Lehmberg Rogue TX D.A.

Image result for John Chisholm WI
John Chislom Rogue WIisconsin D.A.

"Tolerance," like "peace," and "love" are things that everyone can seem to agree upon....UNTIL it gets down to actually defining them, because, like "truth" and "beauty" these terms all mean different things to different people.

For instance, what's the difference between this tee shirt;

And this one?

The most basic and direct answer is....there IS absolutely NO difference between the two shirts.

And YET, people claim to find offense with one and NOT the other...with the offense differing based solely on the observer's personal perspective. The truth is, IF you find offense in ONE, you SHOULD (if fair minded) find offense in BOTH, as both are statements that endorse racialism, or "race consciousness." 
BOTH shirts advocate for a single, specific race, BOTH promote a solidarity based solely on race, which is antithetical to the mores and values  of a multi-cultural society. I am admittedly vaguely uncomfortable with both shirts, but find neither one of them overtly “offensive.”

Recently, an FDNY attorney argued that a shirt with a Maltese Cross (a traditional Fire Department symbol) on the front, with the words Merit and Matters on the top and bottom bars of the cross, respectively and a phrase from the FDNY's own EEO policy that reads, "The Fire department is firmly committed to maintaining fair employment practices for its employees and applicants and ensuring that employment decisions are made without regard to color...gender...race...religion..." on the back, was somehow "bigoted" and "offensive."

How does the simple phrase "Merit Matters" become offensive in a job that is and long has been filled via the dictates of the Civil Service MERIT System? Especially when the City of New York clearly states in its own 2013 Workforce Profile Report; “Many job categories for NYC employees are governed by New York State civil service law. The civil service system is designed to ensure that public sector jobs in New York State and its municipalities are filled based on MERIT as determined by examination, education, and experience. Most City jobs are filled from ranked competitive lists based on examination scores.” (

So, how does a phrase taken directly from that organization's EEO policy become "offensive"?

Partly because some people (even some in government) take offense to the idea that the underlying sentiment of that shirt is the absolute rejection of the idea of "special considerations" or "preferences" based on race and/or gender," AND that it implies that the FDNY's own EEO policy does NOT recognize, nor endorse the existence of "protected groups," nor the view that "some preferences are warranted."

That's NOT the fault of an organization named Merit Matters. It's the FDNY's fault and more specifically the fault of its own EEO Unit that it hasn't changed, or updated its policy statement.

IF the FDNY's EEO statement read something like, "The FDNY is firmly committed to fair employment practices and therefore adheres to existing affirmative action guidelines that may bestow hiring preferences based on color, gender, religion and race, at varying times..." that entire controversy would've been avoided, as Merit Matters could NOT have highlighted what, in the first instance, appears to be an innate hypocrisy between the stated objectives of the FDNY's EEO Unit and the FDNY's actions.

Now, that change in wording would NOT bar, nor deter such groups from legally challenging such preferences and looking to bar the use of poorly defined principles like "disparate impact," etc.

Many firefighters and interested civilians see the matter as a "health and safety issue," for BOTH active duty firefighters AND the public.

Again, this highlights the dangerous nature of ideological bigotry. Craig S. Hicks was an avowed "anti-theist," which is fine. What ISN'T "fine," is Hicks' irrational view that he could justifiably impose his view on others, as when he murdered 3 Muslim neighbors, allegedly over a parking space. 
Hicks apparently believed that his view was “the right one,” and thus superior to those who disagreed with him. That twisted perspective allowed him to rationalize shutting up those who disagreed with him...allegedly in this most recent incident, permanently.

The fact that both John Chisolm (a Milwaukee, WI D.A.) and Travis County, Texas, D.A., Rosemary Lehmberg have brought charges against sitting Governors (Scott Walker and Rick Perry respectively) primarily and ostensibly over ideological differences (Chisolm's allegedly at the behest of his Union shop steward wife and Lehmberg over a personal vendetta with Governor Perry) and this also highlights the very real abuses when such petty bigotries are allowed to be used by those entrusted to enforce the LAW.

In my view, BOTH Lehmberg and Chisolm SHOULD BE disbarred for allowing their personal ideological bigotries to color their legal judgments.

The law is NOT allowed to "take sides." There is NO "right ideology" nor "wrong ideology" in the eyes of the law. The communist has as much right to espouse his views as the nazi does to espouse hers. The liberal has as much right to espouse her views, as the conservative does to espouse his. Free speech is for ALL, or it exists for NONE. In fact, the ONLY speech that requires protections is controversial, offensive and unpopular speech.

Attempting to criminalize a specific ideology is itself a criminal act.
American Ideas Click Here!