Marcus Hook, PA, Mayor James Schiliro, a Gun-Grabbing Bloomberg-Crony, Has a Collection of Guns, and Allegedly Fired One, in an Attempt to Homosexually Rape the Young Man He’d Had a Policeman Procure in a Squad Car

The Honorable James Schiliro

Posted by Nicholas Stix

Reader-researcher RC, who sent along this story, remarked,

The true definition of "booty call."

Note that many, if not all of the mayors in the above video have heavily armed, taxpayer-subsidized gunsels guarding them 24/7, but they all want to abolish, by hook or by crook, the ordinary, law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Constitution be damned.

I am aware that Marcus Hook Mayor James Schiliro a.k.a. Jay Schiliro, has not been charged with attempted rape, but that’s what the charges amount to.

It’s a gay thing; you wouldn’t understand. Apparently, it’s virtually impossible now for a grown man to be charged with attempted rape of another grown man (unless the perp is white and the vic ain’t, I guess), so the authorities instead came up with a passel of other charges, most of which make no sense, independent of an attempted rape charge.

* * *

“Mayor Against Illegal Guns” Arrested in Gun-Related Incident [Video]
March 28, 2013
By Anonymous
The Inquisitr

[Video link.]

Marcus Hook, PA — A member of the Michael Bloomberg-sponsored gun control organization “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” has been arrested and charged in connection with a handgun incident at his home.

James Schiliro, a.k.a. Jay Schiliro, the mayor of Marcus Hook, a small town in Delaware County, Pennsylvania,faces charges of official oppression, reckless endangerment, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, and furnishing a minor with alcohol. He surrendered to authorities on Thursday morning, and his attorney declared that “we intend to fight these charges.”

Schiliro, 38, allegedly ordered a local police officer to bring a 20-year-old male friend to his home, where the mayor plied him with alcohol, and made sexual advances which the man refused. Schiliro allegedly brandished several handguns and fired one of them into the floor in an apparent attempt to intimidate the young man, who reportedly was in fear of his life.

The mayor was freed on $50,000 bail and told to stay away from the alleged victim and give up his stash of firearms.

Schiliro, a Republican, has refused requests by town officials to step down, and he intends to continue to run in the May 21 contested mayoral primary. Mayors Against Illegal Guns reportedly dropped him immediately from the list of coalition supporters when this news emerged, however, and he no longer appears on the website of the organization of approximately 800 mayors, mostly Democrats, which is led by NYC Mayor Bloomberg.

Schiliro isn’t the only member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns who has run into trouble with the law. For example, Craig Lowe, the Democrat major of Gainesville, Florida, who appears in a gun-control commercial with Mayor Bloomberg, was recently arrested for DUI at the scene of a crash when the Highway Patrol found him asleep behind the wheel of his car. Other elected officials in the group have allegedly been been [sic] charged with corruption, assaulting a police officer, and child sex crimes.

Is Gay Marriage the Face of the Future, or Already a Done Deal?

 

 

[Tips ‘o the hate to Ex-Army: Libertarian Nationalist and Vanguardradio.]

Coed Combat Killing Machines? Commentary “Conservative” Max Boot Says, ‘Hoo-Rah!”

 

 

Posted by Nicholas Stix

When Harry Truman racially integrated the Armed Forces in 1948, it resulted in a radical lowering of intellectual and moral standards for black servicemen.

When a series of presidents sexually integrated boot camp, beginning with Jimmy Carter in 1977 (the Air Force), and followed by George H.W. Bush in 1992 (the Navy) and Bill Clinton in ’94 (Army), it required a radical lowering of standards for female servicemen.

The dictator calling himself “Barack Obama” queered the services in 2011.

This year, he is imposing the sexual integration of combat units.

Capocon Max Boot assures his feminist, socialist, and communist readers,

The endurance test is no anachronistic remnant of a sexist culture—it is the closest approximation possible in training conditions of the kind of stress and challenges that infantry marines will encounter in battle. Those who cannot pass the test in training should not be allowed to lead marines in battle: lowering the standards endangers lives on the battlefield.

Lifting the ban on women in combat makes sense only if it does not result in a distortion of the hard standards that combat soldiers must pass. If women can make the grade, by all means let them in—but the standard must be the same for men and women because the battlefield does not discriminate based on gender.

* * *

Lift the Combat Ban, Keep the Standards
By Max Boot | @MaxBoot
April 2, 2013 - 12:55 p.m.
Commentary Blog

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision, on his way out the door, to lift the ban on women serving in combat units has engendered much consternation among traditionalists both in and out of uniform. On a recent visit to Quantico, the base near Washington where Marine Corps University is located, I got an earful from combat veterans who fretted that standards would be lowered to allow women to serve in combat units. The concern is especially acute when it comes to infantry units, because infantrymen have a particularly arduous and important specialty, one that has long accounted for the majority of casualties suffered in America’s wars. I supported Panetta’s decision to lift the ban but I have to acknowledge that the concerns are valid. How they are addressed will determine whether lifting the ban is a success or not.

A New York Times reporter who was allowed to observe the Infantry Officer School at Quantico found out why two recent female candidates washed out—and why future female candidates are likely to face steep barriers. Literally. As James Dao notes: “It all begins with the Combat Endurance Test, a slog through rolling forests that requires physical strength, endurance, military knowledge and willpower. Students must swim, assemble weapons from jumbled parts, navigate from point to point and carry weight over distances.

The endurance test is no anachronistic remnant of a sexist culture—it is the closest approximation possible in training conditions of the kind of stress and challenges that infantry marines will encounter in battle. Those who cannot pass the test in training should not be allowed to lead marines in battle: lowering the standards endangers lives on the battlefield.

Lifting the ban on women in combat makes sense only if it does not result in a distortion of the hard standards that combat soldiers must pass. If women can make the grade, by all means let them in—but the standard must be the same for men and women because the battlefield does not discriminate based on gender. The odds are that, if standards are maintained, few if any women will be able to qualify for the infantry—but they will still be able to serve on the battlefield, as they do today, in a variety of billets from military police to intelligence to pilots.

The fact that Chuck Hagel has served in battle as an enlisted man gives him perspective unique for a secretary of defense in making the crucial decision about whether to redefine the standards or not. If he maintains current standards, he can still offer opportunities to women without endangering the combat performance of the armed forces. But if he knuckles under to pressure to change the standards, he will be doing serious damage to the forces that he once served in and now leads.

[Although Commentary’s editor-in-chief, John Podhoretz, permits no comments on Web-posted magazine articles, he does permit some comments on blog items. So far, two have made it through on Boot’s piece.]

gitarfanman 111p • 10 hours ago
You're kidding, right? He will do what Obama tells him to do and my money is on lower standards to keep it 'fair'.
Reply

+3 Vote up Vote down

Darryl_Harb 66p • 6 hours ago
Even Max Boot couldn't write a post this addled. Who are you, really?