Vetting ? Really?

Has it occurred to anyone else that "vetting" Syrian refugees for possible links to anti-American activity is somewhat absurd on it's face. The United States is a declared enemy of the current regime in Syria. Why would we expect the Syrian records - even if they did exist - to contain records that identify people with hostility toward the U.S?

Imagine a reciprocal situation...

Ted Cruz or Donald Trump are elected President causing Barack Obama to lead throngs of disaffected Democrats to flee the United States and seek refuge in some welcoming country like, perhaps, Iran.

Iranian fundamentalists would protest their acceptance saying that the U.S. refugees are likely to contain significant percentages of people who are hostile to Iran, Islam, and their values.

The Iranian government could respond that they have thoroughly reviewed all of the available records in the enormous U.S. data base of records and found not a single instance of Blasphemy, Homosexual activity, of opposing the Iranian regime.

That would be true. Because none of those things are a crime in the U.S.

What our moron President and his brain dead followers fail to comprehend, is that those opposing mass importation of Syrian Muslims find objectionable is not what crimes they've committed - but the atrocious things that they believe ARE NOT CRIMES.

Those NONE CRIMES include:

-Killing those that insult "The Prophet."

-Killing those practicing homosexual behavior.

-Honor Killing female children who have been raped.

-Wife beating. (for being disobedient)

Just as those living in an Islamic State would find it laughable that Western refugees would have "No Record of Blasphemy" - it is equally laughable that we are being told that these refugees are thoroughly vetted for anti-western hostilities.

Add a comment

Is Julia Price "Little James" Story an Internet Hoax?


In the past few days Julia Price posted a facebook story about being cat-called during her run and deciding to confront the cat-caller, when a young child named "James" intervened on her behalf.

The post has over 150k shares, 858K likes, has been published in hundreds of media outlets from Fox, Huffington Post, and even a feature article in the Daily Mail.

I think the story is bullshit. 

Yeah, I know it's a harmless little feel good story; but bullshit is bullshit - and should be identified as such.

The facts of the story, as she tells it, just don't wash. She say's she was "running" on a trail; when a well dressed man shouted, "Sexy lady, hey hey hey sexy lady!"

She says she decided to ignore him and keep running. She says he "kept screaming it" and that her ignoring him "seemed to piss him off." I'm assuming that when she says "kept screaming it," she means at least two more times - or she would've said, "he said it again," if it was only once more.

So, here's the situation: Running woman (with headphones on), screaming man yelling at least three times, "sexy lady, hey, hey, hey, sexy lady," Then, when she doesn't respond he yells, "Fuck you bitch."

If someone says that three times, giving at least a second in between to see if there is a response, it takes at least 18 seconds. Remember she's running. Even at a modest pace of a 10 minute mile, in 18 seconds she's covered about 160 feet. For some perspective, that's standing in the back of the end zone and hearing someone yelling from the 50 yard line - while you've got music playing in your head phones.

That's just tough to believe. But what happens next is even harder to explain.

Julia says when she heard the word "bitch," she "ripped off her headphones" and prepared to "stand up for herself" when little James intervened.

Here's the situation: A stationary man, James and mother walking toward man, Julia running away from man.

Julia is 160 feet away (back of the end zone to the 50 yd. line) from James who has been walking toward the man and is now immediately next to him. James immediately dresses down the typical evil male predator - and Julia hears every word.

Julia never speaks to the evil man, the man never responds or reacts. No selfie of James and Julia. No statement by the hero Mom of hero James. No appearance of James on Good Morning America.

What gives?

What gives is this is bullshit. It didn't happen. It couldn't. At least not the way it's been told.

What did happen is that a fledgling young entertainer found a clever way to get a great deal of media exposure, and the media found a way to perpetuate an ongoing theme that, "men suck, and women are victims."

I'd more likely believe this story if we were told "James" was his last name. First name, of course, Lebron.

 

Add a comment

Is Brady The NFL's Racism Inoculation?

The NFL issued a disciplinary action against Tom Brady calling for his suspension for four games. This isn't terribly unusual, the NFL has issued 10 such suspensions in August of 2015 alone. Many, including this obscure blogger; have wondered - "Why does the NFL seem obsessed with suspending Tom Brady?" After all, he is a marquee player, and has no history of wrong doing - on or off the field.

Yesterday, I had a random thought, and did a little investigation of recent disciplinary actions in the NFL. Seems like the recipients of disciplinary suspensions in the NFL aren't exactly a "cross section of America" - or even the NFL.

  

Is it possible that the NFL's aggressive prosecution of Brady's suspension and their apparent obsession with not only discipline but public humiliation - is a conscious effort to divert public attention from the fact that the NFL disciplines blacks at a far higher rate than whites?

Unfortunately, in the atmosphere created by a President that declares our entire country guilty of having racism in our DNA - it's definitely a possibility that Brady's race is making him a target of NFL. The race grievance industry has made a living off of "outcome based evidence." That is, they contend that any outcome that results in one race being disproportionately effected is prima-facia evidence of racism. They've used "outcome based evidence" to change law and public policy on loan approvals, hiring, and now of course - police shootings. Even though police shootings aren't disproportionate - just the media hype that are - seems enough to evoke the wrath of the outcome based evidence Nazi's.

Given that climate and the NFL's other obsession to be on the cutting edge of political correctness it seems entirely possible that the NFL is seeking inoculation from being accused of racism in its disciplinary action.  

I hope it's not so. But I can't help but think that it is.

Maybe if Brady puts on a dress, makeup, and declares he's a woman - he'll get on the right side of the NFL's quest for social justice.

 

Add a comment

Recalling the 2013 "ShutDown that Wasn't"

Now the John Boehner has announced his final surrender, which will undoubtedly arrive only after he's managed to capitulate on a number of pending budget issues before finally riding into the Congressional sunset; it's worth taking some time to re-examine the "Shut Down" of 2013. We call it "The Shut Down that Wasn't."

Somehow, what we believe to be a major fact, is always omitted from the discussion of the "Shut Down." That is, it was curiously scheduled exactly between two Federal Government pay days. In short the chronology was something like this.

-Oct 1, 2013: Pay Federal Employees, then enter "Shut Down"

-Oct. 15, 2013: Next Federal Pay Day. Agree to a "clean budget bill"

-Oct. 16, 2013: Re-open Government. Pay Federal Employees.

graphically, like this:

In other words, the first day that the Democrats would begin to feel some pressure from their Federal Employee Constituency and their Unions to "make a deal", the GOP produced some obscured poll showing the GOP taking a huge political hit from the "shut down" - and folded - instantly.

There is no doubt that this entire "shut down" was designed not to persuade Obama to make changes to ObamaCare - but to make sure Ted Cruz was humiliated in a futile attempt to defy the "ruling class." 

To this day, Boehner publicly admits that he "always knew this would fail." I can't recall ever being successful in an endeavor that I began by saying, "I know this will fail." Of course, it didn't really fail. It made tea party Republicans and Ted Cruz look bad - and that was the real goal.

Good Riddance John Boehner.

Add a comment

Is the Hillary Email Scandal a Ruse?

It's occurred to me that Hillary's current email controversy is miles away from where it started.

When the "clintonemail.com" was revealed, the big concerns were Benghazi, and donations to the Clinton Foundation which were numerous and well documented in Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash.

Now the controversy is focused on her discussing "classified information" on email - as Secretary of State. Sorry, but despite the current feeding frenzy, I don't believe that is going to be her undoing. Secretary's of State are supposed to deal in classified info. Sure, her email system was poorly constructed and probably violated numerous security standards...

But that's never been a secret. She sent and received 10's of thousands of emails over 4 years on that account. It's difficult to claim that wouldn't constitute some level of approval - and it's hard to see where that won't eventually become her defense.

We seem to have accepted that she's turned over most of her email and server, we're ignoring that there is no reference to donations and almost none to Benghazi, and running down this rabbit hole about classified information.

The truth is Hillary has turned over NO emails. She has turned over printed paper containing  what she claims are unedited text of all her official email. Even if she didn't edit, alter, or delete anything from the email prior to printing; by it's very nature it lacks all of the header information, any active links, or attachments. Yet, we've already accepted her paper dump as "her email" - even though we know that she purposefully destroyed all digital evidence that could verify the authenticity of her email.

If there were any serious effort to "investigate" Clinton, the senders and recipients of the reported emails would have their email records subpoena'd and compared with the paper versions for edit's. ANY modification could be considered brazen obstruction. It also could lead to thousands of additional emails that were not submitted. But really, how is destroying a hard drive of information under investigation not already brazen obstruction?

But nobody is looking past the submitted documents - or even suggesting they might  not be complete or unedited.  

It just sounds to me like this is another successful innoculation by the Clintons, and when someone questions; foreign donations, Benghazi, or email; she'll invoke the famed "asked and answered, old news" defense for which the Clinton's are famous.

just sayin...

Add a comment