Free Markets, Free People

Bruce McQuain

1 2 3 410

Failure – the one word description of Barack Obama’s foreign policy

Hat tip to Q and O reader Eric who sends along the link (in a comment) to the piece I’m referencing today.  It is an extremely well written dissection of Barack Obamas dismal foreign policy record – a record that can only be described in one word – failure.

If I wanted to add an adjective to the description, I might choose “hideous”, since it is the worst foreign policy we’ve suffered under since King George.  Kevin Ortin writes the piece and he uses an interview Obama did with Jeffrey Goldberg as the basis of his article.

Ortin points this out as the key graf in that interview:

[Obama] went on to say that the Saudis need to “share” the Middle East with their Iranian foes. “The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians—which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen—requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace,” he said. “An approach that said to our friends ‘You are right, Iran is the source of all problems, and we will support you in dealing with Iran’ would essentially mean that as these sectarian conflicts continue to rage and our Gulf partners, our traditional friends, do not have the ability to put out the flames on their own or decisively win on their own, and would mean that we have to start coming in and using our military power to settle scores. And that would be in the interest neither of the United States nor of the Middle East.”

Says Ortin:

Some of us have long argued that, despite what the President says in public, his actual policy as executed is the pursuit of détente with the Islamic Republic of Iran, usingthe nuclear agreement as a facilitator. The President came in with one overwhelming goal: to draw down U.S. resources in the region. By deputizing Iran to protect core U.S. interests, such as this malign fantasy that the U.S. and Tehran share an interest in defeating the Islamic State (IS), while creating an “equilibrium” that protects Iranian “equities,” it would allow an order to take shape that did not require the U.S. to police it. By definition this meant empowering Iran against its neighbours, notably the Gulf States, since Iran had heretofore been contained. Here Obama confirms virtually every point of that argument.

One could hardly imagine a more naive and absurd policy if they tried.  But Ortin is correct, that’s precisely what Obama imagined and tried to implement – mostly by himself.  Empowering Iran with the belief that they would then be the “equalizer” and stabilize the Middle East is to ignore all of Iran’s actions and rhetoric to date.  Iran has no interest whatsoever in stabilizing anything and has, for years, using the unrest in the region to further the theocracy’s goals.

That’s simply indisputable.

The vision fails because any notion of “balance” between the Iranian revolution and its neighbours is a mirage. The clerical regime does not intend to take the U.S. offer to “share” in bringing order to the region; Tehran intends to upend the entire U.S.-underwritten structure and replace it with Iranian hegemony—a project in which it is now receiving Russian help. Thus, “balance” is ceding the region to Iran under another name. On paper the Gulf States have military prowess that dwarfs Iran’s. In reality, Iran has asymmetric structures like the Quds Force, the expeditionary wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps led by Qassem Suleimani, which the Gulf States do not, capable of terrorism and subversion in a way the Gulf States cannot match. Indeed both Obama and John Kerry have lamented that the Arabs do not have a Quds Force or a Suleimani, something and someone who can get things done.

This is perhaps the largest problem of all for Obama’s vision: Iran simply cannot do what he wants it to—namely bring order to the region. Iran does not want order, of course: the IS threat is very helpful in keeping Iran’s client governments in Baghdad and Damascus pliable and in inducing concessions from the Americans, plus IS’s caliphate covers areas in western Iraq and eastern Syria dominated by Sunni tribes that Iran knows it could not rule even if it wanted to. And if Iran tried to move into the Sunni Arab zones, as it has done in parts of Iraq, through its rabidly sectarian Shi’i jihadist militias, the result is terrible destruction, demographic engineering, and the setting of the stage for long-term instability.

Read the whole thing.  As I mentioned, it is very well done and it is about as damning as anything I can imagine.  There was an article somewhere this week in which the author claimed that Barack Obama was just too smart for us and we had no way to really appreciate what he’s done.

I’m sorry but a syphilitic idiot with no foreign policy experience could have done better than Mr. Obama.  And that’s fairly evident to even the most uninformed among us.  Obama has been a foreign policy disaster and that is taking understatement to its limit.

Ortin closes:

It seems that Obama has finally decided, with less than a year left in office left, to come clean and make the case for his legacy. The President has now laid out the parameters on which he wants to be judged; it would be churlish to refuse. The academic and media criticism might be the least of it, however. There are many predatory regimes watching and calibrating when to make their move.

His “legacy” is weakness, miscalculation, naiveté, indecision and blame shifting.  Pretty much a description of all aspects of his presidency.  But Ortin is right – the predators are licking their chops and only waiting to see which of the abysmal choices we have we’ll put in the Oval Office in January.  Meanwhile, Obama’s Titanic of a foreign policy is actually aiming for the iceberg.

~McQ

Tell me again why we “need” gun control legislation?

I assume you may have seen this:

The FBI’s study showed 64 “mass killing” incidents from 2000 to 2013. The gunmen in these cases murdered 418 people.

Breitbart News reports:

The 418 people who were killed over a 14-year period works out to an average of 29.8 persons a year.
To be clear, no one wants to see even one life lost to tragedy, but the mainstream media’s focus on “mass shootings” to the detriment of other news where hundreds or even thousands more lives were lost is telling.For example, the CDC bicycle-related injury report for 2010 shows that almost twice as many people died on bicycles in that one year than were killed in “mass shootings” during the 14 years studied by the FBI. Thus, while there were 418 deaths in “mass shootings” from 2000 to 2013, there were 800 deaths by bicycle in 2010 alone.
Moreover, there “were an estimated 515,000 emergency department visits” due to bicycle accidents.

And CDC death statistics for 2010 show there were 26,009 deaths from “falling” for that year alone. That’s right–26,009 deaths in one year from falls from ladders, counters, roofs, mountains, etc.

To summarize there were an average of 29.8 deaths a year for 14 years from “mass shootings” versus 800 bicycle related deaths and 515,000 bicycle related trips to the emergency room. Plus an additional 26,009 deaths from falling.

Now this isn’t news to anyone who has been following this debate for any length of time and has been interested in the facts, not the ideological take or spin.

In a nation of 300 million plus with about the same number of guns among the population, the loss of life in mass shootings is … that’s right, statistically insignificant.  That doesn’t mean we should like them or condone them or not feel grief and outrage about the deaths.  What it means is that there is no crisis, no significant problem, no reason to concern ourselves about draconian gun restrictions because of “mass shootings”.  Oh sure they give the 24 hour news channels plenty to shout about and of course it gives the politicians what they feel is an easy mark to “solve” the problem.  But just as the 26,009 deaths from falling are statistically insignificant (hey, I know, let’s outlaw falling .. or should we outlaw stairs and ladders?), so are the mass shooting statistics.

“Assault weapons” are not a problem (they’re semi-automatic weapons … period) and mass shootings, while a tragedy are certainly not a crisis that requires more laws, regulations and rights violations.  The gun control laws in place now have never stopped a mass shooter from doing his thing.  What has stopped them though are other armed and law abiding citizens.

That’s the lesson that should be taken away from these tragedies.  Not the guns. The statistics do not support any further gun control because of “mass shootings”.

Period.

~McQ

The administration’s ISIS problem exposed

Interesting points today from some who has “been there and suffered that”.

The Yazidi woman, Nadia Murad, who escaped captivity in 2014, testified before the Senate Homeland Security committee about the horrors of living under ISIS, CNN reported.

“The USA must act. We must terminate Daesh [Islamic State] and all such terror,” she said through a translator. “Daesh will not give up their weapons unless we force them to give up their weapons.”

Murad spoke out about the Orlando massacre that left 49 people dead, offering condolences to the victims and saying she was not surprised by the terror attack. “I knew if ISIS were not stopped, they would deliver their crimes everywhere,” she said.

She also confronted the Obama administration on its inability to act in protecting Americans as the president pays lip service to fighting ISIS but does nothing serious to eradicate the radicals.

“If a country as strong as your country cannot protect its citizens in Orlando, or in Belgium or in France,” Murad asked, “how come a small minority like us can protect ourselves while we are in the heart of the land where the radicals are?”

But the USA isn’t going to act.  It has a chief executive that can’t even bring himself to identify the problem or the enemy.  And you have to admire her question.  It’s to the point, isn’t it?

The reason we can’t – or won’t – “protect ourselves” is there is no will to do so among those charged with the duty to do so.  And, after the latest massacre, they’re intent on removing everyone else’s ability to do so by railing against guns, the NRA and whatever other ideological boogey man they can throw into the mix.  It’s election time dear – you life, the lives of Americans, the lives of anyone are not as important is realizing the Democrat’s election goals.

Oh, and this point was pretty telling too:

Calling on the Islamic community to act, Murad said “The Muslims must be the first ones to resist this.”

“We have not seen that Daesh have been labeled as an infidel group within Islam by any Muslim country,” said the woman who had six of her brothers and her mother executed by ISIS in one day, CNN reported.

Well think about that … why haven’t we seen so-called “moderate Islamic countries” label or declare ISIS an “infidel group”.  Well it’s fairly simple I would assume – they’re more afraid of ISIS than the US and the US has likely brought no pressure to bear on them to do so. Either that or they have no problem with what “Daesh” is doing.

This woman came through hell to sit in front of the US Senate and tell her story.  Her confusion about why a nation as “strong” as this one does nothing and can’t even manage to identify the enemy or utter its name are understandable.

Weakness.  Fear.  Lack of leadership.

Obama.

~McQ

The tantrum in the House

Sigh.  I guess the old maxim “you get the government your deserve” certainly rings true today.  House Democrats are staging a sit in because the Speaker of the House won’t call a bill to the floor that violates the Constitution and denies due process to people who are placed on its secret no-fly and terrorism lists.

They’d like you to believe it is a “gun control” bill.  In fact, it is a “due process denial” bill, and we ought to refer to it that way.  Their claim is expanding government’s authority to defy the guarantees of the Constitution will help curb gun violence.

Really?  How?  Will it stop someone who ends up on the list and still wants to buy a gun from getting one?  Certainly not as just about any criminal can tell you (and as study I linked a few posts back revealed).  Again, that “Human Nature 101” thing seems to stump these deep thinkers.

And the irony is that one of those leading the charge for violating the Constitution and denying due process – civil rights icon John Lewis (okay, it’s a bit of double irony) – was once placed on a no-fly list without due process.

So what has been the result of not getting their way and denying you due process protection?  They’ve been reduced to throwing a collective tantrum and harkening back to the good old days when they were protesting Vietnam or whatever.  They even come up with a clever chant – “No Bill. No Break”.  You see they’re supposed to take a legislative break and now, apparently, the desire to deny you your rights is so strong they feel called to pretend they are Social Justice Warriors and act accordingly.

Where’s “Black Lives Matter” when you need them.  Now here is a perfect protest for them to hijack and they’re nowhere in sight.

~McQ

I can’t wait until we can “omit” this administration

 

omitted

Not that I necessarily believe there’s anything better coming along behind it, but this one is just blatant with its disregard for both the law and our traditions.

To say I was aghast at the decision to censor the 911 call from the Orlando murderer (even though what was said was widely known) would be an understatement.

I immediately asked “why”?  Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all so I don’t subscribe to much of what some are saying out there.  To me it speaks of three things, in this order – 1) politics, 2) fear and 3) arrogance.

One … If they acknowledge that fact that this was a terrorist attack by a representative of a sworn enemy that the administration (and by extension, the leading Democratic contender for President) has badly mismanaged to the point that they are regularly striking random targets here – well, that reflects pretty badly on the “home” team.  So let’s pretend it’s something else and let’s divert attention to things like guns, Christians and the NRA.

Two … They’re afraid of ISIS and what ISIS can and will do.  So they handle that fear by ignoring it and pretending it doesn’t exist and hoping it will go away, or at least leave us alone.  If they call it’s name (i.e. Islamic terrorism) and acknowledge its existence, they’ll be called upon to do something.  They haven’t a clue about how to do that.  So again they divert.  The US Attorney General, in attempting excuse the “omitting” of parts of the transcript of the 911 call talked about her ‘greatest fear’ – and it ain’t ISIS or attacks on Americans:

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates’ 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,”she said.

Three … pure arrogance.  While other examples of censored releases were blamed on “glitches” (French President’s remarks, State Department briefing), they didn’t even try on this one.  It’s rather hard to blame “glitches” when actual words are replaced with the word “omitted” or actual words are changed to other words (Allah/God). The administration isn’t even playing the game anymore. No more blaming it on glitches, just pure and plain censorship because the words said by the killer don’t help support the narrative this fearful administration has been trying to push on the people for almost 8 years.

And now, the Attorney General of the United States says her greatest fear is “rhetoric” against Muslims?  Really?

Pitiful.

Speaking of rhetoric, “the most transparent administration” ever has forever made it clear that transparency is campaign rhetoric for consumption of the rubes in flyover country only.  They won – they’re your rulers.  They can do whatever they want.

Suck it up, buttercup.

~McQ

Stray Voltage

After this past couple of weeks, it is hard to decide which idiocy or outrageousness to talk about.  So I’ll use a couple of pictures to make a point:

homicide_51yr

This, my friends, is the number of homicides, by any means, within the US, since 1950.  It points out that we presently have the lowest homicide rate in 51 year.  OK, chart number 2:

guns_manuf

Here we have the number of guns in the US, by year.  It is acknowledged that there are over 300 million guns in the hands of US citizens.

So, given the homicide rate, where again is the problem? Where is the crisis? Well, there isn’t one … at least not the one the idiots on the left would have you believe.  It’s kind of like their climate change argument, even if the numbers don’t support the conjecture, they go ahead with the conjecture as if it is truth anyway.  And when the facts are presented, they simply turn their head, cover their ears and yell “la la la” like a 3 year old.  It is an amazing thing to watch.  Guns are not the problem.  The problem in Orlando was the product of a culture that is incompatible with ours.  I wonder, if he had nailed all the entrances and exits shut and burned the place, would they be talking about banning matches?  Would they even be talking about matches?  Nope. Probably something just as outlandish like blaming an event carried out by a self-declared Muslim terrorist on Christians.  Oh, wait …

How hysterical has it gotten on the left?  Well, they’re all involved in demonizing a gun that wasn’t even used in the massacre so they can ban it.  And the uncritical among them? Well they’re acting fairly typically.  Like this restaurant owner in Maine:

A restaurant owner in Portland, Maine, has come under attack by gun advocates after she announced she would not allow assault rifle users to eat at either of her venues.

Anne Verrill, announced on the Facebook page of her fine-dining restaurant Grace that after the massacre in Orlando gay club Pulse on Saturday, owners of AR-15 assault rifles were not welcome there or at her other restaurant in Falmouth.

Of course an AR-15 is not (let me say this again for the slow out there – NOT) an assault rifle.  Or, said another way, the AR-15 is not equivalent to an M-16 – which is, in fact, a military grade assault rifle.  The difference, of course, is between automatic and semi-automatic.  And it also includes some much beefier parts for the real assault rifle – the M-16 – that aren’t found on the AR-15.  The reason for those beefier parts is the requirement it be able to fire automatically and sustain that without being damaged.

Why is that?  Regulation?

Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. The design changes were done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic.

So, there you go. Oh, and as mentioned above, the AR-15 had zip to do with Orlando.  But hey, facts, who is worried about those?

Anyway, back to poor misguided Anne of the Mooseville Inn, Chili Parlor and Law School.  After many angry responses, she deleted the post and did a little quick step to the rear on her former hysterical rant.  And here’s the laughable part:

‘I don’t want to take away guns of responsible gun owners,’ the second post said. ‘I don’t care if you have 12 hunting rifles if you are a responsible hunter. I want people to not have the power to own weapons of war.’

See above concerning what this weapon is – it is NOT – (once again NOT) a weapon of war any more than those “12 hunting rifles” the “responsible hunter” may have.  In fact, if I were to guess, many of those 12 hunting rifles are much more powerful than an AR-15.  Since this is picture day, let’s try this one:

13445728_10156902865430417_8867146244243324600_n

Yes you can get a 556 AR-15, but the most popular of them is the .223.  It’s a varmint rifle, for heaven sake.  Here, I’ll tell you what, how about another picture?

Picture-3

OK, see the round on the right?  That’s a .223 round.  The center round? A .308 – a very popular round for hunting.  And finally, the big guy on the left?  The ever popular 30.06.  Hunting rounds.

So, Anne, what were you thinking?  That just because an AR-15 might look like an M-16 that it was exactly like an M-16? If you slap wings and a tail on a car, does it make it an airplane?  Ignorance, dear lady, is what put you in this position.  That echo chamber you’re a part of is not your friend.  But you’ll now suffer the consequences of your ignorance because, as I understand it, there are a whole lot of folks in Maine who like to hunt and also like the AR-15.

Bah!  I’m too frustrated with the level of ignorance out there to continue with this.

Have a good weekend!

~McQ

A nation gone mad

I’m still sitting here shaking my head as I watch and listen to the left react to the Orlando massacre.

If you simply read their screeds you’d have concluded by now that it was the work of a right-wing Christian (or just a plain old “toxic male”) with an AR-15 instead of a Sig wielding Muslim who had pledged allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call prior to the massacre and was a registered Democrat.

In fact, the AR-15 meme has taken on a life of its own with such luminaries of the left as lyin’ Michael Moore and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and some wimpy NYT metrosexual calling for its ban.  On what grounds one wonders, but hey, they’re leftists – fantasy is their business if it helps them move their agenda one inch further to fruition. Ignore the facts, full speed ahead.  Moore even made up stuff about the round(s) the AR-15 fires claiming they are banned by the Geneva Conventions.  Uh, no.  Not even close.  Pure fiction.

Sally Kohn, a CNN contributor, went on a bigoted anti-Christian rant that attempted, in however a tortured manner, to make a moral equivalence between Christian disapproval of homosexuality and Islam’s death sentence for homosexuals.

Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing gay activist, explains the difference for those who lack the ability to discern it:

There are eleven Muslim countries in which I could be killed for being a homosexual. The state penalty is death. One hundred million people live in country where the penalty for homosexuality is death. This is not radical Islam. This is mainstream Muslim society.

And this isn’t some hazy made-up claim like Michael Moore’s, it’s their law.  Guess who is taking political donations from those countries?

Instead of facing the truth of Orlando, the left, as usual, has chosen to divert and pretend the problem is on the right.  That way, their agenda remains viable and they don’t have to confront nasty little ideological conflicts they’re trying so damn hard to avoid:

“Look what’s happening in Sweden. Look what’s happening anywhere in Germany, anywhere there are large influxes of a Muslim population. Things don’t end well for women and gays. The left has got to make a decision. Either they want female emancipation and it wants gay rights or it wants Islam. It’s got to pick.”

But, at this point, it refuses to do so.  It is more afraid of being called Islamaphobic than it is of condemning a religion/ideology that throws gays off of buildings, burns them or hangs them and treats women as chattel.

That’s what the Sally Kohns, Michael Moores and Bill Ayers of the left should be doing.  Instead they’re after a weapon that wasn’t even used in the massacre and a Constitutional amendment that gives us the freedom to defend ourselves.

Mad.

~McQ

Ignoring the question … again

The Orlando shooting gives our president the chance to finally answer the question millions of Americans have been asking for years:

A young American Muslim pledging allegiance to Islamic State is now responsible for the largest mass shooting in U.S. history. Can we finally drop the illusion that the jihadist fires that burn in the Middle East don’t pose an urgent and deadly threat to the American homeland?

We hope so after the Sunday morning assault on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando that killed at least 51 and wounded 53 as we went to press. The killer was Omar Mir SeddiqueMateen, the son of immigrants from Afghanistan who was heard shouting “allahu Akbar” (God is great) as he fired away. Mateen attacked a popular night spot for gays, who are especially loathed in Islamist theology.

Well no, we can’t “drop the illusion” because, guns!

That’s right, never let a tragedy go to waste and certainly never let a tragedy redefine your agenda priorities.  Islamist terrorism? Bah, never heard of it (or at least never have admitted to hearing of it).  Instead call those who try to identify the problem “Islamaphobes” … and screw the 911 call in which the killer pledged allegiance to ISIS or the fact that witnesses say he was yelling “allahu akbar” as he gunned down his victims or the fact that per those who knew him he was intensely homophobic as is his claimed religion.

Instead, let’s talk about guns:

Reporter Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest: “Does the President really think that common sense gun laws would deter terrorists now that he has admitted that these two may have been terrorists?”

“Yes. The president believes that passing common sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns, makes the country safer,” responded Earnest.

“But so the president thinks that when there are potentially two terrorists sitting around planning a mass murder they may call it off because President Obama has put in place common sense gun laws?” Doocy shot back.

“Why wouldn’t we make it harder for them? What’s the explanation for that?” responded Earnest.

This is the face of insanity.  Why wouldn’t we make it harder for them?  To do what?  Ignore the law?  Maybe someone ought to tell the fools in the White House that those who plan on committing mass murder don’t normally worry about breaking laws.  In fact, it is pretty well known that criminals avoid getting their guns where the left thinks “common sense gun laws” would stop them cold. This is really not rocket science for heaven sake.  And, as usual, the left and the White House seem absolutely clueless about human nature.

A recent study that was conducted by the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab has learned that Chicago criminals do not acquire their guns from gun shops, gun shows or the internet.

The study examined and interviewed inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who are either facing current gun charges, or have a background consisting of firearms related convictions.

The study learned that virtually zero criminals have ever used the internet or gun shows, because that method is easily traceable. It’s much safer for a criminal to acquire firearms on the streets where they’re harder to keep track of, and that’s most criminals method of choice.

Furthermore, University of Chicago Crime lab co-director, Harold Pollack, said that criminals “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

Does the point that “virtually zero criminals have ever used the internet or gunshots, because that method is easily traceable” resonate at all?  Seems “common sense gun laws” are already doing what they’re supposed to do, however, criminals, as they’re likely to do, have decided not to play the game. They’re not going to risk getting caught.  They’re going to go outside the law.

So, then, what’s the point of more laws if not to deny criminals guns?  Seems that’s working rather well.  Is the purpose, then, of more laws, to further hobble legitimate and peaceful gun owners perhaps?  To make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to own the means of defending themselves?

And what has any of that nonsense to do with what happened in Orlando?

Why, after another tragedy obviously perpetrated by a militant Islamist, is the question still being ignored!?

~McQ

 

Stray Voltage

With this latest SJW/liberal push, you have to wonder about the future of Title IX, don’t you?

Human bodies are either male or female, that is the only way they come. Males are physically different than females. Hormones and body modification cannot change that.

That’s a scientific fact, but liberals refuse to acknowledge this basic truth.

The Obama Administration’s directive requiring schools to allow transgender students use the bathroom of their choice has opened the gender dysmorphia floodgates.

For the first time in Alaskan history, a male athlete recently competed in the girls’ track and field state championships. The mother of one of the girls who lost to the transgender runner is crying foul after he took home all-state honors.

Well, well.  No need for female athletes – I mean those born that way – at all, is there?  The floodgates are open.

Bodies with the X/Y chromosome setup develop quite differently than the female body … as the article says that’s a “scientific fact” that has essentially gone undisputed in the history of mankind. Now, apparently. it’s all a “matter of the mind”.  You know, ‘if you think, you are’.  Never mind the wedding tackle, hormones and muscle mass (not to mention agility and strength).  If you say you’re a woman, it is everyone else job to kowtow to the absurd.

The results are, as usual, perfectly predictable.  But I am interested to see, now that they’ve essentially wrecked Title IX, how the liberal elite are going to justify it.

Speaking of the absurdity of all of this, how about when women begin to be hurt?

Critics are scrutinizing mixed martial arts (MMA) competitor Fallon Fox, after the transgender fighter gave her opponent a concussion and broke her eye socket.

Fox defeated her opponent, Tamikka Brents, by TKO at 2:17 of the first round of their match. Brent’s eye injury resulted in a damaged orbital bone that required seven staples.

In a post-fight interview this week, Brents told Whoa TV, “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life.”

“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor,” she stated. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right. ”

Fox’s “grip was different,” Brents added. “I could usually move around in the clinch against…females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.”

Sorry Brents, but it was that “scientific fact” from above being used with a vengeance on you.  Because, well, you know, “social justice!”

“Inclusive” as well as “equality” are being redefined by the SJWs:

News that a university lecturers’ union has banned straight, white men from attending their equality conferences in a bid to create “safe spaces” is deeply depressing.

University and College Union equality conferences are held exclusively for women, LGBT, ethnic minorities or disabled people, and members must declare their “protected characteristic” when applying to attend.

Surely UCU can see the irony of hosting an equality conference where – as George Orwell wrote – some are more equal than others?
Apparently UCU is irony impaired.  But then, we’ve seen that to be the case with most of the Special Snowflake causes we’ve been watching.  So much for “equality” and “inclusiveness”.  However, no one should be surprised if these participants wouldn’t lecture you to death about both if you suggested leaving one of their favored self-identified “victims” out of the conference.

The bureaucracy has decided you’re just too dumb to handle “payday” loans, so they’re getting ready to try to shut the industry down.

More than 50 million Americans each year seek access to short-term, small dollar credit.  Generally speaking, these are loans with a maturity measured in weeks or months, for amounts less than $5,000.  This borrowing is used to fund just about everything that other borrowing funds, though on a smaller scale, and more immediately.

These are also loans you can’t get from a bank or other lending institution because they won’t write one for “weeks”.  As for the interest charged, here’s a interesting comparison:

Borrowing money is like renting money. You get to use it two weeks and then you pay it back. You could rent a car for two weeks, right? You get to use that car. Well, if you calculate the annual percentage rate on that car rental — meaning that if you divide the amount you pay on that car by the value of that automobile — you get similarly high rates. So this isn’t about interest. This is about short-term use of a product that’s been lent to you. This is just arithmetic.

Indeed, it is.  And, there are a majority of people who use this product who both benefit and are able to pay it back based on the terms under which they borrow it.

But that’s not good enough for the crowd who thinks they need to tell you how you should live (and would never need such a product, so have no idea whether or not you really do need it).

Read both articles.  The Freakenomics article is pretty well done, while quite long.  But in the end, you’ll probably be like me – none of the government’s business except in the case of force or fraud.  Of course driving this product underground and into the hands of the criminals guarantees both force and fraud, because obviously, the product is a viable one and people need it.  Like most of these attempts by government to rescue you from yourself, this will backfire in a big way.  Entirely predictable, as usual.

Is the grifter close to an actual indictment?  Well, if you listened to Josh Earnest this week (and why would you?), he may have tipped off something he didn’t plan on doing:

Perhaps it was an unguarded moment, but the White House has seemingly confirmed that the Justice Department is conducting a “criminal investigation” regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email use – despite persistent claims from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee that investigators are pursuing a mere “security inquiry.”

Press Secretary Josh Earnest used the term at Thursday’s briefing, after being asked by Fox News about whether President Obama’s newly unveiled endorsement of Clinton might apply pressure to investigators assigned to the Clinton case.

Earnest rejected the premise, saying the job of career prosecutors is to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

“That’s why the president, when discussing this issue in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference,” Earnest said.

Of course there’s no reason for him to talk about “criminal investigations” unless there’s a “criminal investigation” being conducted is there.  Instead, you just blow it all off.  Maybe this is why Bernie is sticking around.

And, finally, from the usual media realm of the “unexplained” and “unexpected”, another perfectly predictable and explainable event has apparently “surprised” them:

Violent crimes – from homicides and rapes to robberies – have been on the rise in many major U.S. cities, yet experts can’t point to a single reason why and the jump isn’t enough to suggest there’s a trend.

Still, it is stumping law enforcement officials, who are seeking a way to combat the problem.

“It’s being reported on at local levels, but in my view, it’s not getting the attention at the national level it deserves,” FBI Director James Comey said recently. “I don’t know what the answer is, but holy cow, do we have a problem.”

Holy cow, Mr. Comey, check out the “Ferguson effect”.  See if maybe that might have some bearing on explaining this mess.  Maybe, when you have government all but sanctioning violence against cops, the cops decide not to work quite as hard or risk themselves as much as they usually do.  When it is “damned if you do”, most won’t.

Again, the total unawareness of human nature seems to stump a certain segment of leadership who cannot, for the life of them, see how their programs and their actions can have such a negative effect.  And their lapdogs in the media are equally at a loss.

Meh – screw em.

Have a great weekend!

~McQ

Bern with Bernie?

Will Bernie become a write-in candidate?  Well, his supporters let it be known that they won’t vote for Hillary and many of them were thinking “write-in”:

Many took a different approach, saying they would not vote for Clinton, but would vote for Sanders as a write-in candidate.

That would split the left’s vote fairly significantly if they actually did that.  But, in reality, it is likely anger talking right now and many of them will fall in line and vote for the Hildebeest. But I would absolutely love to see this take off.

Others, though, are so mad they’re claiming they’d rather vote for Donald Trump than give Hillary the satisfaction of winning the White House.  Check out this reasoning:

A member of the group said: “I will vote for Trump as a f*** you to the stupid people that voted Hillary in. We are more likely to have a revolution with Trump in office and less likely to have a foreign war”

They have a point.  Well, at least about the “revolution” and their rather violent proclivities (see Trump rallies to find Bernie’s troops).

As for the “let it burn” crowd, they’re very well represented among the Bernie supporters:

Some said they would rather let the country ‘burn’ with Trump than let Clinton into the White House, with one person writing: “I’d rather Trump than Clinton. I won’t vote for him, but I’d be happy to see this country burn.”

If they weren’t such little fascists, I would be more sympathetic.  If they weren’t of the socialist mind-set, I could likely find more common ground with the sentiment.

But as it is, I hope they do what they say they’re going to do.  Neither of the candidates is worth warm spit and the more voters split away, the better this might all become.  No one gets a majority of either the popular vote or the electoral college?  Wouldn’t that be simply wonderful.

~McQ

1 2 3 410