“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

It is about time



At least 1,000 women 'flee Saudi Arabia every year because of sexism'

women-saudi-arabia.jpg
Many Saudi women must gain permission simply to leave their house AFP/Getty Images
At least 1,000 Saudi Arabian women flee the country each year because of the country’s ingrained misogyny, a sociologist based in the country's capital Riyadh has claimed.  

Higher numbers are also believed to leave for the more liberal city of Jeddah. 
They are part of an apparently increasing number of women who have tired of the country’s highly sexist social system and decided to leave for a better life, according to Mansour al-Askar of the Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University. 
He told The Economist that he estimated more than 1,000 women leave every year. 

Saudi Arabia adheres to a harsh version of Wahhabi Sunni Islam and is notorious for strict Sharia law it employs. It remains the only country on earth where women are banned from driving

Women and are also subject to walis, or male guardians, throughout their lives – usually their father, husband or other male relative. 

They must have their permission before engaging in almost any sort of activity, from getting an education or job, to simply leaving the house.
Saudi Arabian women release video mocking driving laws
In Saudi Arabia, a woman’s freedom “is largely dependent on the good will of her male guardian,” according to a 2016 report Human Rights Watch. 
The organisation has called the guardian system: "The most significant impediment to realising women's rights in the country".

While it is difficult to quantify the precise number of women leaving their homeland, some academics have claimed that it is affecting the oil rich country's economy and society
“Saudi Arabia is losing the battle to keep its talent,” Saudi academic, Najah al-Osaimi, told The Economist

33 comments:

  1. http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/files/2017/03/fake_news_2.png

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Off subject, Doug.

      Say, that baby reminds me of Quirk.

      Delete
    2. Space kid must be from Earth Proxima.

      Delete
  2. What did the Saudi government know, and when did they know it ?

    Regardless, the jury will find 'em guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Listening to all the news and counter news on the tubes today is like reading four or five tabloids in the checkout line all at the same time, in haste.

    There's not enough time to even try to sort it all out.

    Was Mannafort blackmailing, or blackmailed ?....or what ?

    What about.....fill in the blank.....

    ReplyDelete
  4. After all the years and struggle to bring equal rights to women, why do we allow these reprobates to treat women this way without sanctions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Responsibility to Protect?

      Delete
    2. DEFEND THIS;

      Atgaa, 10, and her sister Reemya, 8, are about to be married to men in their 60s. Atgaa will be her husband's fourth wife. Their wedding celebrations are scheduled for this week and will take place in the town of Fayaadah Abban in Qasim, Saudi Arabia.

      The girls are getting married because their financially struggling father needs the money that their dowries will provide: young girls of this age can fetch as much as $40,000 each.

      Many readers might be shocked at this news. How can it be legal? The answer is that Saudi Arabia has no minimum age for marriage, and it is perfectly legal to marry even an hour-old child.

      Three Saudi ministries share the blame for allowing and facilitating child marriages. The health ministry is tasked with conducting genetic tests for couples considering marriage. Saudi law requires potential brides and grooms to provide certificates of genetic testing before marriages can officially proceed.

      Delete
    3. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/saudi-arabia-child-brides-marriage

      Delete
  5. You'll have to ask Quirk.

    He's the one always standing up for the mooslims around here.

    He thinks they make great citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A depth psychologist might suspect some sexual insecurity manifesting here....

      Delete
  6. My wife bought frozen yogurt and chocolate sauce....what good is that going to do ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like the makings of a fun evening to me.

      Delete
  7. By the way, Brady's missing jersey has been found, stolen by a Mexican 'journalist'....stuffed it in a black plastic sack....caught on camera, finally tracked down.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was just here trying to build a better life.....

      Delete
    2. Also an assortment of NFL helmets and other paraphernalia recovered....

      Delete
  8. Terror threat? DHS bans in-flight electronics for travelers from eight nations
    Mar 21, 2017 6:41 PM by Ed Morrissey

    The affected airports are: Queen Alia International Airport in Amman, Jordan; Cairo International Airport; Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul; King Abdul-Aziz International Airport in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Kuwait International Airport; Mohammed V Airport in Casablanca, Morocco; Hamad International Airport in Doha, Qatar; Dubai International Airport; and Abu Dhabi International Airport.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/21/terror-threat-dhs-bans-in-flight-electronics-for-travelers-from-eight-nations/



    Racism.

    No other possible explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. An imam was arrested earlier this week in Saudi Arabia on charges of performing illicit sexual acts and operating a prostitution network from within a mosque, the Saudi media reported.

    ...

    Many social media users cursed the imam and evidenced an anti-immigrant sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Judge Gorsuch handled himself well today.

    Now if only Justice Ginsburg would retire or die -



    https://www.google.com/search?q=pics+of+Justice+Ginsburg&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS698US698&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPt_G5iOnSAhUW3mMKHZFzD1gQsAQIHA&biw=1093&bih=510#imgrc=o6_I_TObIcd4DM:

    we wouldn't have Justices giving us the double dirty finger any longer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why, when I look at Judge Neil Gorsuch, I see FBI director James Comey?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 2013, Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI director. The Obama administration figured this was one nomination it could get through the Senate without much trouble. The Republicans liked that Comey had previously been a Bush appointee. The Democrats liked that he had stood up to George Bush.

      Democrats did not knew who Comey was the Republicans don't know who Gorsuch is.

      I don't know what the Democrats are worried about.

      Delete
    2. 97 percent of Justice Department employees who made presidential campaign contributions gave to Clinton.

      This summer, the department wrapped up its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.


      https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/10/27/data-reveals-federal-employees-donated-much-more-to-clinton-than/21592774/

      Delete
    3. AshTue Mar 21, 03:06:00 PM EDT

      Deuce asked:

      "If the FBI has been investigating Trump since July over Russia ties, why would the FBI not have tapped Trump's conversations?"

      Because it is a very serious charge against a political candidate and a FISA judge would demand some decent evidence in order to grant a warrant.

      ===

      Absolutely

      Delete
  12. I see our 2nd Amendment rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see Quirk able to fight back against his new mooslim neighbors who are going to 'first show the Poles, then everybody else'.

      Delete
  13. In theory, senators on the judiciary committee are supposed to leave their politics at the door as they decide whether a president's pick for the Supreme Court is fit for the job.

    ...

    Here are four emerging takeaways from the hearing:

    1. Republicans want to prove Gorsuch is not beholden to President Donald Trump

    Rarely has there been such a demand that a Supreme Court nominee declare his independence from the president who picked him, says The Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes.

    That's partly because on Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed Trump's associates are under investigation for any potential illegal ties to Russia during the election, as Russia was meddling in the U.S. election.

    ...

    2. Democrats are divided on their tact of opposition

    Democrats say they have lots of reasons to seriously question Gorsuch's nomination. But Tuesday's hearing made clear they don't have one, cohesive narrative.

    Among various criticisms Democrats are trying to pin on Gorsuch:

    A) As a lawyer, he defended Bush-era terror policies: Early on, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., tried to push him on his work defending the George W. Bush administration in lawsuits over terrorism and interrogation.

    ...

    3. Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland

    Democrats' underlying frustration comes down to one thing - one person, actually: Their guy is not the one being vetted for the court, despite the fact a vacancy opened up when Democrats controlled the White House.

    Senate Republicans held off on considering President Barack Obama's pick, Garland, gambling that they'd win the presidency in November and could replace Scalia.


    Confirmation Hearing

    ReplyDelete
  14. FBI Director James Comey unmasked as a Deep State Black Hat Operative.

    Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area. And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.

    Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.

    In the segment of the questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.

    The parse tongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.

    With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:

    …”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?

    BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/20/it-took-a-freshman-gop-congresswoman-to-pull-the-mask-from-fbi-director-comey/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017.
      That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.

      The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.

      Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives.

      Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:

      No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (Clapper) and the White House?

      ….. then it would get a little ugly:

      Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?

      With all the banter about these hearings, and against this slight moment of clarity of purpose, it bears repeating:

      There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.

      Delete
    3. Pure Bullshit From Comey:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlXXZQgh72Y

      Stefanik much more effective than Gowdy

      Delete
  15. NKOREA 'FIRES MISSILES AT JAPAN'
    FAIL... EXPLODED...
    KYODO UPDATE....DRUDGE HEADLINE


    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KOREAS_TENSION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-21-23-21-29#979f1233-e160-428d-8ab4-2077d0145a65

    Time to get Secretary of Defense Quirk back from Caribbean Vacation to up sanctions !

    Sooner or later another round of stiff sanctions is going to break the backs of the Norks, the Secretary of Defense affirms.

    Besides, what else can we do ?

    Then, back to surfing !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Alt-Quirk Press chirps its agreement -

      Sanctions and surfing !

      Sanctions and surfing !

      Delete