The School and Police Didn’t Act Stupidly Regarding Clock-Boy

Obama has a vulgar habit of inserting himself into stories that have helpful left-wing narratives and leaping to conclusions before all the facts are in.

He’s done this again and again throughout his presidency – latching on to every opportunity to pit blacks against whites, criminals vs the police, Muslims vs Christians, etc.

“The police acted stupidly.”

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

“The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking…”

“We have some soul-searching to do. This is not new. It’s been going on for decades.” (On the death of Freddie Gray.)

“Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science.”

Obama likes to jump right in there and comment authoritatively on racially charged cases before they’ve been investigated and litigated — when those cases are helpful to a left-wing social justice narrative. Cases that are unhelpful to his far-left agenda, are completely ignored.

The double standard is so obvious and egregious, even a twelve year old kid can’t help but notice:

“Cool clock, Ahmed,”  Obama tweeted, inviting the little provocateur to the White House, in an obvious  show of disapproval and disdain towards the school and local police. No doubt Obama thinks they “acted stupidly.”

Even most of the conservative media say the police overreacted.

After enduring 7 years of  Obama’s constant B.S. we no longer have working BS meters?

I thought it looked like a PR stunt from the get-go, but unlike our freaking president, I tend to keep my mouth shut when I’m not sure about something.

Well, now I’m sure.

Clock-boy and his dad are hoaxters. The kid should have been arrested for bringing a crudely-made hoax bomb to school.

Pam Geller was suspicious from the beginning, too:

Police officers said the electronic components and wires inside his Vaultz pencil case (which is the size of a briefcase) looked like a “hoax bomb,” according to local news station WFAA.

When questioned about what the device was, Mohamed wouldn’t answer. Now terror-tied Islamic groups like the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), their media lapdogs, and even Barack Obama are waging jihad against the school and the local police.

When police questioned the boy, WFAA reports, they said he was “passive aggressive” and didn’t give them a “reasonable answer” as to why he had brought his contraption to the school. “We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn’t offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school,” said James McLellan of the Irving Police Department.

This whole thing smells like a setup.

***

When I first heard about this story, I wrote at my website that it smelled fishy. Now, as more details have emerged, it positively stinks. The plot has considerably thickened. In what has become one of the most egregious of the faked hate narratives, the bomb hoax clockster turns out to come from a family that has a history of supremacist stunts.

The New York Daily News reported this Wednesday about Ahmed Mohamed’s father, Mohamed ElHassan Mohamed:

One of the earliest instances of the standout citizen making national news was in 2011, when he sensationally stood up to an anti-Islamic pastor and defended the Koran as its defense attorney. That mock trial at a Florida church ended with the book’s burning, to ElHassan’s claimed shock. In an interview with the Washington Post at the time, the devoted Muslim said he’d take on Rev. Terry Jones’ challenge because the holy book teaches that Muslims should engage in peaceful dialogue with Christians.

Also in 2011, ElHassan debated Robert Spencer on the questionf of “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” Clearly, he was trying to score a victory against a famous “Islamophobe” and thus win a name for himself. ElHassan has been looking for publicity and chances to fight against “Islamophobia” for a considerable period. Now he has seized it, going so far as to claim his son was “tortured” by school and law enforcement officials.

Something The Dallas Morning News reported jumped out at me:

He kept the clock inside his school bag in English class, but the teacher complained when the alarm beeped in the middle of a lesson. Ahmed brought his invention up to show her afterward.

“She was like, it looks like a bomb,” he said.

“I told her, ‘It doesn’t look like a bomb to me.’”

The teacher kept the clock. When the principal and a police officer pulled Ahmed out of sixth period, he suspected he wouldn’t get it back.

They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”

Ahmed says he didn’t know the officer – but I suspect the officer knew who he was through his notorious father.

Now we find out the stupid thing was thrown together (not “built,” not “created,” certainly not “invented”) — literally thrown together to look like a briefcase bomb.

It’s the guts of a 1970s-era alarm clock “invented” not by little Ahmed – but by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidiary, Catalog number 63 756, and thrown into a pencil case that looks like a briefcase.

clock3-1024x754

clock5

A guy who makes and works with clocks explained on Youtube why Ahmed’s “invention” is a fraud.

An electrical engineer took a close look at Ahmed’s creation, and concluded that the school and the police did not in fact act stupidly.

…Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me.

If we accept the story about “inventing” an alarm clock is made up, as I think I’ve made a pretty good case for, it’s fair to wonder what other parts of the story might be made up, not reported factually by the media, or at least, exaggerated.

I refer back again to this YouTube video interview with Ahmed. He explains that he closed up the box with a piece of cord because he didn’t want it to look suspicious. I’m curious, why would “looking suspicious” have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock? It’s awful hard to see the clock with the case closed. On the other hand, with the case open, it’s awful dangerous to have an exposed power transformer sitting near the snooze button (unless, perhaps his invention was to stop serial-snooze-button pressers by giving them a dangerous electrical shock!)

So again, I’m pointing all this out – about the specifics of the clock – not to pick on the poor kid. I’m picking on us, our culture, and our media.

Don’t forget the president. First and foremost, he deserves to be picked on for stupidly calling an obvious hoax “science” before all the facts were known.

MORE:

Like “clockwork”:  the activist fam is cashing in.

Weasel Zippers: Ahmed’s Family And Activists Create Fund Seeking $100,000, Mention Lawyers, Hold ‘Prayer Vigil’ For Him…

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

https://i0.wp.com/www.romanobritain.org/Photos/roman-senate2.jpg

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“I have a suspicion – and hear me out, ’cause this is a rough one – I have a suspicion that the definition of “crazy” in show business is a woman who keeps talking even after no one wants to f**k her anymore.
The only person I can think of that has escaped the “crazy” moniker is Betty White, which, obviously, is because people still want to have sex with her.”
– Tina Fey

“Men and boys are constantly portrayed as predatory, sexist, their sense of humour is vilified and their behaviour is regarded as unacceptable. Factor in the constant diet we are fed of men as perpetrators of rape, murder and domestic violence. Boys must wonder whether they will ever be able to do anything right. This must make it painfully difficult for young men and women to build up relations based on honesty, love and trust” – Belina Brown

“Here are young women with more opportunities, more liberties than almost any women in history and at that moment we tell them they’re short-changed silenced victims of a patriarchy? It’s defeatist and demoralising.” – Christina Hoff Summers

“Beauty! Terrible Beauty!
A deathless Goddess– so she strikes our eyes!”
– Homer

https://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/adeca-bookworm2b3.jpg

This week’s winning essay,Bookworm Room’s Are these really “badass” defenses of women’s reproductive rights? is a fascinating deconstruction of some prevalent Femi8nist myths. Here’s a slice:

Several ladies of the Leftist persuasion posted on their Facebook pages an article entitled “7 Badass Defenses Of Reproductive Rights To Explain Why A Woman Should Have The Right To Choose.” I looked at them and had my doubts about their badassery, so I thought I’d fisk the article just for a little Sunday afternoon fun.

As is often the case with fisking the Left, a short Leftist statement takes a lot of work to break down, because everything is flawed, from the facts through the underlying premise through the argument based on the erroneous facts and premise. The structure below is that I first quote the “badass” pro-abortion arguments and then counter with my own thoughts.

1. Male Lawmakers Sometimes Don’t Get It

“Who could forget Rep. Todd Akin’s cringeworthy “legitimate rape” comment back in 2012? Unfortunate as the statement was, it highlights a larger problem in the argument to restrict reproductive freedom: Men, who are often out-of-touch with the problems that women face, are more often in positions to make decisions than women. For instance, Tina Fey dropped this truth bomb in 2012 while speaking at the Center for Reproductive Rights Gala:

If I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I’m gonna lose my mind.

Fey’s point of view drives home the point that too many people who make decisions about reproductive rights are out of touch with the actual impact that their decisions have.”

Some male law makers are morons. So are some female lawmakers. The reality, though, is that we don’t insist that all women shut up because some are stupid. In our Bizarro World of sexism, though, the stereotype of an out-of-touch male is applied to all men, who are told that they should remain immured in the wood shop and no longer bother their female overlords (overladies?).

Moreover, this line of argument, which I see frequently on Leftie Facebook pages, denies that men have any interest in fetuses, babies, or children. In fact, men have two very strong interests: First, if the fetus/baby/child is a man’s, that man has the same interest in it as the mother, and that is true even though she is the vessel in which it is nurtured for the first 40 weeks from conception forward. In a moral world, the fact that so many fathers walk away from their children is a disgrace — and, one must say, an inevitable byproduct of a socialist government policy that, through welfare, makes father’s economically unnecessary, at least for those who were raised in and consider normal a fairly marginal economic existence. Fathers who express an interest in their biological child from conception onward should be praised, not told to shut up.

Imagine if this argument had been around in mid-19th century America. Famed white, free abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher, or Harriet Beecher Stowe would have been shouted down before they even began their arguments about the morality of slavery: “You’re not qualified to speak about slavery because you’re not a slave. So shut up.” Morals are not tied to race, sex, or creed; they exist irrespective of those petty human dividers.

Second, men have just as great an interest as women in a healthy culture. To the extent that the Left’s sacrament of abortion is focused on death, not life, all members of our society have a say in the matter. I’ve long contended that the Left’s fetishistic obsession with abortion is a death cult. The videos showing abortion centers engaged in organ harvesting hasn’t changed my mind. Indeed, the whole thing is eerily reminiscent of other cultures that engaged in organ harvesting, allegedly for the greater good.

Every moral citizen, male or female or fluid or whatever, has a say in preventing our society from going Aztec.

2. Reproductive Freedom Is About Trust

Mark Ruffalo has become a strong supporter of reproductive rights and a particularly vocal male advocate because of his mother’s traumatic experience with an illegal abortion years ago. At a rally in Mississippi in 2013, he reminded us that to take away a woman’s reproductive rights is to take away her ability to make decisions for herself.

I actually trust the women I know. I trust them with their choices, I trust them with their bodies, and I trust them with their children. I trust that they are decent enough and wise enough and worthy enough to carry the right of abortion and not be forced to criminally exercise that right at the risk of death or jail time.

If this doesn’t make you want to throw up a “preach” emoji, I don’t know what will.”

I misread that last sentence. I thought its comment on the Ruffalo post was “If this doesn’t make you want to throw up get a ‘peach’ emoji….” I wasn’t sure what the “peach emoji” reference, but I was actually on board with the “I want to throw up” concept. Re-reading it, though, I realize that the “badass” post’s author was applauding Ruffalo.

Full disclosure here: I can’t stand Mark Ruffalo as an actor. There’s something about him I find creepy, so hearing him go on about trusting women with their choices sounds smarmy, not supportive.

Once again, this “trust” argument is predicated on the fallacy that all women are wise. They’re not. Who can forget the woman who had a “selective pregnancy reduction” (i.e., aborted the overage resulting from her IVF procedure) so she wouldn’t have to shop at Costco? That decision showed a whole lot more class snobbery than wisdom.

I know a woman who had eight abortions before she tried, unsuccessfully, to become pregnant. Apparently after abortion Number 8, her body, Mother Nature, or God decided that she couldn’t be trusted with a baby.

In any event, the whole trust argument pretends that there isn’t another life involved here. What Ruffalo is arguing is that he trusts all women to be impartial arbiters capable of intelligently exercising the role of judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to the life they carry. Frankly, I don’t “trust” anyone to have that much responsibility, especially when there is self-interest at play.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Diana West with Strangers in Your Own Land submitted by The Right Planet.

It’s a superb commentary on the so-called ‘refugee’ crisis.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Bookworm Room was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?