The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #280

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 

from the beautiful to the repugnant, 

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 

you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 

You have been warned.

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

MISS AMERICA IS DEAD!

Anti-White MTV Video Goes Wrong

Girls With Guns

Statism Is Destructive To The Rights Of The Individual!

With All The Corruption In Government...Keeping Our Guns Is Paramount!

Congress Needs To Grow Some Balls...

Call A Leftist A Communist... Does Not Really Upset Them Anymore...

The moment a furious cyclist armed with huge 'zombie knife' smashes car window in Londonistan

Obama Administration Illegally Allowed Iran To Convert Money In Dollars...

Anything for the deal that Iran NEVER Signed.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal, despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so.

An investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday sheds light on the delicate balance the Obama administration sought to strike after the deal, as it worked to ensure Iran received its promised benefits without playing into the hands of the deal’s opponents. Amid a tense political climate, Iran hawks in the U.S., Israel and elsewhere argued that the United States was giving far too much to Tehran and that the windfall would be used to fund extremism and other troubling Iranian activity.

The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into U.S. dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system.

The effort was unsuccessful because American banks — themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions — declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion, the report said, but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.

“The Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, the subcommittee’s chairman.

Issuing the license was not illegal. Still, it went above and beyond what the Obama administration was required to do under the terms of the nuclear agreement. Under that deal, the U.S. and world powers gave Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for curbing its nuclear program. Last month, President Donald Trump declared the U.S. was pulling out of what he described as a “disastrous deal.”

The license issued to Bank Muscat stood in stark contrast to repeated public statements from the Obama White House, the Treasury and the State Department, all of which denied that the administration was contemplating allowing Iran access to the U.S. financial system.

Shortly after the nuclear deal was sealed in July 2015, then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified that even with the sanctions relief, Iran “will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.” A month later, one of Lew’s top deputies, Adam Szubin, testified that despite the nuclear deal “Iran will be denied access to the world’s most important market and unable to deal in the world’s most important currency.”

Yet almost immediately after the sanctions relief took effect in January 2016, Iran began to complain that it wasn’t reaping the benefits it had envisioned. Iran argued that other sanctions — such as those linked to human rights, terrorism and missile development — were scaring off potential investors and banks who feared any business with Iran would lead to punishment. The global financial system is heavily intertwined with U.S. banks, making it nearly impossible to conduct many international transactions without touching New York in one way or another.

Former Obama administration officials declined to comment for...

Report Found Evidence Of Discrimination At Evergreen College…Against A White Male Professor

This is a very interesting story about a little-discussed issue that took place at Evergreen College last year. Two professors, one a white male and the other a Hispanic woman, were investigated after filing complaints against one another. The school hired a Seattle law firm to investigate and the firm concluded that while there was no evidence the white man discriminated against the Hispanic woman, there was evidence that the Hispanic woman had violated the school’s non-discrimination policy with regard to the white professor. This story is not easy to summarize but I’ll do my best using the hour-long video by Evergreen grad Benjamin Boyce (below) as a guide. I do recommend Boyce’s entire video if you have the time.

Professor Jon Baumunk teaches business and accounting at Evergreen State College. Last year he received an annual review which he took issue with. The review was mostly positive toward him and his teaching but at one point his supervisor mentioned his race (he’s white) and wondered aloud if students of color in his class felt free to speak up in his class. Baumunk asked the university to revise his review and remove the reference to his race on the grounds that it’s a protected characteristic and not something that belongs in a performance review. At the same time Baumunk, who is a member of the union at Evergreen, filed a grievance asking that the union support him.

Evergreen State College agreed with Baumunk and agreed to revise the review and remove the language and acknowledged that the race or sex of a professor is never mentioned in performance reviews, but the school seems to have taken its time correcting the review. Meanwhile, the union decided that it would not back Baumunk’s proposed grievance against the school because his review was seen as largely positive and so the reference to his race was deemed immaterial.

In March of last year, Baumunk went to the office of the president of his union, Grace Huerta, and asked why the union wasn’t supporting him. At this point, the stories diverge. Baumunk says he spoke to Huerta for five minutes and that she almost immediately became very defensive. Huerta claims Baumunk cornered her and spoke for 20 minutes, making her worry about missing a meeting. Both parties agreed the exchange had been unpleasant and agreed not to speak to one another again.

That changed on May 24th when Baumunk and Huerta had another interaction in the office of President George Bridges. The incident came in the midst of the student takeover of Bridges office which occurred that day. During that incident, Baumunk spent 2 1/2 minutes defending himself to the students. Huerta then spoke up and said she didn’t take his claims seriously because he had confronted her, a minority faculty member, at her office back in March. “As a faculty member of color, you personally addressed and challenged me at my office door saying why didn’t we as a union protect you when we did our best to protect you and address your concerns. And yet you come to a faculty member of color and charge her for not protecting your needs. So I refuse to listen to you grandstand and co-op this student meeting.”

In response to this, Baumunk took one small step forward, pointed at Huerta and said…something. It’s not clearly audible on the recording because students are talking over him. I do hear him say, “Grace, I want to tell you something…” but that’s all I can make out. As the students reacted, Baumunk stepped back and put his hands in his pockets. But it was too late. Students in the room demanded he leave and at least one demand he be fired (shades of the mob that showed up at Prof. Bret Weinstein’s class demanding he resign).

Subsequently, Baumunk was called out at a large student meeting where he was described as lunging and charging at Huerta (which didn’t happen). A student asked him to stand up and said he would be held accountable for his aggressive, privileged behavior. I have this clip queued up to a video showing the exchange between Baumunk and Huerta and the harassment of Baumunk that followed at the student meeting. It’s about 3-4 minutes long. Baumunk is the guy in the red shirt. You can stop watching around 8:30:

So, as mentioned above, after this incident, a Seattle law firm was hired to investigate the competing claims. And what the firm found, in a report which has been buried by the school, is that Baumunk’s approach to Huerta in March was reasonable and based on her position (as the head of the union) not her protected status as a Hispanic woman. That’s a win for Baumunk.

As for the May interaction seen in the video, the report concluded that Baumunk did not direct his comments toward Huerta or raise any of her protected characteristics when speaking. He did point at her (just as she had waived a piece of paper at him) but certainly never lunged or charged at anyone.

However, Huerta’s comments to Baumunk did relate to his (and her own) protected characteristics in a way that is at odds with Evergreen State College’s non-discrimination policy “as well as a significant body of....