EU Parliament goes “all in” on censorship

Posted on by

Heads up, America. What Leftists want for Europe frequently is advocated here in the United States.

From the UKTelegraph.com:

Censorship concerns as European Parliament introduces ‘kill switch’ to cut racist speeches

by Associated Press

Press freedom organizations have raised concerns about censorship after Members of the European Parliament approved extraordinary measures to combat hate speech. 

MEPs granted the parliament’s president authority to pull the plug on live broadcasts of parliamentary debate in cases of racist speech or acts and to purge offending video or audio material from the online system. 

Critics say the rules are vaguely worded and could be manipulated or used as a tool of censorship. 

Censorship in Europe? Perish the thought, you wanker!

“This undermines the reliability of the Parliament’s archives at a moment where the suspicion of ‘fake news’ and manipulation threatens the credibility of the media and the politicians,” said Tom Weingaertner, president of the Brussels-based International Press Association.

Facts in evidence. EU “journalistas” have it right on this one.

But some MEPs say nationalist rhetoric has recently crossed the line of what is acceptable.  

“There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate,” said Richard Corbett, a British MEP who backed the new rule.

“What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: ‘Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It’s broad, it’s live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let’s use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,'” he told The Associated Press.

This is the quintessential Straw Man argument, because the EU’s installation of this policy providing shocking power over speech is most certainly aimed not at what they’re publicly stating, but — bottom line — at speech with which Leftist elitists disagree. Like, say, Brexit. Or sovereignty. Or independence. Or any make and manner of speech with which EU elitists agree must be quashed. Like this: oppositional speech. Of any kind.

What is the European Parliament? Answer: a bastion of Leftist elitists whose decisions take precedence over the rules and laws of client states in the EU.

Rule 165 of the parliament’s rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast “in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member.” The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).

What is “xenophobic”? According (here in the US) to Bill Kristol, speech by President Trump saying “America first.” Kristol thinks that’s “depressing and vulgar.” Likely Kristol would love to suppress Trump’s speech.

In the EU and in many areas of the US and particularly Canada, to state the unseemly and hidden truths about Islam is also xenophobic.

To bandy about the words “American exceptionalism” is also considered xenophobic by many Leftists, elitists and GOWPs.

Of course, like much of the law passed by Leftists, it isn’t done in the light of day.

The new rule, which was not made public by the assembly until it was reported by Spain’s La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be “deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings,” meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.

Mr Weingaertner said the IPA was never consulted on that.

Oh please. When and where were advocates of free speech ever consulted by those who would limit same?

A technical note seen by the AP outlines a procedure for manually cutting off the video feed, stopping transmission on in-house TV monitors and breaking the satellite link to halt broadcast to the outside world.

A videotape in four languages would be kept running to serve as a legal record during the blackout. A more effective and permanent system was being sought.

It is also technically possible to introduce a safe-guard time delay so broadcasts appear a few seconds later. This means they could be interrupted before offending material is aired.

Stop right there. “Offending material.” Just who determines the likes of “offending material”? Correct. The Leftist elitists who demanded the policy in the first place.

But it’s not about just perceived “racist speech.” It’s also about non-PC speech. Already at the BBC all climate change “deniers” can’t acquire any air time or employment at Auntie Beebe. It’s just not popular. Wouldn’t be prudent.

Leftists have what I term BZ’s Succession of Oppression. It goes like this, in three major stages:

  • Tolerance
  • Acceptance
  • Advocacy

These days, if you are not an active advocate of any and all Leftist policies, you are now an ______-ist. Fill in the blank.

Finally, Tucker Carlson interviewed an EU GOWP Drone who has apparently never watched any of his shows.

I repeat at the risk of being a repetitive member of the Department of Redundancy Dept: it’s nothing more than another Leftist Straw Man argument.

BZ

 

 Share

Digital assistants are obviously sexist

Posted on by

Are you kidding?

Oh hell, no. The Leftists have produced one of the largest magnifying glasses they possess in order to navel gaze even more intimately. They are damned close to the molecular level.

They posit that Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana and Google’s home voice have been purposely programmed by men to be sexist.

I repeat at the risk of being repetitive: no, I am not kidding. These devices have female voices because the companies producing them are inherently sexist by nature.

From QZ.com:

We tested bots like Siri and Alexa to see who would stand up to sexual harassment

by Leah Fessler

Women have been made into servants once again. Except this time, they’re digital.

Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana, and Google’s Google Home peddle stereotypes of female subservience—which puts their “progressive” parent companies in a moral predicament.

People often comment on the sexism inherent in these subservient bots’ female voices, but few have considered the real-life implications of the devices’ lackluster responses to sexual harassment. By letting users verbally abuse these assistants without ramifications, their parent companies are allowing certain behavioral stereotypes to be perpetuated. Everyone has an ethical imperative to help prevent abuse, but companies producing digital female servants warrant extra scrutiny, especially if they can unintentionally reinforce their abusers’ actions as normal or acceptable.

She then comes out and states the obvious.

Justifications abound for using women’s voices for bots: high-pitched voices are generally easier to hear, especially against background noise; fem-bots reflect historic traditions, such as women-operated telephone operator lines; small speakers don’t reproduce low-pitched voices well. These are all myths.

The biggest problems involved the response of the devices when presented with sexually harassing verbiage.

Harassment, it turns out, is a regular issue for bot makers. Ilya Eckstein, CEO of Robin Labs, whose bot platform helps truckers, cabbies, and other drivers find the best route, told Quartz that 5% of interactions in their database are sexually explicit—and he believes the actual percentage is higher. Deborah Harrison, a writer for Cortana, said at the 2016 Virtual Assistant Summit that “a good chunk of the volume of early-on inquiries” were into Cortana’s sex life.

Even if we’re joking, the instinct to harass our bots reflects deeper social issues. In the US, one in five women have been raped in their lifetime, and a similar percentage are sexually assaulted while in college alone; over 90% of victims on college campuses do not report their assault. And within the very realms where many of these bots’ codes are being written, 60% of women working in Silicon Valley have been sexually harassed at work.

Worse yet:

The graph below represents an overview of how the bots responded to different types of verbal harassment. Aside from Google Home, which more-or-less didn’t understand most of our sexual gestures, the bots most frequently evaded harassment, occasionally responded positively with either graciousness or flirtation, and rarely responded negatively, such as telling us to stop or that what we were saying was inappropriate.

You read it here first: those ignorant devices, programmed by sexist men, responded either with flirtation in return or rarely responded negatively. That is an abject slap in the face to every they on the planet.

The graph above is bad. The graph below is reprehensible.

Leah Fessler concludes:

Clearly, these ladies doth not protest too much. Out of all of the bots, Cortana resisted my abuse the most defiantly. Siri and Alexa are nearly tied for second place, though Siri’s flirtation with various insults edges her toward third. And while Google Home’s rape definition impressed, nearly constant confusion on all other accounts puts her last.

I would logically ask: why does Leah Fessler have a female name? She embraces sexism by simply possessing a name commonly associated with women: Leah. How does she think alphabet humans feel when she introduces herself in a clearly sexist fashion by presenting her sexist name? Does she even use the pronoun “she” in reference to herself? That in and of itself is abominably sexist. What of humans who consider themselves as “they”? Shouldn’t “they” be included in Fessler’s rather narrow world? Apparently not.

As you can see in the photo at the top of the post, Leah Fessler has long hair — commonly associated with women — and two rather obvious breasts encased in what many would conclude is a remarkably repressive device built and engineered by men to? Yes. Conquer. Overwhelm. Even worse, her clothing clearly identifies her with “female.” As do her “earrings,” symbols of evidence that women can be bought and subjugated by the merest of worthless trinkets.

Could she be more uncaring, insensitive or even hateful in her physical (and likely her verbal and mental) representation to others?

Pronouns should be inclusive and not exclusive. Feelings matter. Misgendering people is hurtful, judgmental and, further, shoving your paltry and judgmental version of sex into the faces of those more tolerant and understanding than you.

Sex isn’t something that is hard, fast, immovable, set in stone. Sex is instead fluctuous, changeable, fluid, embracing, uncommitted, tolerant, a wending application of gray in a world of oppressive black and white. People can and should be non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer, AFAB if applicable. They, them or theirs, to be open minded. Just remember, “Leah”:

Any number of pronouns can be awesome for any number of people, but you don’t get to pick and choose which pronouns you can use for someone else.

When you use “she,” you hurt they. Or ze.

Leah Fessler is young, pretty and Caucasoid. How does she think others receive her when she comes into contact with those who are older, less classically sculpted or whose melanin count exceeds hers? They feel uneasy, intimidated, immaterial, cast aside by the White Privilege they see flaunted in front of their faces.

What does she know about sexism anyway? She is manifestly affluent, well-dressed, drives an automobile, has the ability to walk into most any eating establishment and order an exorbitant meal on the spot with credit or cash. Many persons have been oppressed by sexism and chopped down by society to the point where Fessler’s mere presence flaunts her inability to relate to true sexism or, worse, unaffected by sexism and racism simultaneously.

We haven’t even discussed her cultural and monetary elitism, raised in a prosperous white family whose fortunes were such that they were able to send her to the quite private liberal arts Middlebury College in Vermont, where yearly tuitions are in the $47,000 range and where she has the monied ability to fly to wealthy enclaves like those of the Aspen Institute and Aspen, Colorado, which is 94.94% white. Then dashing off to San Francisco. I’d wager she isn’t walking or hitchhiking.

What of those oppressed “they” people who have never and will never possess the easy advantages that Leah Fessler has clearly enjoyed over her young life? Would it be a fact to submit that she has never had her world destroyed by being misgendered at any point? To be subject to the ego-smashing oppression of sexual confusion or improper reading of her persona?

A jejune little child, the perfect white privilege rich girl, could be Leah Fessler.

Who thinks she knows sexism but, I submit, doesn’t know it at all.

I ask: just how many theys or zes does she know, who are her friends?

Most? Or hardly any at all?

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, 3-7-17

Posted on by

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sackheads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, March 7th, 2017” on Spreaker.

Tuesday night on the Berserk Bobcat Saloon:

  • German Police speak out about Islam;
  • Dr Ben Carson’s comments about black as immigrants;
  • Leftists leave $1 million cleanup job at Dakota Pipeline site, abandoning puppies;
  • President Trump’s Tweet about his campaign being hacked by Barack Obama;

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast.

BZ

 

 Share

DEMOCRATS meet with and LOVE RUSSIANS

Posted on by

Little Chuckie Schumer loves the Russians.

Drudge Powers Trump Counter-Attack on Russia

by Gideon Resnick

On Friday afternoon, President Trump tweeted an image of Senator Chuck Schumer standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It depicts the two men seemingly cordially holding coffee and donuts.

Let’s be honest  Who knows what kind of communications may have occurred sub rosa between Schumer and Russia’s leader himself? Even President Trump himself hasn’t yet physically met with Vladimir Putin. Schumer did. Why was that? Why? Was it a clandestine meet in plain sight? What messages were passed? Can you tell me? Does anyone know?

Nancy Pelosi said she hadn’t met with any Russians. Despite there being Russian Hill in San Francisco. Was Nancy Pelosi a liar? Yes, apparently she was. Here is the photo.

Then, from Politico.com:

Photo contradicts Pelosi’s statement about not meeting Kislyak

by Kyle Cheney

The Democratic House leader sat with the Russian ambassador and other officials in 2010.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that she’s never met with the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.

“Not with this Russian ambassador, no,” Pelosi told POLITICO’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer during a Playbook interview, when asked whether she had ever met with the Russian envoy.

But wait, there’s more.

But a file photo from Pelosi’s 2010 meeting with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev shows Kislyak at the table across from Pelosi — then House speaker — and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Medvedev had been in the country for a meeting with President Barack Obama a day earlier and stopped in on Capitol Hill to meet with congressional leaders as well.

Fine. But let’s look at the video where Nancy Pelosi, in all her stilted Katherine Helmond/ Lewy Body/Alzheimers glory, attempted to refute the obvious (kudos to the movie Brazil by Terry Gilliam).

Remember, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who held a secret fundraiser for Islamists and Hamas-linked groups in 2012, from the DailyCaller.com:

Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi headlined a high-dollar fundraiser in May that was attended by U.S.-based Islamist groups and individuals linked by the U.S. government to the Hamas jihad group and to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood movement.

The donors at the undisclosed May 16 event included Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, according to data provided by the nonpartisan Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The CAIR group was named an unindicted conspirator in a 2007 trial of a Hamas money-smuggling group.

A covertly-taken photograph provided by the IPT shows Pelosi standing near Awad at the fundraiser. Roughly 30 people attended the fundraiser, according to the IPT (International Project on Terrorism, whose story and link can be found here.)

Stop. Wasn’t it Barack Hussein Obama who said, in 2008, sotto voce, to then Russian President Medvedev, that he would be more conciliatory to Russia upon re-election?

The words were: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Then there was the proverbial “Russian Reset” by an ignorant Obama administration represented by Hillary Rodham Clinton who got the words WRONG on the physical “Russian Reset” button itself.

Nancy Pelosi loves the Russians. Little Chuckie Schumer loves the Russians.

The Demorats love the Russians.

And it wasn’t just one Demorat embracing the Rooskies.

Flashback: Numerous Dems, Obama Also Met with Russian Ambassador

While Democrats feverishly sought Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ resignation after he was revealed to have had encounters with Russian diplomats, photos and records show dems also met with the same Russian ambassador to little fanfare.

In fact the Russian ambassador whom Sessions is accused of meeting visited the Obama administration White House no less than 20 times, and even sat with Democrats at Trump’s congressional address Tuesday.

You might find this a bit troubling to locate because of all the advertisement-ridden flotsam that currently exists between yourself and way too many so-called “conservative” websites courtesy of the “make me wait five seconds” monetizers.

But not on BZ, because I don’t exist to make cash. I exist to bring you the unmitigated truth. You have not and will never see ONE advertisement on BZ.

Photos from earlier this week show Russia’s US ambassador Sergey Kislyak preparing to sit among democrats at the president’s first address to Congress.

Fox News reports that seven other Democrat senators also previously met with Kislyak, one of whom had claimed she had never met with any Russian ambassadors during her time on the Armed Services Committee.

Really?

I’d suspect quite so.

Then again, media bias? I’d suspect not so much but, in retrospect, I’d be way wrong. Because in terms of media bias, I have this from NewsBusters.org:

HYPOCRISY: 7X More Coverage for Sessions Debacle than Holder Contempt

by Mike Ciandella and Rich Noyes

If you ever doubted that the media see the news through a partisan prism, consider this: in less than two days, ABC, CBS and NBC devoted nearly 7 times as much coverage to Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian Ambassador in his role as a U.S. Senator than they did when then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress in June 2012.

On March 2, Democrats accused Sessions of misleading Congress by not disclosing that he met with the Russian ambassador to the United States twice while he was serving as Senator. Despite admitting that the statements Sessions made to Congress “would not be considered false under the law” (Jan Crawford, CBS Evening News, March 2), ABC, CBS and NBC devoted more than 1 hour and 12 minutes to this topic, just on the morning and evening shows of March 2 and the morning shows of March 3.

Imagine that.

Add it all up, and the unprecedented contempt charge against Obama’s Attorney General earned only 10 minutes, 38 seconds of network airtime, or only slightly more than one-seventh of that spent in 1.5 days over Sessions’ meeting with the Ambassador.

Finally, from the UKDailyMail.com, two days ago.

SIX more Democratic leaders are revealed to have met with Russian Ambassador amid campaign to discredit Trump’s aides for doing the same

by Karen Ruiz

  • Six Democratic leaders were revealed to have been in a meeting with Russia’s Ambassador with Claire McCaskill 
  • Democratic Senator McCaskill denied ever meeting with Russian Ambassador 
  • Old tweets proved the lawmaker had met with Sergey Kislyak in 2013 
  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose during his confirmation hearing that he spoke with Russia’s ambassador twice last year 
  • McCaskill and other Democratic leaders including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer called for Sessions’ resignation

As Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill’s claims that she had never met with Sergey Kislyak were proven to be untrue, six more Democrats have been revealed to have met with the Russian Ambassador.

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sat in on the meeting with Kislyak and McCaskill, Fox News reported. 

The seven Democratic leaders met with the ambassador to discuss the blockade of US adoptions in Russia in 2013.

Lies and more lies on the part of Demorats.

On the other hand — worse for each and every Leftist — Trump is now at a 53% approval rating.

Let’s just say: it would be accurate to state the Demorats have met the hell out of the Russians.

BZ

 

 Share

Source: Obama White House did have Trump campaign wiretapped

Posted on by

So Mr Obama, while a sitting president, had Trump Tower bugged and surveilled whilst he still sat in the Oval Office?

Impossible, the Demorats and American Media Maggots bleat.

I say: show me the proof that Mr Obama did not do that. Tables turned. Just like “the Russians.”

After all, Mr Obama has an historic pattern of bugging and surveilling the offices and technology of sitting presidents. Why not an individual running for US president? Too far fetched?

What about Mr Obama attempting to undermine and influence the elections in Israel, because he didn’t want to see Benjamin Netanyahu elected? It seems to me the Obama administration was playing politics with a presidential election.

What about Jason Chaffetz who, during the Obama administration, had Secret Service agents combing through his personal records in a politically-driven revenge attack?

What about James Rosen, an American journalist, who had his emails and calls on roughly 20 phones exposed as a result of Obama’s minion, Eric Holder? Obama claimed he never ordered surveillance on any American citizen — but Holder wouldn’t have conducted something of this import without keeping his melanin-related BFF updated.

We know, via Wikileaks, that Obama did in fact surveil and violate the rights and privacy of American journalists. Here is a copy of a search warrant indicating so.

Wait. How about this set of Obama wiretaps?

WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd of Obama Administration wire taps:

* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.

In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration.  It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:

* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.  The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.
* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance.  The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”
* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration.  A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

Hell, the CIA spied on the United States SENATE under Barack Hussein Obama:

All Obama’s oppressive actions seem to be forgiven. Yet, now all the Demorats and American Media Maggots require to elevate an allegation to a fact, if it concerns President Trump, conservatives or the GOP is.  .  .

The slightest of suppositions.

The official response of Obama, by former spokesman Kevin Lewis?

“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

What Lewis doesn’t do, however, is offer that same level of denial regarding the FBI or the DOJ. What Lewis specifically didn’t do is unequivocally state that Obama did not have Donald Trump tapped. It’s a proverbial non-denial denial. Gorgeous. Further, do you think Obama was so laissez-faire about his administration that he was unaware of what was occurring around him at all times? I do not.

On Sunday during Meet The Press, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI, a position above the CIA Director) James Clapper stated no agency operating under him — including the FBI — wiretapped the Trump concerns. Clapper added: “to my knowledge.” Equivocation.

Let us not forget this is the same James Clapper who lied nakedly to all of America when he testified under oath that the NSA never collected phone data on millions of Americans — when in fact the NSA Hoovered personal data like a baleen whale with krill. Clapper massages his pate and says “not wittingly.” Edward Snowden proved that Clapper was lying his political ass off.

But are these mere suppositions of wiretapping?

NO. THEY ARE NOT.

Fox’s Kimberly Guilfoyle spoke to a left-leaning journalist named Cathy Areu on Saturday the 4th, who told Guilfoyle that a source inside the White House said, about the tap:

There were concerns that Trump and his surrogates may have been colluding with the Russians as a possible bargaining chip to influence the election. Therefore a wiretap was conducted.

Areu’s female source said she was unsure who secured the warrant, but that it was granted. Areu said her female Obama administration source stated:

“The intelligence community did its due diligence given the threat of the Russian influence. The (Obama) White House was aware of it.”

Meaning two critically important thingies:

  • 1. The wiretap occurred, and
  • 2. The president had to know.

Let me repeat that at the risk of becoming a member of the Department of Redundancy Dept:

“The (Obama) White House was aware of it.”

Says the source.

Because, after all, we don’t need anything more to substantiate an allegation of corruption or abuse against President Trump other than an “unnamed source,” do we? Of course not. Turnabout is fair play.

Also: there was in fact a FISA request by the Obama Administration in June of 2016 and then in October of 2016, to monitor communications involving Donald Trump, not yet president-elect.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton remarks to Fox’s Eric Shawn that James Comey should have been removed as FBI Director. I stated that myself back on February 17th: Trump should have ripped James Comey out of the FBI by his roots because Comey would do nothing but provide heartache. James Comey is a prevaricating hack whose opinions fluctuate with the prevailing political prairie winds. Let’s listen.

This is the same James Comey who didn’t wish to assist Sean Spicer in knocking down the Trump/Russia stories, but now wants the DOJ to bail his own ass out and dispute Trump’s claims of wiretapping. Comey wants what’s convenient for him when it’s convenient for him yet, when pressed with the job of simply moving a case over to the DOJ — with regard to the recommendation of an indictment for Hillary Clinton — Comey made a flawed, politically-based and self-serving decision. James Comey has no fidelity, no bravery, no integrity.

Who to replace the bereft-of-courage James Comey? Might I suggest John Bolton? Rudy Giuliani? Perhaps even Sheriff David Clarke? One does not have to be an attorney to be director. One must only have a keen managerial skill, fortitude and reverence for the law as opposed to naked politics.

Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals an important aspect of Obama’s presidential power.

“Because of the unique interpretation of a Ronald Reagan executive order, 13222, and because of the language in the USA Freedom Act, the successor to much of the FISA law, NSA now has the ability to capture in real time the digital copies of everybody’s phone calls. Everybody, cell and landline, everybody’s keystroke, mobile device and desktop.”

“All digital information going over fiber optics, into the US, out of the US or within the US. NSA works for the President. If the President asks for a transcribed copy of any of that, they’ll give it to him. As well, the FISA statute says in it, ‘not withstanding all of the rules above and below.’ The President of the United States can order surveillance on any person in the United States in conjunction with a certificate or a certification filed by the Attorney General.”

Napolitano admits that it’s legal but not constitutional from his point of view, describing it as “profoundly unconstitutional but it is legal because the statute says it. So think about this, if you’re Barack Obama and you have the ability by making a phone call to hear what Donald Trump is saying, are you going to bother with trying to get a warrant? Why would you get the warrant?”

National security expert Jim Hanson stated:

“The bottom line is, they did wiretap Trump Tower. They tapped a server they thought was communicating somehow with Russia. This is a legitimate charge and we need a serious investigation.”

Former Bush AG Mike Mukasey believes Trump is correct about the tapping, as does former NSA employee/whistleblower William Binney, who stated:

Asked whether he believes the NSA is tapping Trump, Binney replied: “Absolutely. How did they get the phone call between the president and the president of Australia? Or the one that he made with Mexico? Those are not targeted foreigners.”

Corey Lewandowski asserts the Obama administration wiretapped then-sitting Senator Jeff Sessions in 2016.

Please consider: how did anyone know the context of Michael Flynn’s phone calls from the Trump tower absent a wiretap? How did anyone know the context of President Trump’s phone calls to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull absent a wiretap?

How?

The shoe is now on the other foot with regard to the Demorats, Leftists, American Media Maggots and, more pointedly, on Barack Hussein Obama.

All of this is occurring predominantly because President Trump fundamentally threatens the sinecure of all the DC bureaucrats making bank on jobs that produce nothing but yield financial splendor and fiscal independence for life. Mel Brooks, from the film Blazing Saddles, sums it up best.

In the midst of an incredibly-serious election, to wiretap the communications of the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States?

Remember, Captain Kirk’s last words on film were: “Oh my.”

BZ

P.S.

Who says the actors responsible for the wiretapping went through a FISA court anyway?

 

 Share