Senator Marco Rubio sent out a Tweet:
He was asking that his Tweet be re-Tweeted far and wide. I refused.
So I responded.
And it blew up Twitter for a bit: “I don’t want to end the NSA; I just want it to do what I HAVE to do as a cop: get a warrant.”
Enough with unlimited government and unlimited monitoring and listening and tracking and oppression and loss of freedoms.
BZ
Why?
Because, as some people can’t get past their “beer goggles,” the Obamas can’t get past their race goggles. They are still aggrieved “African American Hyphenates” who see everything — and I do mean everything — in terms of race. Which is easily why they are both racists. And they are racists. It’s all about identity politics and race baiting.
Obama, who signaled for a “post-racial America,” has done everything within his means and abilities to ensure it is all but. Without full information, he has accused law enforcement officers of “acting stupidly.” To even oppose Obama or Eric Holder is racist. If Obama’s approval ratings are down, it’s racist. George Zimmerman, despite Obama and Holder’s worst intentions, was found not guilty in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, who became Obama’s flesh: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” And Zimmerman, an Hispanic, was always quantified by the AMM as “white” in order to gin up more controversy — of great assistance to the Obamas.
Obama and Holder sent, literally, hundreds of FBI agents to Ferguson to prove that Officer Darren Wilson was a Caucasoid Racist. They could prove no such thing.
Mr and Mrs Obama attended the church of outright racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright for years without angst. Only when it became a “political issue” did they kick Wright to the political curb. They still believe, however, everything he says and has said.
Obama’s co-racist lapdog Eric Holder was “Chief among antagonists.”
Mr Obama and Poverty/Racial Pimps Sharpton and Jackson saw the fruits of their racial divides paid — ahem — in spades. Dead cops. Courtesy of the most transparent administration in the history of America, and courtesy of the “post racial” president.
With an astounding amount of assisted-fellating by the American Media Maggots.
Even today, Monday, Breitbart News indicates:
Cop Killings Nearly Double After Media Launch Hate Campaigns Against Police
by John Nolte
According to the FBI, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty nearly doubled from 27 to 51 between 2013 and 2014. That is nearly one murdered police officer a week during 2014, which was also a little over a year after the mainstream media began its coordinated hate campaigns to demonize America’s law enforcement officers.
The FBI report is a terrible and tragic setback for police officers. Losing 27 fellow officers in 2013 was a tragedy. But it was also a 35 year low. Things were unquestionably moving in the right direction. Since 2011, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty had been on the decline.
Suddenly in 2014, everything changed for the worse. The number jumped back up to the highest number since 2011. What also changed for the worse is the mainstream media’s obsession with smearing police officers as hyper-militarized racist occupiers on the hunt for black men.
“Finally,” Obama is saying behind closed doors to Michelle, “cops and more specifically Caucasoid cops are getting their just desserts.”
Yet, Mrs Obama — having attended an Ivy League school and reached the pinnacle of politics in America, her husband sent to two concurrent presidential victories — believes America is neither good nor color-blind:
Contrast and compare, Michelle vs Denzel.
I am tired of blacks playing the “race card” when it is politically expedient. It is a wolf’s cry that diminishes true racism. Racism that can be bidirectional as well — that too few will call. But I will. I am beyond tired of being stereotyped as a racist because I am conveniently a Caucasoid, male, older and worse yet, a cop. I am tired of being told that only Caucasoids can be racist when, in fact, there are multiple continuing examples of racism by a group of persons whom many believe, by dint of melanin count, cannot be racist. And that is crap is well.
True equality runs both ways. And until it does and the bullshit hypocrisy stops, I shall continue to provide pushback when and how I deem fit.
The more you push your racist agenda, Mr and Mrs Obama, the more I push back.
BZ
The Second Amendment exists to protect the First Amendment.
It also exists so that American may not simply hunt, but protect themselves against government, if necessary. Check your history.
BZ
The federal government is about nothing if not control.
Control of every aspect of your life, control, monitoring, regulation.
From CNSNews.com:
FCC Commissioner: Feds may come for Drudge
by Rudy Takala
(CNSNews.com) – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Ajit Pai said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which federal regulators will seek to regulate websites based on political content, using the power of the FCC or Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He also revealed that his opposition to “net neutrality” regulations had resulted in personal harassment and threats to his family.
However, Pai said it was only the beginning. In the future, he said, “I could easily see this migrating over to the direction of content… What you’re seeing now is an impulse not just to regulate the roads over which traffic goes, but the traffic itself.”
Continuing, he said, “It is conceivable to me to see the government saying, ‘We think the Drudge Report is having a disproportionate effect on our political discourse. He doesn’t have to file anything with the FEC. The FCC doesn’t have the ability to regulate anything he says, and we want to start tamping down on websites like that.’”
We’ve seen this already from the federal government, in terms of the IRS terrorizing Conservative groups with threats and actions not directed to any other political community.
We’ve seen Holder’s DOJ prosecuting cases based solely on race, at Obama’s direction. Mr Obama and Mr Holder are two of DC’s Racists In Chief. We’ll see how AG Lynch does.
“Is it unthinkable that some government agency would say the marketplace of ideas is too fraught with dissonance? That everything from the Drudge Report to Fox News… is playing unfairly in the online political speech sandbox? I don’t think so,” Pai said.
“The First Amendment means not just the cold parchment that’s in the Constitution. It’s an ongoing cultural commitment, and I sense that among a substantial number of Americans and a disturbing number of regulators here in Washington that online speech is [considered] a dangerous brave new world that needs to be regulated,” he concluded.
Those persons who are ignorant of the world surrounding them would be the first to say “that’s ridiculous, you’re paranoid. Nothing like that could ever happen in the US.”
In response I’d say: “it’s already happened. Where were you?”
The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are interlinked.
Why do you think there is such a push to eliminate the Second Amendment by the federal government, to onerously regulate firearms and ammunition?
Because without the ability to defend ourselves on a civilian level, the federal government, any government, can lay rules and regulations on a population that has no ability to fight back in any manner.
Let me provide further clarity: the Second Amendment, as some think, doesn’t exist solely to enable people to go hunting if they wish. It exists to keep the populace safe from an overbearing government.
The Obama Regime is leaving in a few years, thank the Lord. But if another Demorat steps in, you’ll find your fundamental rights challenged once more. If that occurs, this nation could very well erupt in a fashion no one wants to see or consider.
Enjoy reading my blog whilst you can.
BZ
P.S.
1. How to end free speech.
2. Obama eliminating free speech.
3. Muslims eliminating free speech.
4. Soft money goes, then so does free speech.
5. Chuck Schumer wants to kill free speech.
These things are occurring right here, right now, in the United States of America, ladies and gentlemen.
Pass the word.
Here is what Leftists think of Free Speech. And who defines “hate speech”? Why, Leftists do, of course. “Hate speech,” such as support of US foundational documents.
And that quote is from his supporters regarding Iranian negotiations.
Imagine what his detractors are saying. Like myself and others.
This president is having his house fall all about his shoulders, but few are noticing 
because his water-carriers, the American Media Maggots, are shielding him continuously like the good lap doggies they promised to be at the outset. GOWPs and the AMM, have shielded and protected Obama to the point where their credulity is now mostly lost.
Even Marie Harf, the Department of State Flack, has to “explain” what Obaka really meant. From CNSNews.com:
State Dep’t Clarifies Obama’s ‘Muddled’ Words on Iran Nuclear Breakout Time
by Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – President Obama appeared to concede this week that under a final nuclear deal, Iran — after 13 or so years — would be able to build a nuclear bomb quickly if it chooses to do so. But State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted later that the words had been misread.
Of course. The words have been “misread.”
Harf told a daily briefing that Obama’s words “were a little mixed up” and “a little muddled,” saying they had referred to a hypothetical state of affairs in which an agreement had not been reached, rather than the situation as it will be in 13 years’ time under a negotiated agreement.
This is Marie Harf, the most ignorant glassesed bint on a current elevated government pedestal, quoting Barack Hussein Obama as “a little mixed up” and “a little muddled”? And this is support?
Marie Harf did her level best to “walk back” Obama’s statements. Please click the link.
Further, from Algemeiner.com:
“Open confusion” reigned today at the State Department after spokeswoman Marie Harf tried to withdraw a quote from President Barack Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear breakout time, advocacy group The Israel Project said.
In the interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, the President acknowledged that, after year 13, the current deal being worked out with Iran would not provide the international community with the promised 1-year warning should Iran decide to violate the deal and go for a nuclear weapon.
Details details details. And on whom do these details fall? Who wins, who loses?
Check out this article written by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz at WSJ.com.
NewsMax.com provides the article as an alternate, because the WSJ mandates a subscription and I won’t pay for internet sources. I may provide dead links to you, but never at my own choosing. And if I find dead links, I do my best to provide alternatives. As I do now:
Kissinger, Shultz: Iran Deal Likely to Deepen US Involvement
The recently announced framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is more likely to increase American involvement in the Middle East rather than decrease it, former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz write in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
In the 2,000-word piece posted on the Journal’s website on Tuesday night, Kissinger and Shultz wrote that “Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there — on complex new terms.”
Meaning: in over six years, there is still no one sitting at the Adult’s Table in the Obama Administration.
Since the number of Iran’s centrifuges have jumped from 100 at the start of talks 12 years ago to almost 20,000 today, “The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran,” the former secretaries wrote. “While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal.”
Now, Iran’s program is within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.
“In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect,” they said. “Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another.”
Damn them for daring to speak and write the truth. As Caucasoids, Kissinger and Schultz must be racists, not senior analysts.
Now, Iran’s program is within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.
“In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect,” they said. “Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another.”
And Iran has been completely forthcoming with current and past IAEA demands? Allowed inspectors in?
Uh. No. Not even remotely.
Past behavior is the best predictor of future performance or the lack thereof.
A wonderful “out”:
Another wrench thrown into the gears is the means of enforcement, “which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct,” Kissinger and Shultz said.
Further:
Kissinger and Shultz also attack the idea of a nuclear umbrella provided to Iran’s Arab neighbors by the United States.
“Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons — or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it?” they say. “What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail?”
The central argument and paragraph:
“If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region,” they argue. “Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.”
Let’s be frank: Barack Hussein Obama couldn’t negotiate himself or his loved ones out of a paper bag.
What makes anyone think BHO could make any cogent negotiation?
BZ