This is with whom Obama negotiates

Khamenei Tweet About ObamaYes, the persons who continue to advocate “death to America” and, now, send Twitter messages about Obama committing suicide.

Is this not absolute insanity unbridled?  Why do we negotiate with the mentally unbalanced, those persons who have not and will not hold to treaties and agreements?

With this issue and that of Planned Parenthood, I become more convinced that I am inhabiting some sort of alternate reality from my worst nightmares.

Then I wake up and read the news for another day.



Blogging intermittent due to issues with forest fires in my area; see my prior posts for Saturday and Sunday.

Feds want to kill MORE free speech in re GUNS

SLAVES ARE DISARMEDThe federal government wants to regulate, essentially, anything and everything involving humans within its borders.

The Obama Administration now wants to regulate speech about firearms.

From the

NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

by Paul Bedard

Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

What?  Is the federal government insane?  That would essentially outlaw gun blogs, gun magazines or any discussions about firearms.

Which, of course, would help the Obama Leftist Socialist Organization help to rid Americans of firearms — only so that the Proles, the Groundlings, the Serfs would be disarmed and more easily controlled.

Who would possibly put up with this?  The push is a governmental assault on the First Amendment itself — again, by the Obama Administration.

According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting.

Again, all perfectly in keeping with the Obama Administration’s wish to completely disarm the citizens of this nation, a true goal of Leftists globally.

I have always said that when you lose the Second Amendment, you will lose the First Amendment.

In this instance, here is Mr Obama and his Leftists attempting to hobble and denigrate both amendments simultaneously.  I couldn’t possibly have conjured that possible.  Except that, now, I certainly can.  This is certainly nothing if not innovative on behalf of the Obama Left.  With this addition: the prohibition also focuses on the internet as well, and seeks to clamp down on the internet.  Almost a Perfect Trifecta of prohibitive Leftism.

The NRA agrees.

 “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.

What could possibly be the reason for eliminating speech about firearms?

At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.

Please read the rest of the article for the details, because I don’t wish to take Bedard’s writing credit from him.

Never in my 60+ years on this planet have I seen my country’s freedoms so hideously and naked assaulted by my federal government.  I can only conclude one thing: this federal governments ultimately seeks total control and authority over each and every persons within its borders to the point where there can be no pushback, no dissension, no verbal or written disagreement on any level in any venue whatsoever.

For what other purpose would rules and regulations such as this exist?



Vince Vaughn supports the Second Amendment.


BZ weighs in on the NSA:

Senator Marco Rubio sent out a Tweet:

Marco Rubion Twitter NSAHe was asking that his Tweet be re-Tweeted far and wide.  I refused.

So I responded.

NSA Rubio Re-Tweet

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.



Drudge, BZ, your blog threatened

Free Speech EliminatedThe federal government is about nothing if not control.

Control of every aspect of your life, control, monitoring, regulation.


FCC Commissioner: Feds may come for Drudge

by Rudy Takala

( – 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.

Tolerant LeftistsWe’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?”

Leftist Thinking In DreadsThe 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.

Voltaire QuoteEnjoy reading my blog whilst you can.



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.

Leftist Free SpeechHere 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.


Obama: mixed up and muddled

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 AMM-American-Media-Maggots-2because 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.

Marie Harf Glittering JewelEven Marie Harf, the Department of State Flack, has to “explain” what Obaka really meant.  From

State Dep’t Clarifies Obama’s ‘Muddled’ Words on Iran Nuclear Breakout Time

by Patrick Goodenough

( – 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

“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 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.


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?