Friday, May 29, 2015

Trouble For Obama: Dozens Of Congressional Dems Turning Against His Big Power Grab



Democrats in the House and Senate are aligning with Republicans in an attempt to build a legislative dam against sweeping new water rules being imposed by Obama’s EPA — rules that critics claim could sink business and destroy private property rights. As The Hill reports, “Dozens of congressional Democrats are joining Republicans to back legislation blocking the Obama administration’s new rule to redefine its jurisdiction over the nation’s waterways.”
On Wednesday, Western Journalism told you about the controversial new Environmental Protection Agency mandate that some consider more of a power grab than an effort to keep America’s waterways clean and healthy. Technically, the new rule is couched as an extension of the Clean Water Act of 1972, thus allowing EPA regulators and bureaucrats to significantly broaden their reach and authority without working through Congress.
This move comes after two separate Supreme Court rulings prohibiting the EPA and the Corps of Engineers’ previous attempts to expand on the Clean Water Act — a move that, if fully implemented, Heritage Foundation Agricultural Policy Research Fellow Daren Bakst argues would be “devastating to property rights.”
Despite congressional attempts to push back against the EPA-led action, the regulation was made final on Wednesday. The article in The Hill notes that the stated purpose of the rule is to “clarify that small streams, wetlands, headwaters and tributaries are covered by the Clean Water Act and the rules that go along with it.”

But Capitol Hill opponents of the EPA’s aggressive action are not giving up the fight. “Three moderate Democrats in the Senate and 24 in the House have joined the GOP in opposition, but leave them far from the two-thirds majorities they would need for a veto-proof vote to overturn the rule.”
It comes as no surprise that a spokesman for the Obama administration has attacked Republicans opponents of the rule; but in his slam against adversaries to the EPA action, the Obama mouthpiece also took a brutal swing at Democrats fighting the measure.
The Hill coverage of the controversy includes this incendiary bit of administration rhetoric: “’The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who want to threaten our clean water,’ said Brian Deese, Obama’s top environmental adviser.”

One of the Senate Democrats — threatening “polluters” — fighting to undo the EPA waterways rule through legislative action is West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, a frequent critic of Obama’s environmental initiatives.
…Manchin accused the EPA of “once again dangerously overreaching its boundaries by expanding the definition of water sources it can regulate.”
He said the rule “will certainly have a significant impact on West Virginia’s economy, hindering businesses, manufacturing and energy production.”
Among the most vocal critics of the rule are farmers and ranchers who claim the EPA action would mandate a costly permitting process for, and ultimately federal control over, everyday agricultural tasks like digging ditches and spraying fertilizer.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth 

oped addendum: Ah Ha el Presidente' self appointed for life came up with a solution :  

[Obama bottled water]

Oh Oh Bernie Sanders... POTUS candidate busted...Pres. Candidate SMASHED By Disgusting Blast From His Past That Shreds Major Liberal Myth

oped added
[Caption: hmmm I wonder what it is like to have sex with a woman]

ADVISORY: The following article contains language that some may find offensive.
It has long been a favorite talking point for progressives — a very sharp and often effective talking point echoed and amplified through leftist media — that the Republicans are waging a relentless “war on women.” Liberal columnist Eleanor Clift, writing a lengthy October 2014 post for The Daily Beast, continued to beat the “war on women” drum. Clift wrote that “Republicans are still saying crazy stuff about women,” and she predictably (though inaccurately) made reference to the Todd Akin situation where the GOP congressman spoke of what happens to women’s bodies in cases of “legitimate rape.”
“The GOP’s inability to relate to women is apparent once again on the campaign trail. There aren’t the obvious howlers like there were in 2010 when Todd Akin, the patron saint of goofy statements, rhapsodized about how a woman’s body shuts down in cases of ‘obvious rape,’ obviating the need for abortion.”
But if liberals are going to try to keep fighting political battles using the so-called “war on women” as ammunition, they now have on their hands what could be considered a virtual “nuclear bomb” delivered by one of their own — Bernie Sanders.

What has been unearthed is a comment so outlandish, so inflammatory that — one might reasonably speculate — if it had been made by a Republican, the mainstream media would be breathlessly falling all over themselves to deliver non-stop expressions of outrage…Obama’s new attorney general would immediately dispatch a task force to investigate…Hillary Clinton would have already launched a series of attack ads…and feminist rioters would take to the streets in endless protests.
So what is this blast from the past whose heat might well overwhelm the young flames of a recently announced presidential bid by a self-proclaimed socialist Democrat?

Back when he promoted his political agenda under the name Bernard Sanders, the senator who now calls himself “Bernie,” reportedly wrote an essay that appeared in an alternative newspaper in Vermont. In that 1972 essay, writes Dan Joseph of MRC TV, Sanders proclaimed that women fantasize about being gang-raped.
In the article entitled “man-and woman” that was published in the Vermont Freeman, Joseph notes that “Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate.  Even one with as little chance at grabbing his party’s nomination as Sanders currently has.”
Curiously, an image of the article appeared in a May 26, 2015 profile of Bernie Sanders published by Mother Jones, a far-left publication. Generally positive in its tone as it examined the colorful life and times of the ultra-lib presidential contender, the Mother Jones piece captioned the image: “This 1972 Sanders essay, published in an alternative newspaper called the Vermont Freeman, reflected his affinity for Sigmund Freud.”
Toward the top of this essay, Bernard Sanders writes: “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man, as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.” The Sanders essay appeared in print some nine years before the Vermonter was elected to his first public office as the mayor of Burlington. However, his political career began the year before the “gang rape” comment was published, when Sanders reportedly joined the Liberty Union Party. 

There is no indication that Bernie Sanders has any sort of professional degree, license, or certification that would support his brazen assertion that such thoughts as he described might actually go through a woman’s mind.
So, one might ask, will Eleanor Clift now include Bernie Sanders in her list of politicians who are “still saying crazy stuff about women?” Or will this be dismissed by the “so what” mainstream media as an irrelevant, long-ago quip from a guy known for saying some pretty, well, interesting things?
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Baltimore Prosecutor Makes Bizarre Announcement; Critics Immediately Roast Her For It


Talk about bizarrely “bad optics” or being terribly “tone deaf.” Buried by a violent crime wave that has seen homicide rates way up over the last year, Baltimore residents as well as its police force are wracked by fear and frustration. But check out what the spotlight-seeking young prosecutor of the “Baltimore Six” is doing now to raise her celebrity status — and it was her own office that sent out the celebratory tweet promoting the event.
Falling squarely in the category of “you can’t make this stuff up,” State Attorney Marilyn Mosby will serve today as the “Guest Ringmaster” of a traveling black circus. Coming not long after Mosby sat prominently on stage during a Prince benefit concert in Baltimore, this appearance would seem to be rather poorly timed, given that many Mosby critics already believe her prosecution of police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray is a “circus” of sorts.
Even the left-leaning website The Root is looking askance at the latest opportunity for Mosby to take center stage. Danielle Belton writes, “Is it simply bad timing or another inappropriate move in the limelight for the country’s youngest state’s attorney?”

Reacting to the evidence that, once again, Baltimore Six prosecutor Mosby seems to have a very hard time separating her solemn prosecutorial duties from her attraction to a flattering limelight, Twitter users were quick to pounce. A number of the snarky tweets noted that Mosby is heading under the big top just as Baltimore is heading toward a record crime wave for the month of May.

h/t: BizPac Review
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Colleges and Universities Have Grown Bloated and Dysfunctional

Colleges and Universities Have Grown Bloated and Dysfunctional
by:Michael Barone
American colleges and universities, long thought to be the glory of the nation, are in more than a little trouble. I’ve written before of their shameful practices — the racial quotas and preferences at selective schools (Harvard is being sued by Asian-American organizations), the kangaroo courts that try students accused of rape and sexual assault without legal representation or presumption of innocence, and speech codes that make campuses the least rather than the most free venues in American society.
In following these policies, the burgeoning phalanxes of university and college administrators must systematically lie, insisting against all the evidence that they are racially nondiscriminatory, devoted to due process and upholders of free speech. The resulting intellectual corruption would have been understood by George Orwell.

Alas, even the great strengths of our colleges and universities are threatening to become weaknesses. Sometimes you can get too much of a good thing.
American colleges, dating back to Harvard’s founding in 1636, have been modeled on the residential colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. The idea is that students live on or near (sometimes breathtakingly beautiful) campuses, where they can learn from and interact with inspired teachers.
American graduate universities, dating back to Johns Hopkins’ founding in 1876, have been built on the German professional model. Students are taught by scholars whose Ph.D. theses represent original scholarship, expanding the frontiers of knowledge and learning.

That model still works very well in math and the hard sciences. In these disciplines it’s rightly claimed that American universities are, as The Economist recently put it in a cover story, “the gold standard” of the world. But not so much in some of the mushier social sciences and humanities. “Just as the American model is spreading around the world,” The Economist goes on, “it is struggling at home.”
Consider the Oxford/Cambridge residential college model. Up through the 1960s, college administrators acted in loco parentis, with responsibilities similar to those of parents. Men’s and women’s dorms were separate and mostly off-limits to the other sex; drinking and drug use were limited; cars were often banned.
The assumption is that 18- to 21-year-old students were, in important respects, still children. The 1960s changed all that. Students were regarded as entitled to adult freedoms: unisex dorms and bathrooms, binge drinking, a hookup culture.

But now the assumption is that adult-aged students must be coddled like children. They are provided with cadres of counselors, so-called “trigger warnings” against supposedly disturbing course material and kangaroo courts to minutely regulate their sexual behavior.
Most colleges and universities abroad and many in this country (notably for-profit and online) don’t use the residential model. Students live with parents or double up in cheap apartments and — horrors! — commute, like most employed adults.
The residential college model, with its bloated ranks of coddler/administrators, has become hugely expensive and increasingly dysfunctional. It’s overdue for significant downsizing.
The Ph.D. university model is also metastasizing. A plethora of humanities and social science Ph.D. theses are produced every year, many if not most written in unreadable academic jargon and devoid of scholarly worth. Most will probably be read by only a handful of people, with no loss to society. But some worthy scholarship will be overlooked and go unappreciated.

A glut of Ph.D.s and an ever-increasing army of administrators have produced downward pressure on faculty pay. Universities increasingly hire Ph.D.s as underpaid adjuncts, with low wages and no job security.
The last half-century has seen a huge increase in the percentage of Americans who go to college and a huge increase in government aid to them. The assumption was that if college is good for some, it’s good for everyone. But not everyone is suited for college: witness the increasing ranks of debt-laden nongraduates.
And the huge tranches of government money have been largely mopped up by the ever-increasing cadres of administrators. Do students get their money’s worth from the masses of counselors, facilitators, liaisons and coordinators their student loans pay for? Or would they be better off paying for such services only as needed, as most other adults do?

As Glenn Reynolds of has written convincingly, the higher education bubble is now bursting. Colleges are closing; college applications and graduate program enrollments are declining; universities are facing lawsuits challenging the verdicts of their kangaroo courts.
Naturally, administrators seek more money. But the money pumped into these institutions is more the problem than the solution.

Islamic Jizya: Fact vs. Fiction

Islamic Jizya: Fact vs. Fiction
by:Raymond Ibrahim
The Return of Jizya 

Muslim demands for non-Muslim “infidels” to pay jizya on pain of death are growing, even as the West fluctuates between having no clue what jizya is and thinking that jizya is an example of “tolerance” in Islam.
In the video where the Islamic State slaughters some 30 Christian Ethiopians in Libya last April, the spokesman repeatedly pointed out that payment of jizya (which the impoverished Ethiopian migrant workers could not render, nor the 21 Copts before them) is the only way for Christians around the world to safeguard their lives:
But whoever refuses [to pay jizya] will see nothing from us but the edge of a spear. The men will be killed and the children will be enslaved, and their wealth will be taken as booty. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.
When the Islamic State invaded ancient Christian regions around the Ninevah Plain last June, it again declared: “We offer them [Assyrian Christians] three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract—involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.”
The Islamic State—which most Western politicians ludicrously insist “has nothing to do with Islam”—is not alone in calling for jizya from Christian “infidels.” In 2002, Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, discussing the Muslim prophet’s prediction that Islam will eventually conquer Rome, said, “We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians . . . will yet pay us the jizya, in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam.”
And in a video recently posted, Sheik ‘Issam Amira appears giving a sermon in Al Aqsa Mosque where he laments that too many Muslims think jihad is only for defense against aggressors, when in fact Muslims are also obligated to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslims:

When you face your pagan enemy, call them—either to Islam, jizya, or seek Allah’s help and fight them. Even if they do not fight [or initiate hostilities], fight them!… Fight them! When? When they fight you? No, when they refuse to convert to Islam or refuse to pay jizya…. Whether they like it or not, we will subjugate them to Allah’s authority.”
In short, if the Islamic State is enforcing jizya on “infidels,” demands for its return are on the increase all around the Muslim world. Put differently, if Abu Shadi, an Egyptian Salfi leader, once declared that Egypt’s Christians “must either convert to Islam, pay jizya, or prepare for war,” Dr. Amani Tawfiq, a female professor at Egypt’s Mansoura University, once said that “If Egypt wants to slowly but surely get out of its economic situation and address poverty in the country, the jizya has to be imposed on the Copts.”

The Doctrine and History of Jizya
So what exactly is jizya?
The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29, in an injunction that should be familiar by now: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”
In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya of non-Muslims: “If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

The second “righteous caliph,” Omar al-Khattab, reportedly said that any conquered “infidel” who refuses to convert to Islam “must pay the jizya out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”
This theme of non-Muslim degradation appears regularly in the commentaries of Islam’s authorities. According to the Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia, Muslim “jurists came to view certain repressive and humiliating aspects of dhimma as de rigueur. Dhimmis [subjugated non-Muslim Christians and Jews] were required to pay the jizya publicly, in broad daylight, with hands turned palm upward, and to receive a smart smack on the forehead or the nape of the neck from the collection officer.”
Some of Islam’s jurists mandated a number of other humiliating rituals at the time of jizya payment, including that the presiding Muslim official slap, choke, and in some cases pull the beard of the paying dhimmi, who might even be required to approach the official on all fours, in bestial fashion.

The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something. According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”
Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. Instead of taking their lives, they took their money. As one medieval jurist succinctly put it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya.”
Past and increasingly present, Muslims profited immensely by exacting jizya from conquered peoples.

For instance, Amr bin al-As, the companion of Muhammad who conquered Christian Egypt in the early 640s, tortured and killed any Christian Copt who tried to conceal his wealth. When a Copt inquired of him, “How much jizya are we to pay?” the Islamic hero replied, “If you give me all that you own—from the ground to the ceiling—I will not tell you how much you owe. Instead, you [the Christian Copts] are our treasure chest, so that, if we are in need, you will be in need, and if things are easy for us, they will be easy for you.”
Yet even that was not enough. Caliph Uthman later chided Amr bin al-As because another governor of Egypt had managed to increase the caliphate’s treasury double what Amr had. In the words of Uthman, the “milk camels [Egypt’s Christians, that is] . . . yielded more milk.” Years later, yet another caliph, Suliman Abdul Malik, wrote to the governor of Egypt advising him “to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood.”

Little wonder Egypt went from being almost entirely Christian in the seventh century to today having a mere 10%—and steadily dwindling, thanks to ongoing persecution—Christian minority.
Related to the idea of institutionalized jizya is the notion that non-Muslims are fair game to plunder whenever possible. The jizya entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam states that “with or without doctrinal justification, arbitrary demands [for money] appeared at times.” Even that medieval traveler, Marco Polo, whose chronicles appear impartial, made an interesting observation concerning the Muslims in Tauris (modern day Iraq) in the thirteenth century:
According to their doctrine [Islam], whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians [during the course of a plunder-driven raid], are considered as martyrs…. These principles are common to all Saracens [Muslims].
All this is echoed in recent times by the words of Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini, spoken a few years ago, concerning what the Muslim world should do to overcome its economic problems:
If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa [invitation to conversion] or stands in our way, then we must kill or take them as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid [holy warrior] who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads.

So it was for well over a millennium: Muslim rulers and mobs extorted money from “infidels” under their sway as a legitimate way to profit.
Much of this financial fleecing came to an end thanks to direct European intervention. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, one Muslim region after another abolished the jizya and gave non-Muslims unprecedented
rights—originally to appease Western powers, later in emulation of Western governance. The Ottoman Empire’s Hatt-i Humayun decree of 1856 abolished the jizya in many Ottoman-ruled territories. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, the jizya was gradually abolished wherever Western powers were present.
Today, however, as Muslims reclaim their Islamic heritage—often to the approval and encouragement of a West, now under the spell of “multiculturalism”—jizya, whether institutionalized as under the Islamic State, or as a rationale to plunder infidels, is back.

Even in the West, in 2013, a UK Muslim preacher who was receiving more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” and explained: “We take the jizya, which is our haq[Arabic for “right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir[infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [“Allah is Great”]. We take the money.”
Academic Lies about Jizya
Yet if Muslims—from Islamic State jihadis to Egyptian university professors—know the truth about jizya, the West is today oblivious, thanks to its leading authorities on Islam: Western academics and other “experts” and talking heads.
Consider the following excerpt from John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a widely acknowledged go-to source for anything Islamic:

In many ways, local populations [Christians, Jews, and others] found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the “protected ones” (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy (emphasis added) …
Despite the almost gushing tone related to Muslim rule, the idea that jizya was extracted in order to buy “Muslim protection from outside aggression” is an outright lie. Equally false is Esposito’s assertion that jizya was paid to “exempt them [non-Muslims] from military service”—as if conquering Muslims would even want or allow their conquered “infidel” subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad (holy war against infidels) without first converting to Islam.

Yet these two myths—that jizya was for “Muslim protection from outside aggression” and exemption from military service—are now widely accepted. In “Nothing ‘Islamic’ About ISIS, Part Two: What the ‘Jizya’ Really Means,” one Hesham A. Hassaballa recycles these fabrications on BeliefNet by quoting Sohaib Sultan, Princeton University’s Muslim chaplain, who concludes: “Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the ‘covenant of protection’ (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state.”
In reality and as demonstrated above via the words of a variety of authoritative Muslims, past and present, jizya was, and is indeed, protection money—though protection, not from outsiders, as Esposito and others claim, but from surrounding Muslims themselves. Whether it is the first caliphate from over a millennium ago or whether it is the newest caliphate, the Islamic State, Muslim overlords continue to deem the lives of their “infidel” subjects forfeit unless they purchase it, ransom it with money. Put differently, the subjugated infidel is a beast to be milked “until it gives no more milk and until it milks blood,” to quote the memorable words of an early caliph.

There is nothing humane, reasonable, or admirable about demands for jizya from conquered non-Muslim minorities, as the academics claim. Jizya is simply extortion money. Its purpose has always been to provide non-Muslims with protection from Muslims: pay up, or else convert to Islam, or else die.
And it is commanded in both the Koran and Hadith, the twin pillars of Islam. In short, jizya is yet another ugly fact of Islam—add to offensive jihad, imperialism, misogyny, slavery, etc.—one that, distort as they may, the academics cannot whitewash away, even as the world stands idly by watching its resumption in the twenty-first century.
Note: Most quotations not hyperlinked are sourced from Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians. Full references can be found there.

Carly Fiorina Shapes Herself as the Republican Foil to Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON — She has been the chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, a senior adviser to a Republican presidential nominee and a candidate for the United States Senate. But Carly Fiorina recently took on her boldest role yet: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s loudest critic.
Over the past few weeks, Ms. Fiorina has mocked Mrs. Clinton’s globe-trotting as secretary of state, assailed Mrs. Clinton’s use of only a private email account to do official business, and even accused Mrs. Clinton of stealing intellectual property. From her. Twice.
Ms. Fiorina insists she has no problem with Mrs. Clinton personally — only with her liberal philosophy and policies, and what she dismisses as an unimpressive record on getting things done.
“Like Hillary Clinton, I too, have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe, but unlike her, I have actually accomplished something,” she told conservatives in Iowa in January. “Mrs. Clinton: Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.” 

On Tuesday, an hour after Mrs. Clinton’s news conference to explain her email practices, Ms. Fiorina came down on her just as harshly. “In effect, @HillaryClinton told us to trust her,” Ms. Fiorina said on Twitter. “Nothing in her track record suggests we should do so.”
Ms. Fiorina easily sticks out among the wide field of possible Republican contenders for president: Most of the others are white men. But what has distinguished her most so far, aside from her gender, is not her private-sector experience or her pro-market policies, but her increasingly pointed attacks on Mrs. Clinton.
Of course, every Republican contender has taken aim at Mrs. Clinton, the presumed Democratic opponent who looms in the distance. But Ms. Fiorina alone can present herself as a natural foil without the added risk of being labeled a sexist man. 

“In a field of men, she could really emerge as a very effective critic of Hillary, which Republicans are going to need,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist in Sacramento. “You look at the field, and obviously there is a space for a very articulate, conservative woman.”
Allies of Mrs. Clinton, who plans to make gender a central part of her appeal, call this a cynical ploy. Ms. Fiorina, they say, is being put to use by a Republican Party that is desperate to damage Mrs. Clinton without antagonizing female voters.
“These guys really believe it’s unfair that women are now running,” said Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton in her 2008 campaign.
Speaking after Ms. Fiorina had just ridiculed Mrs. Clinton’s travel pace as secretary of state at the Iowa event, Ms. Lewis said: “Carly Fiorina went only to show she could be mean to Hillary.”
And Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Correct the Record, a group set up to defend Mrs. Clinton, dismissed Ms. Fiorina as “short on substance, with sophomoric one-liners,” in contrast to Mrs. Clinton’s “forward-thinking agenda and lifetime of work fighting for children and families.” 
In an interview, Ms. Fiorina, 60, said she was not seeking the approval of Republican leaders. “The party is not leaning on me to do anything, and I didn’t ask the party’s permission,” she said. 

Read More:

Thousands of Websites Block Congress in Patriot Act Protest

Thousands of websites are blocking Congress’s access to their sites in a show of force to protest the Patriot Act.
Led by the online activist group Fight for the Future, more than 10,000 sites have added code that redirects any visitors from Internet protocol (IP) addresses stemming from Congress away from their site and towards a protest page.
“Congress: This is a blackout,” the site reads. “We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws.”
Instead of renewing or reforming the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, the activist group wants Congress to let them totally expire.
“The real answer is to end all authorities used to conduct mass surveillance,” Fight for the Future says on the protest page. “Until you do, thousands of websites have blocked your access, and more are joining every day.”
Read More:

Judge Roy Moore: Impeach Ginsburg for Marrying Two Men Ahead of SCOTUS Ruling on Gay Marriage

On May 17, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated the marriage of two men and used the occasion to cite her constitutional right to do so. In June, the high court – including Ginsburg’s vote – will announce its decision on whether homosexual marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution.
That’s grounds for impeachment, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore told in an exclusive interview.
“She’s basically thumbing her nose in front of the other justices that she’s going to say what she wants to say and do what she wants to do, and she’s going to ignore the rules of ethics,” Moore said, adding that judges are bound by those rules.

“I think there’s grounds for the legislature of the United States and Congress to act,” Moore said. “They could act to impeach her; they could remove her for bad behavior, because judges serve for good behavior under Article 3 (of the Constitution).
Moore said the fact that Ginsburg made a public statement that she had a right under the Constitution to perform a same-sex wedding, under the ethics rules, is bad behavior given her role in deciding the Obergefell v. Hodges case.
“They could find that’s bad behavior and subject to impeachment and removal,” Moore said.
Read More:

HERE THEY ARE: The 46 Republicans That Voted to Repeal the First Amendment

Description Texas State Capitol Night.jpg
When Texas legislators found out about the undercover video footage about to be released by Joseph Basel and Hannah Giles with the American Phoenix Foundation, they had to quickly push through legislation, SB 19, which would criminalize this first amendment practice. With over 800 hours of footage that have yet to be released, the following Texas Republicans are those who voted to pass SB 19.
AUSTIN – The Texas Legislature Wednesday pushed through controversial legislation which repeals portions of the First Amendment, effectively ending citizen journalism in the Capitol. The new law is an attempt for legislators to shield themselves from scrutiny even in public areas of the Capitol building.

In a stunning show of bipartisanship, the Texas House rushed through SB 19 which includes provisions which some say severely curtail the first amendment rights of the press. Civil penalties for video reporting could now include $10,000 fines per occurrence.
Here are the Texas State House Republicans that voted to repeal the First Amendment in Texas. Let them know what you think of the Constitution.

Read More:

Thursday, May 28, 2015

U.S. pilots complain hands tied in ‘frustrating’ fight against Islamic State

Obama is helping Islamic State get established.
Check it out:
U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets. 

They blame a bureaucracy that does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: “There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn’t get clearance to engage.”
He added, “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating.”
Sources close to the air war against ISIS told Fox News that strike missions take, on average, just under an hour, from a pilot requesting permission to strike an ISIS target to a weapon leaving the wing.

A spokesman for the U.S. Air Force’s Central Command pushed back: “We refute the idea that close air support strikes take ‘an hour on average’. Depending on the how complex the target environment is, a strike could take place in less than 10 minutes or it could take much longer.
Continue reading on

Hillary: ‘You’re Not Going to See Me Turn White in the White House’

Image Caption
Why doesn’t this make her a racist? Can you imagine the backlash if a Republican said this?
Check it out:
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton pledged that people will not see her turn white in the White House. 

During a women’s conference in South Carolina on Wednesday, Clinton noted how presidents’ appearances change over time.
“All of our presidents come into office looking so vigorous. Think about what they looked like on inauguration day, and then we watch them,” she said. “They grow grayer and grayer, and by the time they leave, they are as white as the building they live in.”
In run for the White House, Clinton, 67, acknowledged her age and pledged that she would not allow her hair to turn white. 

Continue reading on

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

PARENTS WALK OUT DURING GRADUATION: When Principal Says This About Cops ‘Killing Young Black Men’

These days you can’t go anywhere without hearing the race baiting narrative – not even your kid’s graduation apparently.
BELTON, Mo. – A controversial comment made by the Belton High School principal has his future with the district in question. Dr. Fred Skretta made a comment about police killing young black men while addressing the class of 2015 at the Belton High School graduation.
His comment about police killing young black men set off a firestorm of emotion among parents, students and community members. Some said it was like getting hit in the gut when they least expected it.

“I wanted to be a teacher because I wanted to change the world, I wanted to make it a better place. I’m going to be honest with you, in a lot of ways I fear that we are not there yet. If we were there, we wouldn’t have conflicts between police killing young black men,” he said.
Read more: Fox 4

MINORITIES DESERVE ‘SAFE SPACE’ WITHOUT WHITE PEOPLE: White Students Turned Away From ‘Journalism’ Event
Minorities need to be separated from white people according to this lady. Whatever happened to that ‘tolerance’ narrative from liberals?
By Aeman Ansari, Huffington Post
Last week The Ryersonianreported on an incident that involved two first-year journalism students who were turned away from an event organized by Racialized Students’ Collective because they are white. Since then there has been a lot of commentary on the piece and a lot of debate — a lot of the criticism is valid.

However, the point to note is not that two white students were asked to leave the event, but rather that this was a safe space and that we as a newsroom, as a campus and as a society are not as knowledgeable as we should be about what these spaces mean.
It’s not just important, but it’s essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through. Though this group is funded by Ryerson’s student union, it works to serve a particular group and a particular purpose. Many students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sort of events allow people of colour to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment. These spaces are rare places in the world not controlled by individuals who have power, who have privilege.
Read more: Huffington Post

MARINE COURT-MARTIALED FOR BIBLE QUOTE: In Obamaland Christians Are Evil & Islam Is Good

Screen Shot 2015-05-27 at 9.56.34 AM
There is no such thing as ‘freedom of religion’ for Christians in the military in Obamaland.
A religious liberty law firm has taken up a US Marine’s appeal case after she was prosecuted for refusing to remove a Bible verse taped to her computer.
Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling was convicted last year at a court martial when she did not follow orders to take down the small trips of paper with the Old Testament scripture displayed on her desk.
At the time of the incident in May 2013, she was stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina when she taped the slightly altered Bible verse in three different places that read: ‘No weapons formed against me shall prosper,’ according to Fox News

Sterling, who is now unemployed and searching for a job, was given a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private, as well as a bad conduct discharge.
Read more: Daily Mail

PC-BS-DESTROYED: Al Jazeera Poll Kills the Myth of the ‘Tiny Minority of Extremists’

Screen Shot 2015-05-27 at 10.51.00 AM
That awkward moment when your ‘tiny minority’ isn’t so tiny.
The Al Jazeera news network accidentally let the cat out of the bag recently by asking readers whether they support Islamic State victories. After more than 40,000 readers responded, the network found thatmore than 80 percent supported ISIS.
So much for the tiny minority.

Via Answering Muslims

President Obama’s legacy in legal jeopardy

Obama’s legal legacy is the least of his worries.
Check it out:
President Obama’s second-term agenda, it seems, is in the hands of the courts. 

Same-sex marriage. Obamacare. Climate change. And now immigration. And in many cases, there is significant doubt about whether his signature initiatives will stand legal scrutiny.
The latest blow to Obama’s second-term plans came Tuesday when a federal appeals court in New Orleans denied the administration’s request to move forward with implementing his expanded executive action on immigration to defer deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants.
Texas and 25 other states have sued to have it shelved. The drama is sure to ensue for months, writes the Post’s David Nakamura, and throw into doubt whether the fight over all of Obama’s executive actions on immigration will be settled before he leaves office in January 2017.

Here’s a look at other Obama agenda items that are now in the court’s hands, and where they stand.
Continue reading on

Clinton Foundation hit with racketeering lawsuit
How sad is it that Hillary is still considered a serious candidate?
Check it out:
Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been hit with a racketeering lawsuit in Florida court. 

The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state.
Klayman has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and other prominent politicians.
The racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation’s chief diplomat.

“Negotiations by email about influencing U.S. foreign policy or U.S. Government actions to benefit donors to … The Clinton Foundation or sponsors of speaking engagements would not be captured on a U.S. Government email account because her emails would not be with a U.S. Government official,” Klayman said in court documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.
Continue reading on

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

What This Black Celebrity Just Called Obama Would Surely Set Cities On Fire If He Were White

 ... Pictures barack obama without makeup crazy funny stupid pictures

Try to imagine what would happen if a white, conservative celebrity with a high profile in Hollywood called Barack Obama “a white president in blackface.” It would likely be quite easy to conjure up images of cities on fire over the incendiary remark — massive crowds turning violent, arson and looting, enraged protestors confronting police in a nationwide display of intense disgust at the insult to the first black President of the United States.
So, have you seen the streets erupt in violence since a black comedian and TV producer uttered those five inflammatory words about Obama: “a white president in blackface?” No, you haven’t witnessed any mass display of outrage or any widespread demand for an apology or any insistence that the celebrity be stripped of power and prestige. You haven’t seen that Byron Allen — founder of the TV production company Entertainment Studios — has been chastised, chastened or disgraced.

As The Daily Mail reports, the 54-year-old Detroit native gave a rambling sidewalk interview that was obtained by TMZ in which he blasted Obama for not doing enough to help the African American population in the United States. Not only did Allen fire off the “blackface” remark, he also cut loose with the stinging criticism that “black America would have done much better with a white president.”
The article in The Daily Mail notes several telling statistics that support Byron Allen’s criticism of the president:

In 2013, black unemployment rose from 12.7 per cent to 13.8 per cent, compared to a drop from 8 to 6.8 per cent for white Americans.
The average white citizen is 22 times better off than the average black citizen.
Homeownership has not been so racially lopsided since 1990.
By clicking on the video above The Daily Mail, you can watch why Byron Allen says he has “grave concerns” about President Obama, who, he says, has “let us down tremendously.”
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

FIRESTORM: What Obama Just Said About US Troops In Danger Overseas Inflames Critics

Leave a Reply Cancel reply
During a Memorial Day observance at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, President Obama patted himself and his administration on the back for a supposed accomplishment that many critics immediately questioned. The White House Twitter feed was quick to share Obama’s comment that has fanned a firestorm of controversy. 

The president also remarked as he stood near the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington that “today is the first Memorial Day in 14 years that the United States is not engaged in a major ground war.” Critics were quick to pounce, noting that the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, as well as against the Taliban in Afghanistan, continues. Many contend that it’s the absence of meaningful ground forces that is allowing ISIS to capture and control more and more territory in the Middle East. And it’s Obama’s drone war in Afghanistan that continues to hit Islamic radicals from the skies.
Announcing an end to a war by withdrawing forces before the enemy is defeated, according to many social media responders to the president’s self-serving declaration, is hardly a valid excuse for celebration. As Jim Geraghty wrote for National Review:

If you’re confused, President Obama declared “the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan” on December 28, 2014.
The opposition did not get that memo. April 10 [via The Boston Globe]: A 22-year-old member of the US Army from Whitinsville was killed in Afghanistan when an Afghan soldier attacked his American allies earlier this week.
On Twitter, the reaction by many was swift and stinging to Obama’s no-war declaration that failed to take into account the growing dangers in the Middle East and beyond that are still keeping our troops — and our allies — in harm’s way.
And as CNN noted in a recent article on the “end” of the war in Afghanistan — where now the remaining U.S. forces have to be on the lookout for supposed friendlies who want to kill them, “It is a strange experience to be protected from those who America seeks to hand the country over to. But this is how the war ended. Not with ideological victories, or dramatic withdrawals, just the slow and deliberate stepping to one side.”
In addition, The Guardian observes that close to 10,000 U.S. troops remain in war-torn Afghanistan where the Taliban has not given up the fight to regain control of the country.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

See Why This Political Panel Just Ridiculed Obama As ‘Insane,’ ‘On Drugs,’ Henpecked

quickmeme: all your memes, gifs & funny pics in one place
Oh s*** it's ISIS...!
17 August, 2012 in Funny , Pictures | Comment
Take Michelle's head not mine I am the 7th Imam ...!


As Western Journalism reported last week, President Obama told the latest graduating class at the Coast Guard Academy that the really big security threat they’re facing in today’s troubled world is climate change. Even as ISIS continues its relentless rampage across the Middle East, Iran pushes toward obtaining a nuclear weapon, even as Russia threatens to destabilize Europe, North Korea is again acting out and China modernizes its military — among many other global threats — Obama points to global warming as the big, ominous storm cloud hovering over America’s security interests.
Reaction to the president’s claim that the Coast Guard and other branches of the U.S. military have to go forth and fight climate change has been, at least among right-leaning Americans, swift and sharply critical. As Cal Thomas observed in an opinion piece for The Washington Times: “If ‘climate change’ made terrorism possible, how does the president explain violent jihadism dating back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, long before carbon was a concern, or even a footprint? If unemployment causes terrorism, millions of jobless Americans would be taking up arms.”

Now in Egypt — a nation that got rid of a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government led by a man Obama both praised and supported — a political panel has taken to TV to go farther in their criticism of Obama than even the president’s most vocal TV critics would dare to go in this country. It’s a remarkable two-minute-twenty-second segment translated by the folks at MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute. 

You can watch these Egyptian commentators tear into Obama, questioning his sanity, wondering if he’s on drugs, even going so far as to say that it’s Michelle who wears the pants in the first family. Click on the video above to hear these three guys utterly destroy Obama as a weak and fearful man who is intent on destroying the United States.
h/t: American Thinker
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Monday, May 25, 2015

GW Bush vs Obama Legacy

Embedded image permalink

COLLEGE SUSPENDS WOUNDED MARINE: Labels Him ‘A Threat’ For Wanting A Non-Muslim Counselor

Screen Shot 2015-05-25 at 7.25.58 PM
Political correctness toward Muslims trumps our troops with PTSD at this college.
Months after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pledged to improve its treatment of veterans, disabled student veteran Jeremy Rawls is hoping his college might do the same.
Since February, the rising senior at Mississippi College in Clinton, Miss. has struggled to maintain good grades and reclaim his work-study position after MC administrators allegedly suspended him and labeled him a threat to himself and other students.

In an exclusive interview with Campus Reform, the former active-duty Marine who served two combat tours in Iraq said his suspension came after he requested to meet with a different counselor in the school’s Office of Counseling and Disability Services. Rawls, who is diagnosed with combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), was originally paired with a female counselor who wore traditional Muslim dress during his initial visit to the office.

“It’s not that I didn’t want to participate… I didn’t want to traumatize her and it wasn’t a good environment to be talking about [my disabilities] with that specific person,” Rawls said.
Rawls’s original reason for visiting the school’s counseling office was to pick up paperwork intended for his professors, a task that had been delayed because of a lengthy recovery from knee surgery.

“Every semester I have to identify with the school as disabled and they give me letters to give to my professors,” Rawls explained. “This semester I had a surgery at the beginning which caused some issues in getting some letters.”
According to Rawls, his attempts to meet with staff members to discuss the school’s policy about changing counselors were repeatedly ignored and it wasn’t until a recent meeting with administrators that he was able to speak with staff.

Read more: College Reform

AUNT BOO SAYS: ‘If You Don’t Like America…LEAVE; Go Play With Monkeys…SWING FROM TREES’

Aunt Boo tells the truth straight up! Forward to America-haters. Amen. 

MUSLIM TELEVANGELIST: ‘Don’t Masturbate, Or This Will Happen To You In Heaven’

Screen Shot 2015-05-25 at 7.35.01 PM
I bet he ‘whips the Imam’ quite often. More stupidity via the Religion Of Perpetual Rage. Enjoy.
Mücahid Cihad Han, a Turkish TV Imam is of the latter opinion and cited a Hadith (islamic scholarly narration) which states that men who masturbate will have to account for hand-babies when they face their maker on the day of judgment: their hands will literally become pregnant.
There was no follow up question, however, as to whether or not a man’s hand gets pregnant after each time he masturbates. Which would make paying child-support in the after-life, a graver punishment than hellfire.
Read more: Distractify

3 Ways Obama and Kim Jong Un Are Eerily Similar

I’m not really sure who’s emulating whom, or if it’s just a creepy coincidence, but have you noticed how our own Dear Leader, Barack Obama, shares some eery similarities with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un? We’ve come up with three so far.
1. Very secretive youth.
There seem to be information gaps in both Obama’s and Kim’s formative years.
Apparently no official biography on Kim has ever been released, so the only known information on his early life comes from those who have defected from North Korea or people who have claimed to have seen him abroad. He apparently studied in Switzerland in several schools where he was described as an ambitious student who liked basketball, but his grades and attendance ratings were poor. 

Obama Kim Jong Un Mirror - Obama_Kim_Jong_Un_Mirror.jpg

Continue Reading:
Post Continues on

Ray Stevens Slams Obama In New Song “You Didn’t Build That”

You may have swung the hammer. You may have poured the slab. You may have put in all your time, muscles, brains and sweat…but you didn’t build that!
via RayStevens 

Chuck Norris Makes Stunning Accusation: Obama Is ‘Ensuring A 2016 Win’ For Dems

<br /><b>Warning</b>:  Illegal string offset 'alt' in <b>/home/visiontoamerica/public_html/wp-content/themes/responsive-childtheme-master/v2a-responsive-email-template.php</b> on line <b>218</b><br />h
According to Chuck Norris, Barack Obama is already stacking the deck in favor of Democrats ahead of the 2016 presidential election. In a recent editorial, Norris cited several ways by which plans to increase immigration and naturalization in coming months could create a virtually undefeatable voting bloc willing to support the Democrat candidate.
“First,” he wrote, “the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, sent letters to all 9,000,000 green-card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.”
Continue reading:
Post Continues on

What does Climate Change Have to do with Our Military?

: Obama poses as James Bond at the Coast Guard Academy Commencement ...
President Obama recently spoke at the commencement for the Coast Guard Academy. He decided it was as good a time as ever to bring up climate change:
Climate change is one of those most severe threats. This is not just a problem for countries on the coasts or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now. 

After all, isn’t that the true hallmark of leadership? When you’re on deck, standing your watch, you stay vigilant, you plan for every contingency. If you see storm clouds gathering or dangerous shoals ahead you don’t just sit back and do nothing. You take action to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. So too with climate change. Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.
I’m trying really hard to understand what the Coast Guard has to do with climate change. How would you even determine whether or not you were doing enough about climate change as a Coast Guard cadet?
Really. Is it enough to just believe in climate change if you’re in the military? Obama makes it clear he doesn’t want any of his soldiers forming a contrary opinion on the matter. But why? Really. Why? Who cares what soldiers think about climate change? I really don’t understand why it makes any difference at all.

I’m not just fishing here. I’m actually flabbergasted. Obama says that climate change will “impact how our military defends our country.” Yes, but how? Let’s say climate change is a real danger, for argument’s sake. That would mean rising oceans, hotter temperatures (I guess), drought maybe, crop failure. Perhaps the military will have to help? But that won’t change the how of the military’s job. Just the when, where, and how much. It won’t change the way that the military defends the country, willit?
Am I missing something, or does this seem to anyone else like a horrible, agenda-driven, non sequitur?

from Last Resistance...

How America Fell for the Big Gay Lie

Description Gay parade.jpg
[The biggest Lie..!]

Those of us who have been following the debate over same-sex rights have known for decades that the number of homosexuals was never at the ten percent level. We knew it was around 2.5%. It’s probably less. WND reports:
"A just-released Gallup survey says Americans 'greatly overestimate' the number of their fellow citizens who identify as 'gay' or lesbian, mistakenly believing about 23 percent of the population fits this category."
Like everything the liberal media and advocacy rights organizations do to promote their causes, they lie. If they told the truth, their causes would not be accepted by the majority of Americans.

Unborn babies are blobs of tissue so let’s legalize vacuuming out their little body parts and flush them down the drain.
No matter what the liberal cause, there is most often a big lie behind it. Here’s the latest... 

Sunday, May 24, 2015

IF I WAS A BLACK MAN: I Wouldn’t Fear White Devils… I’d Fear Blacks

Screen Shot 2015-05-24 at 9.17.17 AM
by Doug Giles
If I was a black dude I wouldn’t be sweating getting offed by some pasty skinned white devil who listens to Cold Play and shops The Gap; or some buzz cut, “creepy-ass cracker” cop wearing Aviators.
Why wouldn’t I sweat such Caucasians?
Well … as a 52yr. old “black man” it’s primarily because of these six things:
— I’m not selling narcotics.
— I’m not carrying a switchblade.
— I’m not shaking down store clerks after they catch me stealing fists full of Swisher Sweets.
— I’m not beating the stuffing out of a cop after I dared him to run over me as I defiantly slow-trolled down the middle of the street.

— I’m not looting stores.
— I’m really not breaking any law (aside from an occasional speed limit) or hanging out with anyone doing shady stuff.
Ergo, as a hypothetical brother, I wouldn’t fear a Caucasian at anytime, anywhere, for anything. I’m cool … you see?
However, my teens were a wee bit different story chocked full of phobias. Righteous phobias, mind you.
As the theoretical black teen and twenty-something, I definitely would fear The Cracker because, back in my day, I was hell on two skinny legs.
Yep, as a “black teen” I would dread the white man, or any man for that matter, especially those sporting a badge — and here’s why: I did stupid, lawless, evil and wicked stuff with great regularity, that’s why.
Indeed, my fears would’ve been justified because I dealt drugs, burglarized homes and businesses, vandalized property, treated people like dirt and got into enough trouble for twenty punks.

It took a collision course with Johnny Law and Jesus Christ to wake my dumb-butt up.
What I’ve learned after over half-a-century of schlepping this third rock from the sun is this: If I don’t do whacked stuff then, generally speaking, I don’t have to fear people or police … duh.
That said, continuing with the “if i was a black guy I wouldn’t fear the white man” motif, I must say, given the empirical data of late, that if, as a black man, I had to fear anyone for anything at anytime it would be a black person – because the black on black crime is way more a threat to a black person than any thing a white dude is currently doling out. Read this if you think I’m full of crap.
Finally, I will let Chris Rock explain what he, as a law-abiding black man, truly fears. Remember, he said it. I didn’t. 

BIKINI FART PRANK: Watch Dudes React To This Hot Chick’s Farts

These guys love slathering sun screen on this chick…until they come to their senses, literally.