Bill Ayers' Vietnam Memories May Account For Obama's Claim To Have Eaten Dog Meat

Muslims Don't Eat Dogs, But Vietnamese Do

By Jack Cashill

WND.com
April 25, 2012

It turns out that the president may have taken an unnecessary hit with the revelation last week that the “Barack Obama” character in “Dreams from My Father,” his alleged memoir, ate dogs.

As explained in “Dreams,” Obama’s Muslim stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, introduced Obama to “dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy).”

Obama defenders quickly countered by insisting, accurately it seems, that Muslims don’t eat dogs. Apparently, Muhammad “prohibited eating (the meat of) every taloned bird and every predatory animal possessing canine teeth.” This, of course, would include dogs.

Among other pundits, John Hinderaker of Powerline offered the one synthesis that makes sense of these two competing ideas: “So Obama’s claim in his autobiography that he ate dog in Indonesia may well be false – an error introduced by Bill Ayers or whoever actually wrote Obama’s autobiography.”

READ MORE . . .

Read More

But What About Justice For Zimmerman?

By Lloyd Marcus

Proud Unhyphenated American

I keep thinking of an episode of the 1973 TV show, “Kojak: The Marcus-Nelson Murders.” Homicide detective Kojak suspects that the black teenager accused of murdering two white girls is being framed by his fellow detectives.

The case gets a lot of media attention; politics and careers enter the mix. The frightened accused black kid pleads his innocence to detective Kojak who believes him. Kojak educates the defendant to the cold harsh reality of the situation. Kojak informed the kid that despite his innocence, the case had become such a political hot button and because the police held the kid in jail for so long, he must be found guilty of something.

I see this same scenario developing in the Martin/Zimmerman case.

Most Americans desire a fair and just outcome of this tragedy. But, Lord help us if the evidence proves Zimmerman to be innocent. If Zimmerman is ruled not-guilty and allowed to walk, I foresee Rodney King-type riots in the streets. Thus, is Zimmerman's fate already sealed? Will a jury decide Zimmerman must be declared guilty of something?

While Al Sharpton, New Black Panthers and all of the other racist race-hustling usual suspects clamor for justice for Trayvon Martin, I wonder if justice is even possible for George Zimmerman.

Will political correctness ensure that Zimmerman be found guilty of something regardless of the evidence?

Tragically and frighteningly, we live in a time in which the law and truth appears to be losing relevance in America.

For example. Clearly, the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. And yet, Obama believes he can bully the Supreme Court to rule in his favor because “he” believes the mandate is a good thing. Ponder that folks, the president is pressuring U.S. Supreme Court justices to bend the truth and the law to suit his desires. Obama, the president who would be King.

For years, Democrats have been trying to abort the thorn-in-the-side stumbling block to their socialistic agenda known as the U.S. Constitution. Who could have imagined deceiving the American people into putting a black Trojan Horse extreme left liberal into the Oval Office would “Git-r-done”?

If Obama successfully forces U.S. Supreme Court justices to succumb to his politically correct interpretation of the law and rule Obamacare constitutional, setting such a precedence could mean so-called “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman is toast. It would mean facts, truth and the law are no longer relevant – only what the people/mob want rules the day.

Regardless if the evidence proves otherwise, Zimmerman will be found guilty of “something” to avoid riots in the streets. We are talking political correctness on steroids.

Folks, I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent. I do not know. I am simply saying in these morally bankrupt times in which we live, I am concerned that facts and truth are becoming irrelevant.

Since Zimmerman posted $150,000 bail, here are just a few of the shocking tweets calling for violence against him.

“Ima kill Zimmerman myself *loads semi* where he at” 

“I think imma personally kill George Zimmerman…anyone’s welcome to join (: …Leggggoooo !” 

‘I WOULD KILL DA SHYT OUTTA DAT ZIMMERMAN DUDE IF I SAW HIS A** BOAAAA’ 

“Someone pass me a gun, imma go follow zimmerman, shoot and kill him and say #imstandingmyground” 

“Lets kill #zimmerman” 

“They let Zimmerman free lets kill that MF” 

“George Zimmerman Released From Jail 150,000 Bail! WTF!  Ni**a You Are About To Die, Start Writing Your Will!…”

Have you heard the slightest hint of media outrage over the threats on Zimmerman's life? Have you heard any rebuke or threat of the Obama administration taking action against these thugs? Oh I know, they are still busy investigating Ted Nugent for passionately encouraging voters to “vote” Obama out in November.

But seriously folks, the media and Obama administration’s passivity regarding the threats on Zimmerman's life is shocking and should be an eye opener to us all. Anyone on the left's excrement list can expect no justice and no peace.

If those threatening Zimmerman's life are black, Attorney General Eric Holder has pretty much given them a pass. In 2010, Justice Department whistle-blower, J. Christian Adams said word came down from above to, “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.”

Where was the national media investigation, outrage and clamors for Holder's immediate resignation? Are we living in an Obama administration parallel universe bizarre-o world? Do I really need to state the obvious re-action had there been accusations of Bush's Justice Department saying they would not pursue white defendants?

No presidential call for civility toward George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is for the most part, on his own. All Zimmerman can do is hide. My fellow Americans, this is so very, very wrong. What is becoming of our great country? Lord help us!

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman – www.CampaignToDefeatObama.com
www.LloydMarcus.com

Read More

"The NRA's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats."

Negroes With Guns

By Ann Coulter

April 18, 2012

Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC'S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")

This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance. 

READ MORE . . . 

Read More

The Case for Amending the United States Constitution: An answer to Mark Levin

Mark Levin ended Ameritopia, his insightful study of the evolution of the American ideal, with questions about fixing the current state of American political affairs. He asks this about the shift in mindset of the American public from our original liberal rationalism to the empty beliefs in unworkable conscripted utopian fantasies: "The essential question is whether, in America, the people's psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual's spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society's institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is [im]possible? Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered?" He asks, "Are we capable of standing up to an oppressive government?"

I answer my brother in arms in part that we have been standing up to oppressive government since the Constitution went into operation in 1787, but to little effect.

The Civil War was one such fight. The Confederate States sent their children out to die by the hundreds of thousands, not so the parents could own some slaves. They fought the Federal government because they recognized that it was overreaching and destroying their freedom. They were fighting for freedom from government excess. They were willing to sacrifice their best in hopes of gaining freedom from oppressive government. (Yes, we all recognize the irony here.)

Jefferson documented the problem of Federal overreach in his Draft Declaration of Protest of Virginia, 1825 (http://www.academicamerican.com/jeffersonjackson/documents/JeffOnStatesRights.htm), and in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm). He stated generally the same things the Tea Party folks are saying today. Government was and still is skewing the meanings in the Constitution so it can violate the Constitution’s limits unchecked.

We have been fighting Federal overreach since our beginnings some 230 years ago. History and our state of affairs today are proof that our tactics have been ineffective. Despite our ongoing willingness to stand up to Federal overreach and despite our willingness even to fight to the death to deny it power over us, the Federal government is still overreaching. The source of the problem does not appear to be a failure to recognize oppression, nor is it an unwillingness to stand up and defend our rights. Some other force must be at work.

Most of today’s American citizens recognize that something is wrong with government, and we would fully and actively support a correction to the problem. We see the tens of trillions of dollars of government debt, and the amount of the debt we each owe, and the amount of debt our children owe on their birth. We go to work every day fearing we could lose our job and home due to an economy messed up by endless government intervention. We dread personal violation just to get on a plane at the airport. But before we can act, we must recognize the cause and the effect. Then we must have a clear and credible course to solving the problem. We must have a course that will not be a repeat of the same ineffective efforts used over the last 230 years. Calling to "throw the bums out" yet again will not work today, just as it has not worked in the past. That has not worked over the long run because the "bums" are not the problem. The primary cause of government excess can be found elsewhere, in a certain aspect of the structure of the contract that is the US Constitution.

When the original citizens joined with each other and created a new and experimental form of government, they inadvertently included in the Constitution a form of what is known in the legal world as an unconscionable contract. Such contracts are normally voided when brought to court, because they are inevitably sources of abuse

An unconscionable contract is one in which one party in a contract has an overpowering and unfair advantage in power over another party in the contract. This generally happens because one party has undue influence over the other, such as happens in a monopoly. Let's create an unconscionable contract between you and I, so you can see by example what I am referring to.

I am a used car salesman. For whatever reason, I am the only salesman you can buy from. You buy a car from me with a contract that states that I may extract funds from your bank account to cover installment payments for the car. The contract also states that I may make terms regarding your use of the car while you are making payments on it; you must have insurance before you can drive it, etc. The contract includes a clause saying that in case of apparent violation of the contract, I have the sole power of arbitration.

You need a car. You can't buy one anywhere else. You have to take my contract and live with it, or you can't have a car.

At this point the contract is unconscionable. The arbitrator has an obvious vested interest in the outcome of any decisions. I have way too much power over you. I decide that the price you paid was too low, and start taking more money from your account than we had agreed to. I decide to take the car from you on Sundays so I can drive it around, without your say-so. It isn't yours yet. You haven't paid for it.

What can you do about it? I have the sole power of arbitration in case of disagreements. You must take up your disagreement with me for resolution. Don't like it? Too bad. If you don't let me have my way, I've got guys working for me who will take your car away.

That characterizes the flaw in the US Constitution.

The Constitutional contract sets up two parties; the citizens, and the Federal government. The Federal government is effectively a monopoly. The contract gives government the ability to take money from us at will. It gives government the ability to make rules about our behavior. If we have differences with government, we can only take up the issue with government. Protest too much? Government has cops to throw you in jail and take your freedom away.

The theory of government at the time of the Framing was that the Judicial branch would be a neutral third party who would prevent the characteristic of an unconscionable contract. The Framers intended for the Court to be a neutral arbitrator in cases of apparent breaches of the contract. The theory was correct, certainly, but time has proved a flaw in the implementation. All of the known Federal violations of the rights of the people have been done with the Federal Court in place. Either the Court supports the violations, or the Court itself created the violation, or the process of asking the Court for arbitration has been insufficient. The Court is not neutral. It is a creation of the Legislature and Executive, so it reflects the character of those bodies. The Court does not actively police for violations. It only responds to complaints, and it tends to only hear from those with enough resources to counter the substantial resources of the Federal government.

Despite the many positive and good characteristics of our experiment in self-government-by-contract, the Constitution meets all of the technical criteria of an unconscionable contract both in its structure and in its effects. I suggest that much, perhaps most, of our governmental overreach stems from this fact.

Recall the summary of Publius' discussions on the inability of the balance of powers to keep government within its legal limits in Federalist No. 48: "The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands." The balance of powers will not save you from your government's oppression, he said. Something else is required.

In No. 49 Publius enlightens us: "But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government." Liberty depends on the ability of the citizens to keep their government within rational and moral limits; within "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in other words. Without a proper check on government, we eventually become serfs to government.

Isabel Paterson described in her brilliant political book The God of the Machine (available as a free download on scribd.com, http://www.scribd.com/doc/9557730/The-God-of-the-Machine-by-Isabel-Paterson) how a machine without a braking system must eventually destroy itself, like a car with no brakes would be a rolling disaster. In successful government, she writes, the citizens have effective power of veto over government actions. The US Constitution lacks an effective mechanism to allow the citizens to apply the brake to government.

To fix the problems we have been having over the last 230 years, we must address the problem, not in ways that have been tried repeatedly, and proven ineffective over time. Effective reform will address the deeper cause of the overreach. To reform government means literally that we must change the structure of government. To change the structure of our government, the contract must be changed.

The Framers understood that their design was not perfect, so they provided not just one, but two tools to change the contract when flaws became apparent. Congress can begin the amendment process, and so can the State legislatures. An attempt at amendment organized and executed by Federal politicians would be a disaster. That would be putting the robbers in charge of designing a bank's security system. This amendment is an action is to protect the citizens from the Federal lawmakers, not to give abusive lawmakers more power over us. An Article V States’ Convention is called for.

Some people have concerns about the implications of an Article V States' Convention. The Goldwater Institute has an excellent and well researched three part series addressing the topic. Anyone with concerns about the realities of a States' Convention would be advised to start here (http://goldwaterinstitute.org/articlev) before digging through Google or the Wikepedia.

An Article V Convention would address the unconscionable characteristic of the otherwise good contract. We need an amendment, or amendments, to create a neutral third party to act as arbitrator of the Constitutional contract. The amendment would probably split the Federal Court in two, with one court acting as arbitrator between the Federal government, and the States and their citizens; and a second court acting as arbitrator between the States and their citizens. A police power would probably have to be added to the neutral party to actively look for infractions, instead of waiting passively for someone with enough resources to file suit. The judicial and policing power would be almost all negative powers, like the powers of a referee in a football game. The referee does not advance the game. He only judges and enforces the limits. An arbitrator with positive powers, such as the powers of law making or extraction of money from the citizens, would be an expansion of government, not a limiter of government. Given positive powers, the arbitrator would become a liability, not an asset.

The chief arbitrator would be an employee of the citizens, unlike the members of the Federal Court today who are employees of the government. The citizens would define how the arbitrator performs their job. The citizens would have the power to remove the office holder from office at any time. The citizens would finance the office directly and set pay rates directly. Through this office we would finally have an effective brake on government. We would finally have our power of veto over the overreaching actions of the Federal government.

An Article V Convention would need a champion with the skills to bring it together and make it happen. Such a person would be someone who understands and believes in good process, who has skills to reach out to others, and who recognizes the importance of correcting the obvious structural weakness in the Constitution.

The case for the Convention would have to be well prepared and then presented to the various State legislatures. The general intents and requirements of the amendment would have to be clearly written out and documented so the States would have a standard to apply when voting yes or no . Credible timelines and processes for putting the amendment in place would have to be detailed before the amendment was finalized. You cannot suddenly change the structure of a large body overnight, because doing so would tear the body apart. The Application of the Convention must provide enough clear language so that Congress would find it difficult to stray from the general design of the amendment, perhaps it would include a rough draft of the amendment. Before this process could begin, all of these things and more would have to be hammered out for presentation to the State legislatures.

So, to answer Levin's question more directly: The American people do still care enough about themselves and their children to want to address the problem of excessive government, and we will do so if given a credible and clear direction. But I am concerned in part because many people fight necessary change out of fear. And I am concerned in part because so few of us recognize the primary cause of the problem is not the people in government, but the structure of government. Blaming, finger pointing and factionalizing are easy, but never solve the problem. Considering drastic changes in the structure of government is hard, but necessary, and for some people, upsetting. This is what the Founding Fathers went through 230-plus years ago when ending the oppression of Great Britain and when drafting the Constitution. Our struggle is the continuation of their struggle. Just as they had to consider serious and drastic changes in the structure of government to end their oppression, so must we.

Read More

What If Barack Obama Had Been Raised By Ann Romney Instead Of Ann Dunham?

Why Do They Want To Pick on Ann Romney?

By Karin McQuillan

AmericanThinker.com

April 19, 2012

What President in his right mind would authorize an attack on any mom as a woman who "never worked a day in her life"?  How could the brilliant campaign strategist Obama shoot himself in the foot when the War on Women was going so well for him?

Ann Romney's oldest son Tagg was baffled why anyone would attack his mom when he was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt about growing up in the Romney home.  Ann stayed home and raised their five sons and now has the joy of 16 grandkids. 

In a word: the White House decision to attack Ann Romney was personal.  To understand it, we need to look at two Anns: Ann Romney, and Obama's mother, Ann Dunham.

READ MORE . . .

Read More

Calming The Storm of Martin/Zimmerman Related Racial Violence

By Lloyd Marcus

Proud Unhyphenated American

As a black conservative Tea Party patriot, I have been struggling with what I should do, if anything, in response to the rash of incidents of racial violence resulting from the Martin/Zimmerman case. Folks, a great evil is running the show in our country right now.

Prolific race-hustler Al Sharpton is heralded as a hero.  Attorney General Eric Holder ignores the New Black Panther “dead or alive” bounty on George Zimmerman. Three major TV networks are caught manipulating facts of the Martin/Zimmerman case to fuel racial hatred and anger. Minister Farrakhan tweeted referring to the Martin/Zimmerman case, “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon and very soon, the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”

Even a nut case white supremacist group have thrown their hat, or skinned heads, into the ring, threatening violence.

Rather than showing pictures of 6'3” seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, nearly every TV news broadcast features pictures of Trayvon as an adorable little boy in his little league football uniform. This is done by design to further the media's storyline: innocent-little-black-boy-murdered-by-evil-racist-white-man. Zimmerman is not white. He is Hispanic. To further the mainstream media storyline, the New York Times has deemed Zimmerman, a “white” Hispanic.

I do not know what transpired between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. I do know that the Race Industry has gone to extraordinary, dishonest lengths to promote its innocent-little-black-boy-murdered-by-evil-racist-white-man storyline.

Even president Obama despicably and masterfully fueled the flames of racial hatred by saying, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”. As a seasoned professional politician, president Obama surely knew his comment would up the ante of black rage.

So yes, as Christian and as patriot, I wondered, what should I do to help calm the storm of Martin/Zimmerman related racial violence? Should I rally black conservatives to denounce the violence and call for unity at a press conference? No, the liberal biased mainstream media would not cover such a press conference. Non-victim-minded blacks do not fit the media-desired image of America. Blacks who love their country without resentment toward fellow Americans who are white are as repulsive to the mainstream media as showing Dracula the cross.

Well, what about a racial peace rally – blacks and whites standing together, singing songs and talking about unity. No, Obama's SEIU thugs and/or the New Black Panthers could exploit the event by showing up to assault patriots.

Remember Kenneth Gladney, the black conservative who was beaten and sent to the emergency room by SEIU thugs at a town hall meeting during the health care debates? Many believe Gladney's beating was in response to Obama White House's clarion call to “push back twice as hard” and get in the faces of those opposing Obamacare.

The mainstream media will never tell the truth about black-on-white crime. When reporting incidents of black-on-white violence, the media walks a tightrope, bending over backwards to avoid mentioning race. And yet I heard a report on the radio in which the reporter, without hesitation, up front and in your face said five “black” men were shot by a “white” male in a white pickup truck. This type of story fits the racist image that the media desires to portray of white America. According to the media, blacks are ALWAYS the victims and never the aggressors. 

So how do we right-thinking, decent Americans counter all the racial hate, evil and violence, fueled by media and the Obama administration, that's contaminating our great country?

Mary is away, up north visiting family. Thus, I found myself in the grocery store checkout line with my shopping cart one-third full. An elderly white gentleman in line behind me had two items. “Excuse me sir – you can go in front of me.” He gleefully replied, “Thank you very much.” After the cashier had bagged his items and given the elderly white gentleman his change, he thanked me again.

I thought, that's it! For now, until God leads me otherwise, I can simply continue doing what I, along with millions of my fellow Americans, do every day: seize every opportunity to spread racial harmony and kindness. I know that sounds corny, but I know it is the right thing to do.

Despite what the Race Industry would have you believe, a majority of Americans are not at each other throats, divided along racial lines. However, this is unquestionably the agenda of the Race Industry. Incidents of race related violence are on the rise since the Martin/Zimmerman incident.

Most Americans are over “the race thing.” Americans live, work and play together just fine. Interracial marriage is far from being the big deal it was in the past. Unfortunately, it is the mission of the mainstream media, the Obama administration and race profiteers to keep the Race Industry alive and profitable. These people (race instigators and exploiters) are evil.

Therefore, it is up to us – proud responsible Americans – to continue sowing seeds of racial harmony, brotherhood and peace.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Campaign To Defeat Obama

Read More

AGU: An Open Letter to Coco Lederhosen (@conor64)

Dear Mr. Lederhosen,

Your readers trust you. For all their cynicism about politics, they believe that you're different: not just another Venice Beach know-it-all with odd Bohemian ideas and a commitment to misinforming regular Americans. You've used that trust to ask homemakers, retirees and small businessmen and women to believe the obsessive nonsense and Obama propaganda you write.

Last summer when The Undefeated opened you deliberately misinformed your readers with an article about the film opening to empty theaters.

However.

On a per screen basis citizen activism helped The Undefeated hold it’s own against Harry Potter, The Transformers, and Winnie the Pooh.

Even the Los Angeles Times was so impressed by the ability to use practically no marketing money, they conceded:

“This is a new model that is going to benefit the entire entertainment industry and audiences who want to see unique products“

But this isn't how you informed your trusted readers.

You wrote an article bragging that you spent the evening peeping on two teenagers making out in the back of an empty theater.

Only at the very end of your article did you inform your readers that this was a special midnight showing of the film prior to opening day.

Sure, you've written slightly true articles in the past. But you deliberately continue to misinfom your trusted readers with half truths, distortions, and intentional perversions of reality.

Why would any reader trust you as a steward of honest information again?

Every single SarahPAC video is 100% related to fresh ideas and issue's.

These fresh ideas and issue's have inspired thousands of Americans to get involved in the political process and bring about real change.

In the 2010 election cycle alone concerned citizen actvists inspired by Sarah Palin and the efforts of SarahPAC brought victory to over 67% of Governor Palin's endorsed candidates.

Some of these include: 1 Secretary of State, 2 Attorney's General, 6 Senators, 7 Governors, and 37 House Representatives.

Thats real change and that is why ordinary every day Americans are inspired by and donate to SarahPAC.

You lied to your readers by telling them that Sarah Palin went to Disney World on the donors dime. Failing to mention that Governor Palin was at the resort raising in excess of $900K for the Florida GOP (pretty impressive in a non election year) is misleading, dishonest, and deceptive to your readers.

FYI: with only $967.34 for lodging, that is a 1000% return on investment.

That is the truth. But you don't seem to care about truth when it comes to your readers.

Did you think you'd get away with this just because the liberal media is curiously silent when unpopular movement writers shamelessly fleece the rank and file?

For the sake of your readers, please do not reply in writing.

Sincerely,

Thomas S Schmitz

American Grizzlies United



American Grizzlies United Website: http://americangrizzlies.com/

Follow AGU on Twitter: @AGUGrizzlies

Follow O4P on Twitter: @O4Palin

Follow S4P on Twitter: @_Students4Palin

Follow Thomas on Twitter: @ThomasSSchmitz

Follow AGU on Facebook: American Grizzlies United (AGU)

Subscribe to the AGU You-Tube Channel: AmericanGrizzliesU

 

 

 

 

Read More