It’s a “Man Eat Dog” World! (Open Thread)

©Bridgette@WTPOTUS

It’s No Longer, A “Dog Eat Dog” Kind of  World

in the Age of Obama!

4

4

 This is kinda Ruff!

4

Words from Some Mutts to another Mutt!

4

4

Or we’ll be, Doggone!

4

Is it a weiner dog?  Yummmmm….

4

And in dog speak, they respond:

We don’t have hangdog looks for nothin!

Watch out, we grow up to be gundogs!

We’ve been dogmatized!

Obama has doglegs? You don’t say!

Chili dogs give us gas.

Is Obama in the doghouse yet?

Are the media still Obama’s Lapdogs?

Was Obama a dognapper when he ate our relatives?

Can anyone tell us about Obama’s dogma?

Who said that MO has a dogface? That woman could pull a dog sled.

We are waiting to see Obama become the underdog.

We are dogmatic when we bark that our bravest and best are conservative watchdogs!

We are tired of Obama wagging the dog!

Finally, get rid of that friggin’, canine consuming, snake and bug eating Obama!

We predict that the dog days of Obama will end in November, 2012.

Please contribute generously to the fund  “Save BO from being eaten by the Mutt” sponsored  by the Humane Society.

What a real boondoggle!

As a follow-up to their barked concerns, they sent the following to show how they really, really feel.   It’s all pawsible!

Michelle walking the dog. Ewwww, says BO.

4

An expression of true feelings!

4
4

H/T  -first two photos- Diogenesis at Free Republic
Obama eating a dog  – Breitbart.com

About these ads

169 responses to “It’s a “Man Eat Dog” World! (Open Thread)

  1. Don’t forget it was the “anti-dog eat dog rule” that was the first drop in the bucket that led to the communist transformation of America in Atlas Shrugs. anti-dog-eat-dog sounds like man-eat-dog sounds like Obama – it all just fits, huh?

  2. “Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Lies Again to His Viewers about Obama’s Felony Identity Document Fraud”

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/bill-oreilly-lies-again-to-his-viewers.html

    • I agree that “truth doesn’t matter anymore.” O’Really himself will not look at the truth. Cannot handle the truth. The truth is that Obama has NEVER proved with unimpeachable paper documents that he WAS born in the USA. “Journalistic standards have collapsed,” when O’Really takes what his staff finds on the Internet as proof that Obama was born here, when a duly elected sheriff and independent retired police detectives have proven that there’s PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that not only the birth certificates but also HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION were FORGED. O’Really doesn’t want to know the truth. O’Really can’t handle the truth. “You can pretty much do anything you want in the media and the courts don’t care.” We’ve seen that more than enough times as court after court refuses to make Obama prove that what he’s put on the Internet is legitimate. O’Really, I’ve already voted “with the clicker,” which is why I don’t watch your program anymore. When people tip us to these clips of your show, it only reinforces my belief that your show is worthless and you are nothing but a shill for Obama.

      • O’Reily knows the truth; enough people have informed him and given him data. He just doe not want to report it. Traitor.

        • I agree. They’ve been threatened at FOX and O’Really has a bad case of tingle leg plus man crush plus white guilt. A dangerous threesome. I began to lose faith in his common sense when he actually said that that poor boy, Sean Hornbeck, who was kidnapped and imprisoned for 4 years by a homosexual predator, was happy to have the freedom from his parents oversight.

  3. Agenda – Grinding America Down (Important Viewing)

    The Socialist – Marxist – Communist take over of our Country from within, and how it was / is being done. A must watch, please take the time.

    After viewing please forward, the time is NOW to take our Country back.

  4. April 25, 2012

    “Peter Boyles Show”:

    “Dr. Jerome Corsi joins Peter for this full hour to discuss the undisclosed records of Barrack Obama including his student records; transcripts, applications, scholarships and loans. Dr. Corsi talks about the media protection President Obama benefits from allowing him to conceal his past and escape objective vetting.”

    http://www.khow.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=fullshow_boyles&selected_podcast=04252012peter6am_1335364491_14544.mp3

    • Gotta have those “official stops” so that We the People pay for her campaign jaunts. Abusive. Even the lefties say it’s abusive of the taxpayers.

  5. http://atlah.org/2012/04/24/elizabeth-manning-accosted-by-gang-members-obama-supporters/
    We need to get a HANDLE on this NOW!!!! What will happen on VOTING DAY ??? And George Zimmerman ????
    In the last 3 months …120 Blacks killed ….120 Blacks …….
    NOT a PEEP from OUR race baiting crew/czars…. What’s UP WIZ THAT?

  6. Part of comment by John Doe Sr. at ORYR:

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/tony-perkins-questions-about-obamas.html?showComment=1335386087120#c107909418843679030

    “This is from an email I just received. It appears that Oklahoma’s eligibility bill, SB 1569, is going nowhere…and, here is the latest BS from Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn on Obama’s ineligibility. It even addresses Sheriff Joe:

    April 20, 2012

    Dear Mr. ,

    Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding President Obama, his eligibility for office, and Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation of the president’s birth certificate. It is good to hear from you again, and I am glad to hear you caught my interview on KFAQ radio.

    First and foremost, I believe President Obama’s own actions have demonstrated to the American people that he should not be re-elected for another term as president. The high rate of unemployment and our exploding national debt and deficit make a compelling case for why President Obama’s liberal agenda has not been successful.

    Even so, while I disagree with most of President Obama’s policy positions, I believe he is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President of the United States. My belief is based upon the fact that he was born in Hawaii, as the release of his long-form birth certificate proves, and his mother is a U.S. citizen. My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories. Also, Sheriff Arpaio stated that his investigation does not prove that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible for office or that he personally committed fraud.

    It is also important to point out that in the 2008 election, each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results. Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.

    Again, thank you for writing. I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Best wishes!

    Sincerely,

    Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
    United States Senator”
    ===============
    “Thomas Allen “Tom” Coburn, M.D. (born March 14, 1948), is a United States Senator, medical doctor, and Southern Baptist deacon. A member of the Republican Party, he is the junior senator from Oklahoma.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn

    • Gordo, But now this today as well.
      Oh but if this is correct I will be so proud of the Supremes !

      Supreme Court Appears To Favor Arizona On Controversial Immigration Law.

      YES ! You go SUPREMES !

      • And Gordo, from that same WT link above….
        Sonia says she is so confused……ROTFL !
        That is not exactly what I call confused…I call it something else….

      • http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/justice/scotus-arizona-law/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

        “Washington (CNN) — Parts of Arizona’s sweeping immigration law received a surprising amount of support from a short-handed Supreme Court Wednesday.

        States throughout the country considering their own tough immigration laws are closely following the proceedings over what has become a thorny issue.

        Fed up with illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico — and what they say is the federal government’s inability to stop it — legislators in Arizona passed a tough immigration law. The federal government sued, saying that Arizona overreached.

        “If, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia. “What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?”

        Even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the federal governments’ lawyer that key parts of his arguments were “not selling very well.”

        Paul Clement, lawyer for Arizona, told the high court the federal government has long failed to control the problem, and that states have discretion to assist in enforcing immigration laws.

        But the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, strongly countered that assertion, saying immigration matters are under the federal government’s exclusive authority and state “interference” would only make matters worse. …

        But the consistently tough questions were aimed at Verrilli from conservative members of the high court.

        Even before the solicitor general began speaking midway through the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts framed the debate away from what has become a major complaint about the law: that it would target mostly Hispanic people for scrutiny and detention.

        “I’d like to clear up at the outset what it’s not about,” Roberts said. “No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” Verrilli readily agreed.

        Later the chief justice raised more serious concerns. When enforcing other law, “the person is already stopped for some other reason. He’s stopped for going 60 in a 20 (mph zone). He’s stopped for drunk driving. So that decision to stop the individual has nothing to do with immigration law at all. All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you,” Roberts said to Verrilli. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not.”

        Justice Anthony Kennedy echoed the thought, suggesting the federal government is not doing enough on illegal immigration, which might give states discretion to intervene. Suppose, he offered, “the state of Arizona has a massive emergency with social disruption, economic disruption, residents leaving the state because of a flood of immigrants. Let’s just assume those two things. Does that give the state of Arizona any powers or authority or legitimate concerns that any other state wouldn’t have?”

        Kennedy was echoing what the state had long been arguing, and he later suggested there is such authority.

        Verrilli argued the law would hurt Washington’s ability to carry out diplomatic relations with other nations, noting, “We have very significant issues on the border with Mexico.”

        “Well, can’t you avoid that particular foreign relations problem by simply deporting these people?” Scalia asked. “Free them from the jails and send them back to the countries that are objecting. What’s the problem with that?

        “We have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico. Is that what you’re saying?”

        Republican lawmakers, outspoken Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and various state governments were among those filing briefs supporting the law. The Mexican government, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the city of Tucson, Arizona, were among those supporting the Justice Department’s side.

        The outcome of the Arizona appeal could set important precedent on similar laws pending across the country.

        The case is Arizona v. U.S. (11-182) and is to be the last argued before the high court this term. A ruling could come in late June, just before the justices recess for the summer.”

    • Where is it written in the Constitution that if a person does not meet the CLEAR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONSTITUTION, a person nevertheless becomes “legitimized” if he can trick every state into putting him on the ballot?

      Coburn needs to return to Civics class and learn what the Constitution says. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that someone say, age 10, can be elected POTUS so long as the 50 states put him on the ballot and the people elect him.

      So Coburn admits that each state has the ability to determine eligibility? In that case, perhaps he would be willing to file a friend of the court brief in any of the ballot eligibility cases and advise the judge to that effect–that it’s the responsibility of each state to ask a candidate to prove his eligibility.

      But it’s also the role of Congress, according to the 20th Amendment:

      “Twentieth Amendment

      Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

      Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

      Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

      • And the U.S. Code provides further authority:

        “Counting electoral votes in congress

        § 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.”

    • SENATOR COBURN: YOUR ALLEGATION IS AN OXYMORON.

      IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO “LEGITIMIZE” AN ACT THAT IS EXTRALEGAL. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO “LEGITIMIZE” THE CANDIDACY OF A PERSON WHO IS INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

      NO LAW EMPOWERS STATES TO “LEGITIMIZE” A CANDIDATE FOR POTUS SIMPLY BY PUTTING HIM ON THE BALLOT.

      THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EMPOWER STATES TO “LEGITIMIZE” A CANDIDATE FOR POTUS SIMPLY BY PUTTING HIM ON THE BALLOT.

      NOTHING IN LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS STATES TO WAIVE THE CLEAR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

      THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. IT CAN ONLY BE CHANGED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

      YOU, SIR, ARE WRONG AND IN VIOLATION OF YOUR SWORN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

  7. EATING CROW? …… could G Z…. ALSO be OBAMA’s off spring!
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2876518/posts

    • Zimmerman is BLACK! So he’s a white black hispanic. From Zenway’s link:

      “But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman’s past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.

      Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.

      The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

      A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

      Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

      “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.””

      • Miri, I love this.
        “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.””

        snip~
        Miri, I love this woman, a real live, honest woman. It is not about racism and she says it. She should be our new President.

      • And that story tells us that Robert Zimmerman was Baptist. So not Jewish despite the name and living in Florida. (Although we don’t know his ancestors’ religion.) So here we finally have a lamestream media outlet doing what they SHOULD HAVE DONE FROM THE BEGINNING, MONTHS AGO–reported FACTS and nothing BUT FACTS.

  8. one-drop rule…. any person with…. “one drop of BLACK BLOOD”
    is considered BLACK. That stands ~ 4 ~ GEORGE ZIMMERMAN
    Start playing fair folks …. HEY!!! Holder needs to talk to HIS PEOPLE !

    • Well, he may just have more black blood than Obama has, if you count Barry’s as “ARAB”, as so many allege. When you think about it, Zimmerman is the quintessential American–he’s white, black, hispanic, Native South American (indigenous Peruvian). The only thing missing is Asian. He’s nearly every “race” known to man. :)

  9. If that’s just ain’t the “BEE’S KNEES”
    So good to feel good, if just for a short while…
    Love is in the AIR!!!!! A TON has been lifted for some….?

  10. Hi, folks,
    Basically what they need to do (meaning blacks, et al., as well as any person of any skin color) is quit worrying about someone’s skin color. We’re all of the human race, all of us. Actually there’s a race of man (people-kind) and there’s a race of animals. But there’s only ONE RACE OF MAN, which is all of us (including women) no matter our skin color. That’s the true meaning of race. As with many things, the definitions change because of what, IDIOTS! Socialists!

    It’s just stupid for them to be caught up in their hatred mess.

    It all boils down to this, they have taken in the lies that have been taught throughout society and in movies, etc. Most of the stuff that they have trusted in and think is real is a huge lie. Sure there are people who don’t like or care for a person’s skin color. I don’t know why, and perhaps it’s just their ignorance and the lies that that they fell into.

    • It is true Kitty. I agree. I also think that thugs of all colors make excuses for what they do with the poor me stuff. I do not buy in. People of ALL colors come to America or are from America and work and try hard, get along and just be, the best they can be. This sort of crap ruins things for the rest of us. I have talked openly and honestly lately with black people about this stuff and they feel EXACTLY like we do. They are not so easily lead or used either. They too have worked hard for their lives.

    • There’s too much greed tied up in this. People benefit or suffer based upon skin color. As long as that is allowed to continue (no matter which color is on top), there will be animosity. That’s why the America we grew up in–the one we BELIEVED in, even if sometimes we didn’t live up to our ideals–is so very special. This alone, among all countries in history and on the face of this Earth, was founded upon the IDEAL that all men and women are created equal, and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Some do not want us to live that way anymore. They want a racial spoils system that allows them to exact revenge and retribution for real or imagined crimes committed by dead people against their dead ancestors.

  11. BTW, I read the stuff about George Zimmerman. I think that George really doesn’t care or give a flip about skin color. I think that Zimmerman cares about the person, regardless.

    WE live in a huge country of hatred towards many kinds of people today. Why? It wasn’t this way before BO took office. This is what BO wants, chaos. He wants it this way to succeed in his goal of taking down the US. Many people really are ignorant of things because the schools have failed to teach them, and those that tried to teach, the idiots didn’t listen and learn.

    Who is the author of chaos, the author of confusion? I know that you-all know what and who I’m speaking of, right?

    • Exactly. It wasn’t this way before that racist BO took office. Within the past week, it was reported that Barry suddenly says he never claimed to be “post racial”.

      “Reflecting on whether there had been a change in racial politics since he became president, Obama said he has never accepted the idea that his election represented a “post-racial period.”

      Still, he said, he often hears people remark about the importance to black children of having an African-American president and African-American first lady.

      “That’s hugely important,” he added, “but you shouldn’t also underestimate the fact that there are a whole bunch of little white girls and white boys all across the country who just take it for granted that there’s an African-American president. That’s the president they’re growing up with, and that’s changing attitudes.””

      When I first read this, I thought the man was actually going to admit that he’s the president of WHITE CHILDREN, too. But no. Do you see the implication? The RACIST IMPLICATION? These “white” children are BORN WITH THAT ORIGINAL SIN OF RACISM WHICH MUST BE ROOTED OUT. They have the racist “attitude” already. That’s what must be “changed,” as they’re growing up. They have the attitude inborn. That’s his opinion and it’s a RACIST opinion–that white children must be reeducated because his assumption is they’re born racist (or alternately, he ASSUMES that their parents have raised them to be racist, and that “attitude” must be “changed” by his sitting in the Oval Office).

      • It’s because “Barry,” or whatever his names are, bought into that stupid critical race theory, which is a bunch of baloney.

  12. This will make a good campaign ad for Romney. http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oil-companies-crucify-them-just-romans-crucified

    “Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

    Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

    In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

    “I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

    “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

    “Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

    “It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

    Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began a smear campaigns natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

    “Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

    “In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.””

    • AND ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST. Under the bus with Al Armendariz: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/top-epa-official-resigns-over-crucify-comment/512276

      Congressional lawmakers will press ahead with an investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s aggressive regulation of fossil fuel producers despite the resignation Monday of a top EPA official who claimed it is the Obama administration’s policy to “crucify” companies that don’t comply with those regulations.

      The EPA disclosed Monday that a regional administrator in Dallas, Al Armendariz, resigned after it was disclosed last week that he talked in a 2010 video of making an example out of those who violate the EPA’s regulations.

      “It is kind of like how the Romans used to conquer villages in the Mediterranean,” Armendariz said in the video, explaining the EPA’s enforcement technique. “They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw, they’d crucify ‘em, and that little town was really easy to manage for the next few years.””

      So let me guess: if he’s a “former” employee, he can’t be subpoenaed?

      • The Congressional investigation will include getting information from people or companies that have been intimidated or put out of business by the EPA. This could take years of investigation! The Ismistas are being exposed on a daily basis and they will deserve everything that happens to them, and I certainly hope we will start seeing them feeling the consequences and punished soon. It’s time for Congress to release their findings on so many issues they are investigating and let the indictments begin.

  13. A Marine has his career destroyed for daring to criticize Barry on Facebook:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/marine-corps-discharges-sergeant-who-posted-facebook-posts-critical-obama/

    “A sergeant will be discharged for criticizing President Obama on Facebook in a case that called into question the Pentagon’s policies about social media and its limits on the speech of active duty military personnel, the Marine Corps said Wednesday.

    Sgt. Gary Stein will get an other-than-honorable discharge and lose most of his benefits for violating the policies, the Corps said.

    The San Diego-area Marine who has served nine years in the Corps said he was disappointed by the decision. He argued that he was exercising his constitutional rights to free speech.

    “I love the Marine Corps, I love my job. I wish it wouldn’t have gone this way. I’m having a hard time seeing how 15 words on Facebook could have ruined my nine-year career,” he told The Associated Press.

    Gary Kreep, an attorney for Stein, said he would pursue administrative appeals within the Marine Corps but anticipates the effort will fail. He said he planned to file an amended complaint in federal court.”

    • A message to military personnel – don’t step out of line. They do teach discipline and group think. That is how they work. They aren’t supposed to be political – that isn’t a right in the military.

      It is a shame how some of these patriots are used as purposeful examples. This administration and the morons running things are pathetic. Some of them should be brought up on charges themselves. I am waiting for the day.

      • Well, he and his lawyer are appealing. I agree that it’s important for “good order” but I can’t help but think about LTC Lakin. I’ll bet that back when GWB was POTUS, there were some members of the military speaking out in similar tones and they weren’t drummed out based upon the content of what they said. Today, if, for example, gays in the military speak out politically on FACEBOOK, I bet they’re not sanctioned. I heard on radio today how much the troops loved GWB and how they spontaneously erupted in cheers and applause when he showed up. On the other hand, after a few silent “welcomes” for Obama, the troops were ORDERED to applaud and cheer for Obama. We figured, but it’s interesting to hear confirmation. I also heard a funny tidbit. Asked to name people he met over the years that he “loves”, the Dalia Lama named George W. Bush. Well, who would expect him to name Obama “as a human being” given the reception he got from him?

  14. Film: President’s father not Barack Obama

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/film-presidents-father-not-barack-obama/

    Dreams from My Real Father

    • That’s not a dream; that’s a nightmare.

      • 1:56 in the video is Michelle’s sarcastic statement about how “there are kids who still believe in the American Dream; they think it exists.” Romney should use this in a campaign ad, but he’s already declared wives off limits. I hope the PACS use it, though. That’s what it comes down to.

        Will we continue to have the AMERICAN DREAM

        or

        Will we embrace socialism, communism, Marxism and say goodbye FOREVER to the American DREAM?

        By the way, I am torn about this. While it’s an amazing resemblance, especially the head tilt to the right (you’d think the left), I wonder if they’re putting this out there now as Plan B, because if his parents were Frank Marshall Davis and Stanley Ann Dunham (provided she even existed), then he has two U.S. citizen parents, such as they were.

    • “The American people will embrace the ‘change’! ” BHO

      “For a lot of kids, the doors that have been opened to me aren’t open to them! “ – BHO [No kidding!]

      “The Abraham Lincoln Schoolthis is a progressive [Communist] school.” – Frank Davis

      There are kids who still believe in the American dream, they think it exists! – Michelle Obama

      “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
      - BHO

      “In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1%, the breathtaking greed of a few…” BHO

    • Rosemary Woodhouse

      The ideology may be the same, and evidence strongly suggests that FMD was his ideological mentor, but I, as well as many, still maintain he bears an striking resemblance to X.

  15. April 26, 2012
    “Peter Boyles Show”:

    “Jack Cashill independent writer producer and columnist for WND.com is on the show to discuss the mysterious clouded path of Barrack Obama and who provided funding for Barrack and Michelle Obama’s education. Jack recently wrote an article for wnd.com about Obama’s autobiography “Dreams of my Father” and some inconsistencies about eating dog and being Muslim. The crux of the article is that Bill Ayers may have actually written Obama’s autobiography.”

    http://www.khow.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=fullshow_boyles&selected_podcast=04262012peter8am_1335452381_902.mp3

    ==========
    “MUSLIMS DON’T EAT DOGS, BUT VIETNAMESE DO”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/muslims-dont-eat-dogs-but-vietnamese-do/

    • I bet Papuans do, too. Or people from Equatorial Guinea.

    • I pointed out yesterday that Muslims don’t eat dogs, but I’m no defender of Barry. I figured he may have been telling the truth because he didn’t become Muslim until he lived with Lolo but he ate dog before that, as a child wherever the heck he REALLY was born and under the identity that really is his. Whether Papua New Guinea or Equatorial Guinea or Bali or Kenya or wherever (do Hawaiians eat dogs?), he’s stuck with the tale now and it’s funny that it came back to bite him in the rear.

      “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.”

      Hinderaker added astutely, “But it is way too late now for Obama to disavow the autobiography that he allegedly wrote.”

      In searching to see whether Ayers had done any dog eating in his colorful past, I stumbled upon the amusing find that “Dreams” is listed on Ayers’ Google Books page.

      Despite a healthy interest in dogs – there are 20 distinct dog references in his 2001 memoir “Fugitive Days” – Ayers does not appear to have eaten any. He did, however, threaten “to burn a dog to death with napalm in protest of the war.” … This is why I think Hinderaker is right. Throughout “Dreams” one can hear Ayers’ vision of Vietnam being imposed on the post-Vietnam Obama, and that may well have come down to cuisine as well. Dogs were and still are a delicacy in Vietnam. Wikipedia cites the country as one of four where dog-eating rocks. …

      One more thing. In “Audacity of Hope,” Obama tells of his first visit to the home of his future in-laws, “All that was missing was the dog,” he laments.

      Apparently, his reputation preceded him.”

      I love Jack Cashill. :) And I bet he didn’t have to look up “baleful”.

      • It’s funny. His defenders defend him by admitting that he LIED in his book? Oy! Do they eat dogs in the Philippines? Maybe he was introduced to it by that wife in the Philippines. They do, according to Wikipedia. And East Timor, India, Indonesia, too.

  16. O reads …OUT LOUD…. his “OWN” book …. I heard the video…
    reading with such insight and convincing convictions…. I ate DOGGIE….but is the doggie black or white doggie? That is why they add the book on Bill Ayres list ..to cover O’s “tail”…. and still rape/rake in the VOTES!

    Suggestion Box: when inserting an addition below a message at another time, it helps the flow.. yes…but is it possible? to add a second icon? or something other to scan faster… checking back on the light dates are hard on the tired old eyes!

    • I heard that once, too, and he sounded like a third grader reading an unfamiliar text. As if he didn’t write it himself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s