Stop Liberal Lies! The Tea Party Is Not Racist!

I am outraged at the biased coverage of Tea Party events. The racist accusations against the Tea Party movement are false and do not portray the truth about a movement which is waking up Americans to the principles that founded this great nation.The fringe Media and Nazi Democrats are afraid of the truth. The Liberals policies do not work!
In response to the fringe media who are trying to discredit the Tea Party Movement as racist, I feel that it is imperative that the truth be presented by one who’s been there.
The article below is from a great American who attends Tea Party events and he happens to be African American.

It's the Media, Stupid!

By Lloyd Marcus
After being interviewed as a guest on two radio programs back-to-back, I was angry and frustrated. I had to endure radio talk show hosts and callers who have never attended a tea party tell me how racist the rallies are. Not only will this false accusation of racism not go away, it appears to be growing stronger.

Angry callers said they saw racist signs on TV and shared stories from black friends who claimed to have experienced racism at tea parties. I told one caller, "Ma'am, with all due respect, your friend is a liar." I am a black man who has attended well over two hundred tea parties across America traveling on three Tea Party Express tours. I know the tone of the rallies and the types of people who attend them.

The tea party attendees are moms, dads, kids, grandparents, and yes, mostly white, but they are not racist. Many even voted for Obama. They are decent, hardworking Americans who love their country and do not want it "transformed" into Europe. For the gazillionth time, I will state this truth: The tea parties are not about race!

So how has the "tea parties are racist" lie become so solidly branded into the minds of many? Then, it hit me: "It's the media, stupid." Last year I appeared on CNN fielding accusations that the tea parties are racist gatherings. During my interview, CNN showed the same sign of Obama as a witch doctor several times. Meanwhile, 99.9% of the signs on display at the rallies expressed opposition to Obama's policies only.

The liberal mainstream media attempts to put and keep us tea party patriots on the defensive. They scream, "You should denounce those people carrying racist signs!" Well, who died and made the "agenda-driven" liberal mainstream media the final authority on what is racist? According to them, anything short of fawning approval of Obama is racist.

The liberal mainstream media's hypocrisy is stunning. While chiding us to denounce questionable racist signs, they clearly favor and hide real hatred and violence coming from the left. A few years ago, after performing at a troop support rally in Washington, D.C., I walked a few blocks away to witness a so-called "peace" rally by the left. At least 1,200 peace protesters marched down the street chanting, "F--- George Bush, F--- George Bush!" Their signs spewed hatred for Bush, our troops, and America. And yet, not one sign or any footage of the "peace rally" was featured in the liberal mainstream media.

More recently, signs at Arizona Immigration Law protest rallies which threatened to "shoot more police" and other hate-filled anti-America messages are ignored by the liberal mainstream media.

As I stated, I know the caliber of the patriots who attend the tea parties. If anyone displayed a truly racist sign or made a racist comment, that person would be verbally attacked by the crowd.

This is why I know the black Democrat senators who said they were called the "n" word while walking through a crowd of tea partiers were lying. Not to mention the fact that if the incident really happened, the video would be viral on YouTube.

Here are a few of my personal tea party experiences. Keep in mind I have performed at well over two hundred tea parties across America.

Before singing my "American Tea Party Anthem," I say, "Hello, my fellow patriots! I am not an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!" The crowds go wild. Many tearfully thank me. They say hyphenating divides us. Would racists make such a statement?

I've seen numerous signs in the crowds which read "Lloyd Marcus for President." Why didn't CNN show any of those signs on TV during my interview?

At a tea party in Texas, a white cowboy approached me pushing a stroller with two black babies. The proud new dad said he and his wife, who was also white, asked God to give them babies who needed their love. They felt blessed to adopt two babies from Africa. Could this couple be classified as redneck racists protesting Obama because he is black?

An incident happened at a tea party in Traverse City, Michigan which ripped my heart out. A white woman in a wheelchair saw me approaching. She yelled, "Oh my gosh, it is Lloyd Marcus. I listen to your music. I read your columns. I love you. May I have a picture with you?"

The woman's adult daughter confided to one of our staff members, "My mom is dying. She said all she wanted to do is meet Lloyd Marcus." Wow! Now, do you understand why I am so outraged when the liberal mainstream media and ill-informed radio talk show callers attempt to portray the tea party folks as a bunch of racists?

On numerous occasions, I have been approached at tea parties by patriots who have emotionally thanked me for my participation in the movement. Because we share values and principles, they call me "brother."

The "racist" accusation is an evil lie designed to control and shut up decent people who simply disagree with our president's agenda. White racist skinheads do not care if you call them racist. They probably wear it as a badge of honor. But the decent white folks who attend the tea parties are devastated by such charges.

Partners with the liberal mainstream media spreading the lie about the tea parties are Hollywood and the liberal Democrats.

Here is a shameful misrepresentation of the tea party patriots by NAACP President Ben Jealous: "A group of White males wealthier than their peers called the Tea Party has risen up in the land. They say that they want to take the country back. And take it back they surely will. They will take it back to 1963 if we let them."

Folks, ask yourself this: Would white people who one year ago voted in record numbers for a black man to lead our country suddenly have a desire to "take America back to 1963"? Ridiculous. Jealous's comments are hate-inspiring, manipulative, and evil.

As long as God gives me strength, I will keep shouting from the rooftops, "the Tea Party Movement is not racist!" God bless.

- Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American!

How Obama got into Harvard

Living in South Florida there are more and more Liberals moving down here. They spout off how brilliant Barry Soetoro is. Brilliant at Marxism maybe. However read the article below and hear how Barry is still a fraud. His wife, Michelle always comes across as an arrogant person. It is her way of fronting, as she is not as great as she tells us she is. Her big fetish with weight is due to her own personal weight problems. Yet she attacks her own daughters and slams them for weight issues. Give the kids a break, they are not that overweight. Though this takes away the questions of Michelle's problems or so she thinks.
To top it all off, Barry was only voted in because of Political Correctness!

This portion below is by Jack Cashill.
Two years ago I inadvertently began my exploration of the authorship of Barack Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father," with an inquiry into how Obama got into Harvard Law School in 1988.

In the summer of 2008, I was tipped to a story that the media were scrupulously ignoring. It involved the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico Percy Sutton.

A Manhattan borough president for 12 years and a credible candidate for mayor of New York City in 1977, Sutton had appeared in late March 2008 on a local New York City show called "Inside City Hall."

When asked about Obama by the show's host, Dominic Carter, the octogenarian Sutton calmly and lucidly explained that he had been "introduced to [Obama] by a friend."

The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about 20 years prior. Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama] ... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

Three months before the election it should have mattered that a respected black political figure had publicly announced that a crazed anti-Semite like al-Mansour, backed by an equally bonkers Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama's career perhaps for the last 20 years, but the story died a quick and unnatural death.

The definitive documentary on the red-hot eligibility story: "The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"

The books that might have shed some light on this incident have not done so. John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's comprehensive look at the 2008 campaign, "Game Change," does not so much as mention Percy Sutton.

Nor does David Remnick. His new book, "The Bridge," stands as the authoritative book on Obama's "life and rise," but he only inadvertently addresses the question of how Obama got into Harvard Law.

The reader learns from Remnick that Obama was an "unspectacular" student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school.

A Northwestern University prof who wrote a letter of reference for Obama reinforces the point, telling Remnick, "I don't think [Obama] did too well in college." As to Obama's LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa's body will be unearthed before those are.

How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants' LSAT scores typically track between 98 to 99 percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.8 and 4.0 is a subject Remnick avoids in the section of his book dealing with Obama's admission.

In his 2007 book, "Obama: From Promise to Power," David Mendell is likewise silent on the mystery admission. This surprises because Mendell, a Chicago Tribune reporter who saw more of Obama than Michelle often did, writes objectively and intimately about Obama's ascendancy.

Mendell traces Obama's sudden itch to become a lawyer to the model of the recently deceased Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, but Washington went to Northwestern's very respectable law school in Evanston, Ill.

The thought doesn't cross Obama's mind. In "Dreams," he limits his choices to "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." Writes Mendell as casually as if the honor were deserved, "Obama would soon be accepted at the most prestigious law school in the nation."

Whether or not Sutton helped Obama get into Harvard, Michelle Obama's experience suggests that he could have gotten in without that help.

"Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren't good enough for an Ivy League school," writes Christopher Andersen in "Barack and Michelle," "Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway."

Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, "Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well."

She did not write well, either. Au contraire. One of my correspondents, a college drop-out, found Michelle's senior thesis at Princeton online and concluded, "I could have written it in sophomore English class." Mundy charitably describes it as "dense and turgid."

The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observes, "To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be 'read' at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language."

Hitchens exaggerates only a little. The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:

The study inquires about the respondents' motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.
Michelle even typed badly. Still, she was admitted to and graduated from Harvard Law. One almost feels sorry for her. She was in so far over her head that the anxiety had to have been corrosive.

Obama was sufficiently self-deluding – some would say narcissistic – that he felt little of that anxiety. Later in his book, Remnick lets slip into the record a revealing letter Obama had written while president of the Harvard Law Review:

I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.

Bottom line: Had Obama's father come from Kentucky not Kenya and been named O'Hara not Obama, there would have been no Harvard Law Review, no Harvard, no Columbia. Barry O'Hara would probably be chasing ambulances in Honolulu and setting his political sights on the Honolulu City Council.

Written by Jack Cashill
Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.


Submitted by Conservative Chuck of Chuck On The Right Side.

Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

It is amazing how many times George W. Bush was called a Racist for warning America of current threats. As he warned that 2 of the biggest threats to America should be faced with. One threat being TERRORISTS and the other being the Fannie Freddie sub-prime Mortgage problem. If you are a Nazi Left Winger than these are reasons to call someone a Racist. If they criticise a Minority type person who walked off with Millions of Dollars and left America reeling from his disastrous reign. That being former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines.
Back to reality and what are two of the largest problems for the USA today (other than Barry Soetoro and Thugs)? Radical Islamic Terrorists and the housing crash!

Hat Tip to Neil

"TOTUS" Soetoro Continues To Trash Our Troops

McChrystal's aides are quoted as saying that he was less than impressed by Obama from the start. The general is described as believing the president looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" among senior military officers. Obama has continued to trash our Warriors even before he was elected TOTUS (TelePrompter of the United States). Did the Fringe Nazi Media forget all of that?
McChrystal was also "disappointed" that the president "didn't know anything about him" during their early meetings. Barry Soetero has for years spouted about what our Military should do. This coming from a Community Organizer, ACORN Leader. Let's ask the question again today. What did 52% of America do to us? Blood on your hands, to all those who campaigned for Barry.
Please read further for a great article by Jeannie DeAngelis.

McChrystal's sacrifice?

BY Jeannie DeAngelis
Over the past few days it's been difficult to understand how a soldier and man of honor like Army General Stanley McChrystal could let his guard down in the presence of left wing Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings. McChrystal is a trained officer, disciplined to abide by a code of honor that does not include sloppy disregard or behavioral lapses that destroy lifetime accomplishments or topple generals from the pinnacle of military careers.


One of the big questions people are asking today about Rolling Stone's stunning story about General Stanley McChrystal is this: How could he have said all that to a reporter? Rolling Stone maintains absolutely that all comments were on the record. So honestly: What was he thinking?


It's difficult to believe a man who proudly served for 34 years in the military would recklessly chance being disgraced and dismissed by a President he secretly disrespects. How could a decorated General allow himself to be humiliated before the nation he loves and serves? Unless McChrystal's supposed blunder was actually a planned tactical maneuver.

Viewed by most as poor judgment, many remain puzzled. Confusion abounds because it's "mysterious why McChrystal chose to cozy up to a magazine that strove to maintain a countercultural DNA and hard-hitting reputation. Some suggest it may be a reflection of [McChrystal's] boomer status and respect for an old brand. Others remain baffled."

General Stanley McChrystal is weighed down with decorations, commendations, and military achievements including being credited with hunting down and killing the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Yet the courageous General was summoned from Afghanistan by a man-child playing Commander-in-Chief, like a naughty juvenile, for a face-to-face talking to. Is the nation supposed to believe a 4-star general who's been called Obama's "true warrior" is nothing more than a loose-lipped frat boy?

Don't buy it.

Could it be that as a military general McChrystal sees Obama as a peril to America's freedom and security? Though appearing disgraced, in truth, being dispatched by a vindictive, oversensitive Obama may have handed McChrystal a decisive victory in an important strategic battle. By allowing the enemy into the camp, the General may have shrewdly used Michael Hastings as a courier to send a message heard round the world.

Army General McChrystal may have willingly forfeited his stellar military career to alert America they are being led by a disappointing imposter who, in the midst of a war, isn't all that concerned or "engaged" in anything but position, power and prestige.

If Stanley McChrystal's statements to Rolling Stone magazine were preplanned, the disapproving comments about the President made by the General and his aides may have been a premeditated vehicle used to confirm for the uncertain what a feeble, thin-skinned man Barack Obama is.

Even the left-wing media recognizes "the way Obama fired McChrystal was choreographed to humiliate the general and bolster the President's credentials as a macho man. So much for ‘no drama Obama.' The manner of the firing came dangerously close to putting political theatre and image-burnishing above the conduct of a war."

Mortified, dishonored, ruined? I think not. General McChrystal may no longer be commanding the troops in Afghanistan, but his act of valor may very well have won the war here at home. Army General Stanley McChrystal may have taken a bullet, but crawling through the trenches on his belly the wounded patriot managed to set off a warning flare alerting America it is presently under presidential siege.

Useful Idiots Elect The Worst POTUS Ever!

Below is an article from one of the great Conservative Writers of our time, THOMAS SOWELL. He knows what ails our Country. I have said it one hundred times. Soetoro's rise to fame is very much like Hitler. The comparisons are eerie. This is why I can not figure out how 52% of the people could be so wrong. All they had to do was listen to Barry's own words or try and read some of his book were he babbles on how he "reads minds" and everyone White is out to get him, and on and on. After reading the article below you will picture how 52% of America are "useful idiots"!

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?


By THOMAS SOWELL
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?