HomoFascist Left: Abolish The First Amendment For Christians

Your freedom of speech, religion and association are only permitted if you support the Homosexual and Leftist agenda. Principles contrary to that are to be deemed criminal.

The right to religious freedom and it’s exercise if you are Christian looks like it will no longer be permitted in a culture that has decided Homosexuality is a superior morality.  The BIG LIE and Narrative the Praetorian media is fostering every hour on the hour, is that Christian religious liberty and free speech is automatic discrimination against homosexuals or whatever group they choose to apply the smear.

Today, listening to the sheer hysteria, apparently the First Amendment applies only to those whom agree with and speak the Leftist/Homosexual agenda.  The right to freedom of speech, belief and religious exercise should be restricted, regulated or abolished altogether if it does not follow the cultural zeitgeist .  Indeed, some animals are more equal than others in this twisted Liberal Leftist utopia from hell.

The narrative in America right now is that if you are a biblical Christian, and you think aberrant sexual behavior is sin, your faith is discriminatory and therefore criminal. You are deemed a threat to the well-being of the public.  This meme is reaching fevered pitch and being repeated on social media; Christians who hold to biblical faith and refuse to accept behaviors they consider sinful, are evil and worse than Nazis.

In response to the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects businesses from lawsuits intended to put them out of business for refusing service to agendas and behaviors contrary to their religious beliefs, Labor Department employee Elizabeth Ashack took to Twitter and wrote “People in the red states vote for nazis to govern, and then call themselves Christian, it will not end well for them. #BoycottIndiana,”

So she says Christian Conservatives are Nazis, which , is a growing belief in this country.  Her tweet was captured by SooperMexican.com before it was deleted.  She now denies she sent the tweet, and claims her account was hacked.  How convenient.  She obviously attended the same class Hillary Clinton did on what to do about your social media correspondence. The sentiments of accusatory discrimination heaped on Christians are being stoked and repeated ad nauseum everywhere.

Note Ashack’s comment that it will not end well for Christians in Red States. Leftists are always stoking for that violent revolution or final solution for those people the Leftists hate and want eliminated.  This seems to be the path this country is on, and apparently we cannot avoid that inevitability anymore.

To the Gay Leftist Revolutionists, Religious liberty laws are an act of discrimination by Christians and therefore, an act of war. That the act also protects Muslims and Hindus in their businesses is not an issue of consideration.  The sole focus of rage is against Christians who benefit from the protection that these religious freedom acts enshrine.

To some of us Christians who are awake – we recognize where this kind of mob mentality always leads.   The hatred of God and His Christ is visited upon those who follow Him, and that hatred is rising in the United States.  Sadly for Christians in America, the majority of them are fast asleep or quick to compromise their faith and principles so as to avoid ‘persecution’.

History teaches where the kind of radical zeitgeist being preached by Leftists always leads.  Truth is a lie.  Lies are truth.  Good is now evil, and evil is now good.  Woe to us all in this country.

In the interest of engaging in a revolutionary act by telling the truth in an age of universal deceit, Ben Shapiro lays out the lies and myths that the media, lobbying agendas and government are laying upon various RFRA laws across the country.

INDIANA BACKLASH SHOWS LEFT’S HATRED FOR FIRST AMENDMENT

In the wake of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the media have been stacking myth upon myth in order to drive the narrative that right-wingers desperately want to harm gays and lesbians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives merely want to protect a basic notion of freedom from the tyranny of the left: the notion that individual rights, even those exercised in ways we would not always like, are still rights. Those rights extend to your conduct of your own business, given that there are no externalities – and refusal to engage in a voluntary transaction does not amount to an externality. That is the essence of liberty.

Here are the top myths pushed by the media left in the wake of the RFRA:

RFRA Discriminates Against Gays. No, the RFRA does not. The RFRA is explicitly designed to protect practice of any religion. It says that “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” That can be overridden if the government’s action “is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is also “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” If government does act against someone in violation of their religious principles, that person or entity can assert that violation “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding.” So, if you are a Muslim, and you want to wear a beard while a police officer, the RFRA protects you. If you are a Jehovah’s Witness and you don’t want to get a blood transfusion in violation of law, the RFRA protects you.

The reason many on the left believe the RFRA discriminates against homosexuals is because homosexuals have sued private religious businessowners for refusing to service same-sex weddings. The RFRA protects such religious businessowners from antidiscrimination laws – although Indiana has no such antidiscrimination laws with regard to sexual orientation anyway. So Indiana’s law has not even changed one iota with regard to private businessowners’ treatment of homosexuals, let alone gay marriage (refusing to service a same-sex wedding is not the same as refusing to serve someone gay, by the way).

RFRA Is a Republican Plot. No, it is not. The original federal RFRA was passed in 1993, signed by Bill Clinton, and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill passed the United States House of Representatives unanimously, and the Senate 97-3. It was co-sponsored by probable incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). In 1998, then-State Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for a similar law. It passed unanimously 56-0.

This Is Like Jim Crow. No, it is not. Jim Crow was a mandatory set of regulations springing from the government – the same government the left now wants to use to discriminate against religious people for failing their tolerance test. Alabama’s Jim Crow law explicitly prevented private businessowners from serving blacks at its lunch counters:

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.

The same homosexual advocates and allies who want to use the government as a club to beat those who engage in certain voluntary conduct were surely against that tactic when the government was discriminating against homosexual conduct.

This Will Allow Discrimination Against Blacks, Too. No, it won’t. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents such discrimination. The supremacy clause means the Civil Rights Act trumps state law. It is worth noting that the Constitution itself should not permit the federal government to intervene with regard to private businesses involved in making judgments about whether to engage in certain voluntary transactions, no matter the excuse for that refusal. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) used to rightly oppose that aspect of the Civil Rights Act, but has since backed away from that libertarian position.

In a free society, we understand that societal disapproval of activity does not, on its own, justify violation of individual rights. But not the left, which is happy to bring a gun to the party, just so long as it is the party wielding the gun.

Obama’s Takeover Of The Internet Was Spear-Headed By Self-Admitted Marxists

“Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”

There is NOTHING NEUTRAL about the Net Neutrality rules being imposed by the FCC vote and ruling yesterday.  While the ignorantly gullible and emoting public gobbles up words the Oligarchs and Marxists use to sell it as ‘fairness’ and ‘cheaper’ – the actual architects and movers and shakers of the rules imposed by the FCC and FEC yesterday had completely different motives.  ‘Net Neutrality’ is just a sell word – same as the “Affordable Care Act” was used to push the complete takeover of the healthcare system via ObamaCare.

While we already have learned everything we do on the Internet is spied on by the NSA, catalogued and stored by the various Alphabets at Mordor On The Potomac, the same generation that went berserk over learning GW Bush ordered incoming international cell phone calls from overseas tapped – are jumping for joy over the FCC takeover of the internet whose rules are STILL being kept secret as I write this.  In short – they are cheering the takeover, taxation and restriction of their own playground.  Once the consequences of yesterday hit them, and broadband across the board slows to dial-up speed, who will they be directed to hate for that?  Will they demand Obama nationalize AT&T, Verizon and Comcast?  They certainly are not going to blame Obama or government. I know – blame Republicans, probably talking points are already written for that.

‘Net Neutrality’ as a term is as Orwellian as anything we have ever heard before.  The operative word of what happened yesterday is not NEUTRALITY, but NEUTRALIZE – as in to neutralize all non-‘progressive’ (i.e.: Marxist/Fascist) ideas from the internet and media.  Neutralize the average American from internet access by fees, taxes and fines upon everything they do on the internet.  Neutralize Capitalism from the internet.

Sound crazy?  Those are the words of one of the main architects of the top secret plans the Leftists strong armed the FCC to impose by fiat.  Consider it a Socialist-run purge of the internet.  Their  ultimate goal is banning and restricting content and limiting communication that poses a threat to the Ruling Class Tyrants in power and the various bogus agendas they push.  For now, it is about getting the media giants into the control of government and micromanaging how the internet itself runs and what can be charged for it so a ridiculous treasure-trove of untapped revenue can be streamed into the greedy hands of government via taxes and fees for everything that happens online.  Imagine having to pay taxes, or a ‘digital postage stamp’ on every e-mail you send and how much data you upload or download. The requirement of a digital ID before you can get online.  Those things are coming, they were made possible yesterday.  Today they set up the bureaucracy and target revenue streams.

Tomorrow, it is about silencing dissent.

Oppose the Climate Change and Global Warming hoax?  The net will be devoid of any dissent.  Anything that supports actual science instead of their agenda will be scrubbed and removed.

Support a political position or candidate that is not a Socialist/Marxist Ruling Class Oligarch?  That will fall under FEC campaign rules and the fees and fines and reporting duties are so onerous and mind boggling – the IRS scandal that targeted Conservative groups will seem like child’s play.

This people have absolutely no clue or idea what happened to them yesterday as the velvet coup marches on to impose the MarxoFascist ‘Utopia’ on a nation these evil beings seek to punish and destroy.

Comrades for Net Neutrality

The powers behind the FCC’s muscling of the Internet

Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet. The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body.

“Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content,” says Phil Kerpen, an anti-net-neutrality activist from the group American Commitment.

The courts have previously ruled the FCC’s efforts to impose “net neutrality” out of bounds, so the battle isn’t over. But for now, the FCC has granted itself enormous power to micromanage the largely unrestrained Internet.

Back in the 1990s, the Clinton administration teamed up with Internet pioneers to promote a hands-off approach to the new industry and keep it free from discriminatory taxation. Many still prefer that policy. Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab and the charity One Laptop Per Child, says that net neutrality “doesn’t make sense” because “the truth is, not all bits [of data] are created equal.”

Will Marshall, head of the Progressive Policy Institute (which was once a favorite think tank of Clinton Democrats), issued a statement that net neutrality “endorses a backward-looking policy that would apply the brakes to the most dynamic sector of America’s economy.”

But such voices have been drowned out by left-wing activists who want to manage the Internet to achieve their political objectives. The most influential of these congregate around the deceptively named Free Press, a liberal lobby co-founded in 2002 by Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor.

His goals have always been clear. “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.” When I interviewed him in 2010, he admitted he is a socialist and said he was “hesitant to say I’m not a Marxist.”

In essence, what McChesney and his followers want is an Unfree Press — a media world that promotes their values. “To cast things in neo-Marxist terms that they could appreciate, they want to take control of the information means of production,” says Adam Therier of the blog TechLiberation.

Certainly McChesney seems blind to the dangers of media control on the left. In 2007, he co-authored a remarkable survey of the media under Hugo Chávez’s already clearly thuggish regime in Venezuela: “Aggressive, unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.”

Despite his astonishingly radical goals, McChesney’s Free Press group was able to leverage foundation cash and academic “research” into an influential force behind net neutrality. Julius Genachowski, President Obama’s first FCC chairman, hired Free Press’s Jen Howard as his press secretary. The FCC’s chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, has co-authored a Free Press report demanding regulation of political talk radio. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan cited research from Free Press and other left-wing groups backing net neutrality more than 50 times.

The battle for control of the Internet isn’t over. Over two-thirds of the House and Senate are on record as opposing FCC regulation of the Internet, and a new president could change the policy overnight in 2017 even if the courts don’t block it.

But for now, the “media reform” movement led by McChesney and his allies can claim bragging rights for their Saul Alinsky–style outflanking maneuver on Internet regulation. They financed the research behind the idea, installed their political allies in power, got the government to consider them experts on the issues they cared deeply about, and finally ran roughshod over both Congress and an initially reluctant FCC chairman. Conservatives should study how the Left won on this issue even as they acknowledge and fight the illegitimacy of many of the results.

Obama: All Your Business Are Belong To Us

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.” – Barack Obama, July 13th, 2012.

America doesn’t seem to comprehend what has happened to it, and sadly – what was lost can never be regained according to our second President John Adams, who understood the fragile nature of liberty.

At one time in our nation, not that long ago – the Leftists had to hide what they really were all about.  American politicians espousing the doctrines of Karl Marx or anything sounding like Soviet Socialism would have been run out of office on a rail had they been honest about what they believed they should empower government to do.  So they hid behind their agenda with clever and ‘progressive’ sounding rhetoric that played to human nature’s worst vices of jealousy and greed.  Even so, America rejected Socialism and Communism as corrosive agents to liberty, and were even willing to go to war against that ideology because indeed they were and are dangerous to liberty.

But today, time and indoctrination by public schools and the media, have conditioned several generations of Americans to be ambivalent about Socialism and Communism.  A generation of Americans raised in a culture of instant gratification, self-esteem, educational ignorance and devoid of morals and religion became fertile ground for Communism to rise from our own soil.  Indeed the underlying current taught and now accepted is that Capitalism is the worst scourge on earth, promoting a self loathing of ourselves on a perverted sense of morality.   So we now have a President of the country that espouses not only blatant Marxism, but is preaching pure unadulterated Mussolini-inspired Fascism. The mask and gloves are off, and this only happens when confidence exists that their agenda has succeeded.  More of that mask dropped with remarks Obama made Friday at a fire station in Roanoke Virginia.

The speech, designed to foster the class war and envy , is what every Marxist uses to achieve total power.  The speech makes the crux of the point that Obama and his MarxoFasicsts in office have been preaching for some time: that nothing you possess; not your wealth, not your health or your property – belongs to you.  Their gospel is that you should spread what you own around (recall Joe The Plumber?) because they preach that what you worked for and earned was not by your own efforts – but by everyone else’s efforts.   Vis-a-vis: everything belongs to the State.  They are preaching that nothing you have is the result of your own efforts, but rather what you have is the result of everyone’s ‘collective’ efforts.  As such, they promote the lie that everyone is entitled to a share of what you have, and the government’s job is to make sure everyone gets a piece of it.  This is what ‘spreading the wealth around’ and ‘shared sacrifice’ actually means.   Some of us  understand and recognize this as Communism, but almost half the population now, calls Communism ‘fairness’, and everyone must pay their ‘fair share’.

Unless of course you are in the Ruling Class.  The Ruling Class are exempt from having to share.  Such rules are only for the hoi polloi, the little people, the actual entrepreneur and business owner who takes a risk.

The preaching of the virtues of Marx goes on, cloaked in the rhetoric of Human envy and jealousy, something  Marxists prey on to get their agenda and ideology accepted by the masses.  But the reality is that the government is really The Mob, a Crime Syndicate that takes their cut first – and then extorts the rest of what you have as ‘protection money’ from themselves.

Obama is simply stating what his comrade MarxoFascists like Elizabeth Warren have been saying openly as of late:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did….part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” – Elizabeth Warren

This is pure Marxist Fascism being preached as a virtue.  Government control of business to employ the Marx ideology of ‘FROM EACH according to his ability TO EACH according to his need’.  For the MarxoFascists like Obama and Warren and the entire Democrat party, Statist Government central planning is the answer towards implementing that policy by force.  Obama is now sermonizing the virtues of this ideology, and he would not be doing so in major campaign speeches unless the MarxoFascists assume that they now have total control to reveal what they really are all about.

What did we think Obama really meant when he said he was just days away from ‘fundamentally transforming The United States of America”?

The Statists now preach openly that what you have is due to everyone else’s labor, money and effort.  Not your own.   The sum of this preaching is to fool the people to accept the narrative that everyone is required to “share ” what they have, especially if you have more than others. If you have more than others,  the State is justified in having it confiscated from you by redistribution, taxation and regulation for the purpose of making you recognize your place is to support the state – not yourself.

This is what Obama and the MarxoFascist Left mean when they use the words: ‘collective salvation”; “shared sacrifice” and so on.  It’s a narrative that empowers a permanent slave class that is dependent on the State taking from what is left of the Producers in the country – to redistribute to Obama’s army of welfare constituents and illegal Mexicans.  This is about destroying the free market and burying Capitalism under their boots.

Obama is espousing the doctrine of Marx that entrepreneurs don’t build businesses, the government does.  That is why multiple billions of our tax dollars were given to now-defunct green energy money laundering companies like Solyndra, who have gone bankrupt and made off with all your money.  Ultimately, entrepreneurs are irrelevant in Obama’s Amerika, the Government is god and will build business and regulate business.  This is Fascism – in it’s purest definition authored by Benito Mussolini.

The State will decide who lives, who dies, who gets to eat and who does not.  Who gets to make money and who does not.  Who gets a job and who does not.  Who gets government welfare and who does not.  Anyone who is not a ‘true believer’ in the MarxoFascist ideology and whom does not act within it’s dictates – gets nothing, and even what they have will be taken from them.  Very akin to a mark of this beast.

Obama Says Constitution Is A “Charter of NEGATIVE Liberties”

It is not possible for the One, the messiah Barrack The Hussein Obama to take the Oath of office when he has made it clear he thinks the Constitution is as flawed and bogus as he does.

What Obama will do in office is hiding in plain sight folks.  He HATES this country, he HATES white people, he dislikes biblical Christians, he wants to redistribute wealth, he wants a militarized civilian defense force, his pals want to establish re-education camps and then eliminate 25 million Americans whom they say cannot be “re-educated”.

Obama is a false messiah, a Marxist anti-christ that should frighten any liberty loving American to his core.

Listen to his own words:

“The Constitution reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day”

“The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties”

Puzzle Pieces: Obama’s Political Career Launched By Terrorist William Ayers

Many have been digging into Barrack The Hussein Obama’s past ties to domestic terrorist William Ayers, who admitted to bombing the Pentagon in the 1970’s.  Most of these Investigative Journalists have run into brick walls or strong armed resistance by those who seek to keep Obama’s relationship with Ayers silent. One such author, Stanley Kurtz, has been targeted by the Obama campaign for destruction for his investigation into the relationship.

The One’s campaign has also vigorously sought to silence an ad tying him to William Ayers, and threatened the organization that put the ad together with criminal charges by asking the Justice Department to investigate every person involved with the group and their financial records turned over to the IRS.

Where there is smoke, there is fire – and Obama has worked very hard to make sure these ties have been wiped clean so the American people do not find out who launched his political career.

As I’ve said before – Obama is a Trojan Horse.

Now the puzzle is being pieced together and perhaps the first one to get a glimpse of the real disturbing picture is Andy Martin at the Contrarian Commentary.

 

WILLIAM AYERS HAS BEEN THE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE RISE OF BARACK OBAMA

AYERS HAS DESIGNED AN OBAMA CAMPAIGN STRUCTURE WHICH IS BASED ON AYERS’ THEORIES OF MAOIST REVOLUTION.

THE CHICAGO VERSION OF “FRIENDS”

OBAMA LIED TO ABC NEWS AND A NATIONAL TV AUDIENCE

(NEW YORK, NY)(September 9, 2008) Nailing down the relationship between “mad bomber” William Ayers and Barack Obama has been the greatest challenge of the 2008 presidential campaign.

The second biggest challenge of 2008 has been deciphering and understanding Barack Obama’s campaign structure. His campaign is unlike any other presidential campaign in U. S. history. Obama’s operation is authoritarian, disciplined and centralized in Chicago. Obama’s reliance on a nationwide network of local “offices” and mailing lists points inexorably to a political latticework straight out of William Ayers’ revolutionary playbook.

The bottom line: After an exhaustive investigation ContrarianCommentary.com can confirm that Barack Obama appears to be William Ayers’ “front” for a national, ongoing Maoist-style revolutionary campaign structure which will endure past November 4th.

Ironically, as we searched for the Ayers-Obama relationship in the present, it was staring us in the face: Obama’s campaign is structured precisely the way Ayers would want. That is why Obama has created “Camp Obamas” across the United States to indoctrinate workers, and adopted other similar Fidel Castro/Hugo Chavez tactics.

The puzzle pieces are finally starting to fall into place. Last week we asked why would Black Panther party revolutionary Khalid Al-Mansour start soliciting money for Obama’s legal education? The answer: Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were close associates of the Black Panther Party and even unleashed a terrorist attack on a New York judge who heard a Panther case.

In the 1980’s, the Ayers/Dohrn revolutionary terror network was still working through individuals such as Al-Mansour, who had sufficiently laundered his radical past to assume respectability as a front for a Saudi Prince. The same way Ayers laundered his own past to become a professor of “education” at Illinois’ taxpayer-subsidized university. 

Ayers and Al-Mansour appear to have been in contact. Ayers vouched for Obama to Al-Mansour, who then began a law school fund-raising campaign among prominent African-Americans. 

Obama’s law degree thus appears to have been financed through the encouragement of persons who had been violent revolutionaries and remain unrepentant to this day, the same unconventional way the purchase of Obama’s Chicago mansion was party financed by an Iraqi billionaire. 

Why did Obama get hired as a “summer associate” in 1989 at the law firm which had hired Ayers’ wife, and where Ayers’ father was a prominent friend of the managing partner at Sidley & Austin? The answer is obvious. Ayers was grooming Obama as his future “front.”

Where did Obama get his first and only legal job after Harvard? At a law firm where Tony Rezko was a prominent client and where name partner Judson Miner was a law school classmate of Bernadine Dohrn-Ayers. Yes, the pieces are starting to come together.

Was Obama telling ABC the truth when he said met the Ayers’ at a coffee klatch at the Ayers home in 1995? Ayers had already been working with Obama for seven years; Ayers had appointed Obama to head a $50 million foundation. Did Ayers appoint a stranger? Or a front man? The answer is obvious.

Obama has relentlessly tried to conceal the Ayers/Obama time line, and the ongoing connections between the men. When bits and pieces of the Ayers/Obama relationship have popped up this year, Obama has sought to debunk and deflate each isolated piece of information. No one was able to grasp the big picture.

Until today, no one had actually connected all of the dots. ContrarianCommentary.com is the first to do so.

We always wondered why Obama had structured his campaign the way he did: small “offices” all across the United States. No other presidential campaign has ever done this. Bill Ayers is a proponent of locally based revolutionary tactics. Ayers’ playbook is Mao Tse-Tung’s handbook. And Obama’s campaign structure follows Ayers’ matrix. A nationwide network of “Camp Obamas” controlled from Chicago (i.e. Ayers)? You get the picture.

Obama is not stupid. He is a bright man, very talented, very personable and, until recently, a man without much of a personal history. But there is a shiftless, searching side to Obama’s personality. Due to childhood neglect and abuse, he is a man without a conscience. He was and remains the perfect front for Ayers’ ongoing revolutionary campaign to subvert and subdue the United States of America. 

It can be said without fear of contradiction, a vote for Barack Obama is in reality a vote to put William Ayers in de facto control of the U. S government.

William Ayers is an admittedly unrepentant violent revolutionary who waged war against every American and who today is still scheming to wage war against the United States. This time he wants his headquarters to be in the Oval Office of the White House. 

William Ayers is the mastermind behind the rise to power of Barack Obama. He has been since 1988.

ANDY MARTIN WILL EXPLORE THIS CLAIMS IN A NEW YORK CITY NEWS CONFERENCE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH (TBA).
———————————————–

THE AYERS/OBAMA TIMELINE: (Version 1.0; a work in progress; dates are approximate)

1987 William Ayers meets Barack Obama

1988 Ayers solicits Khalid Al-Mansour to raise money for Obama’s Harvard law School education

1989 Tom Ayers and William Ayers get Obama a summer job at Sidley & Austin (where he meets Michelle Obama); Ayers’ wife Bernadine Dohrn also worked at Sidley at about the same time as Barack and Michelle.

1993 Ayers places Obama on Woods Foundation

1995 Ayers makes Obama Chairman of Annenberg Challenge

1995 Ayers hosts a coffee klatch for Obama’s political debut (Obama falsely claims this is when he met Ayers)

2007-2008 The structure of Obama’s presidential campaign increasingly comes to resemble an Ayers-designed national “community organizer matrix” straight out of Maoist theory. This is not merely a presidential “campaign.” Obama’s organization is the first installment of an ongoing movement being paid for with tax-exempt contributions to his campaign, approaching half a billion dollars.

2008Obama In response to ABC News, Obama tells a national TV audience he was “six years old” when Ayers bombed federal buildings, and they are only casual neighborhood acquaintances. A lie.

It’s Aliiive!!!!

Contrary to the thoughts that Obama Van Helsing had dispatched Hildabeast in after her trouncing in Iowa and the lackluster polls in New Hampshire – the Queen of the Blight suprised all the pundits and suddenly rose from her primary grave, feasting on the emoting bleeding heart saps of New Hampshire that fall for crocodile tears, propelling her to a big victory in the Granite State.

Can we all correctly assume that a pantsuit scorned is like which fury Hell hath no?? That the Termanatrix shall be unleashed upon those who dared drive a stake through her political heart for the Oval orifice?

I think those running against her should all be afraid…very afraid that the hoped-for silver bullet of a defeat in New Hampshire didst not send the demoness back to the depths of Carpetbagging Senate obscurity.

The media buildup will now commence of exclaiming “Who is like unto the Hildabeast? And who can make war against her?” The rumours that Carville and Begala are poised to join her at the Clintonvania Castle’s War Room means the final machine parts have been assembled for her ascendancy to the throne.

Personally, this is just starting to get amusing – the theatrical tears and bloviating boredom notwithstanding.

‘Comeback’ Clinton claims NH for her own

MANCHESTER, N.H. – Hillary Rodham Clinton proved Tuesday that more than one Clinton can be “the Comeback Kid.” “Over the last week, I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice,” Clinton said at a victory celebration after her win over Barack Obama. “Now, together, let’s give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me.”

Clinton, whose husband used a second-place finish in New Hampshire in 1992 to propel himself to the White House, had trailed Obama in recent polling. In the last days, though, she overhauled her campaign operation here and took a new tone to the trail. Aides, meanwhile, executed the long-laid ground game that even rivals acknowledged was masterful.

The New York senator and former first lady hugged both former President Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, before taking the podium and saying, “thank you, thank you so much” repeatedly.

“I come tonight with a very, very full heart and I want especially to thank New Hampshire,” she said. “For all the ups and down of this campaign, you helped remind everyone that politics isn’t a game. … We came back tonight because you spoke loudly and clearly.”

“Tomorrow, we’re going to get up, roll up our sleeves and keep going,” Clinton said to enthusiastic applause.

In the end, though, key voting blocs were there for Clinton in New Hampshire — or weren’t there for Obama, depending on how the campaigns frame it. According to exit polling conducted by The Associated Press and the networks, far more women voted than men; Clinton won 45 percent of them compared to 36 for Obama.

Also according to exit polls, fewer younger voters turned out in New Hampshire than in Iowa, depriving Obama of crucial support.