After Obama was elected President, most people dismissed the Bill Ayers controversy, pointing out that President Obama’s policies in the White House appeared to be mainstream capitalist, without a hint of Communist radicalism… as if that proved anything.

Well, now, as you see here, there is proof that Bill Ayers and Barack Obama are still palling around – and working together to bring about the downfall of the United States of America as we know it. This photograph shows Bill Ayers attending a White House Cabinet meeting, sharing a good laugh with Comrade Presidente himself!

What most liberals don’t want to talk about is that the Barack Obama presidency is just part of a plan hatched by Bill Ayers back in 1969.

In the summer of 1969, instead of taking a shower and getting a job, Bill Ayers sat in the basement of the San Francisco Young Communists Commune and wrote a plan for achieving ultimate political domination. Part Three, Section 5, Subsection A, reads, “Throughout the first decade of the next century, I will insinuate myself into the company of Barack Obama, the Kenyan child whose brainwashing appointments are even now going according to plan. With the pre-embedded hypnotic cue ‘platinum rosebud’, I will reactivate his subconscious programming, and he will obey my every command. We will buy Obama the White House, using the Secret Communist Slush Fund I have established, in 2008. The first term in the Oval Office will appear to be normal, so as to lull the American people into complacence. However, in the first month of the second Obama term, we will institute the new Communist People’s Republic of America. We will quash any resistance by first confiscating all guns and Bibles, and then rolling out the Communist tanks now hidden in the Women’s Studies sections of used bookstores across the country. We will devastate the capitalist system with health care reform, and then, when our triumph is complete, I will be the power behind the throne! Only then will we openly drink the blood of the infants in public, as no patriots will remain with the capability of defeating my plan! And to think, none of it will be possible without the creation of public radio!”

Is it too late to stop the Ayers-Obama plan? Pray that it is not, Americans. Pray very, very hard. Pray until it hurts.

Barack Obama has been President for more than three years now. Human rights conditions now existing cannot be attributed merely to leftover problems from the terms of George W. Bush.

Obama supporters: How do you react to Amnesty International’s description of human rights under President Obama?

They’re calling the legislation The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Extension Act of 2012. President Barack Obama supports it, without equivocation.

The legislation, if passed, will extend the FISA Amendments Act, without any reform, until June 1, 2017. That’s five months after President Obama’s second term in office will end, if Barack Obama gains a second term at all.

The FISA Amendments Act is one of the worst laws passed at the urging of George W. Bush. The FISA Amendments Act sets up a gigantic electronic surveillance dragnet that allows the government to grab, store and search Americans’ personal telephone calls, emails, Internet activities, and other private communications, without a search warrant, and without proof that the information was gathered because of suspicion of any particular crime or conspiracy. It’s a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, which states that the private information of American citizens cannot be seized without a search warrant specifically noting the person and place that is to be searched, backed with proof of probable cause to believe that a particular crime has been committed.

When Barack Obama campaigned to become President of the United States in 2008, he voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act, even though he had earlier made a promise never to vote for such a law. It was just the first of his broken promises.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised that, although he had voted for the FISA Amendments Act, as President he would be sure to work with Congress to reform the laws, to end its violations of Americans’ constitutional rights. In spite of this promise, President Obama has never supported any law that would reform the FISA Amendments Act.

Now, Barack Obama is supporting The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Extension Act of 2012, legislation that will keep the FISA Amendments Act in place, without any reform, until after he leaves the White House. In effect, President Obama is now saying that he has no intention to reform the FISA Amendments Act, ever. Obama is saying that, if he is given a second term in office, he will keep George W. Bush’s attack on the Constitution in place, and that he’s happy to do so.

Barack Obama has made his position very clear. There are no clever hints that reform might take place, if only he is given a second term. Obama is saying that if we vote for him, we’re voting for a person who wants to keep a government surveillance program, more powerful than anything that George Orwell could imagine, that targets law abiding Americans, the limits of which even Congress does not know.

So, now the time has come to make your position on this issue very clear. Will you, like Barack Obama, support the extension of Big Brother electronic surveillance powers used against the American people?

If you stand with Barack Obama on this issue, you may call yourself a Democrat, but you can never again call yourself a liberal, or a progressive. You can never describe yourself as a lover of freedom, or of constitutional rights, without being a liar.

You have an alternative: You can do your duty as a citizen of the United States of America, and speak out loudly against The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Extension Act of 2012.

Which choice do you make?

The facts are that Democratic Mayor of Newark Cory Booker, former Democratic Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and former Obama business advisor Steven Rattner criticized Barack Obama for his advertisement, calling it inappropriate to shame capital investment firms. But these are not all the facts, as only one out of three news outlets reveals.

In its coverage of this kerfuffle, ABC News refers simply to a “divide among Democrats over the portrayal of Romney’s Bain days.” Veering more firmly into blatant inaccuracy, FOX News refers to Obama’s detractors as “rank and file.” But Brayden Simms of Metro News nails the pattern down tight when he considers why some prominent Democrats so harshly criticized Barack Obama recently. Simms writes:

Ford is currently a managing director for Morgan Stanley. Rattner co-founded a private equity firm and worked for Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and others. Booker is a sitting politician whose job is directly linked to the financial sector: Bain and other similar firms contributed hundreds of thousands to his last election.

Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Bain Capital — all firms to which Cory Booker, Harold Ford and Steven Rattner are in thrall — have the common feature of gutting American industries, kicking Americans out of work and subjecting American workers’ hard-earned pensions to jeopardy. Booker, Ford and Rattner are springing to their corporate masters’ defense. Big Finance Democrats like Booker, Rattner and Ford are more than willing to throw Barack Obama under the bus because their allegiance to money is stronger than their allegiance to a candidate.

In explaining why he thought finance capitalism should be above criticism by mere plebes, Rattner revealed his value system:

Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for its investors. It did it superbly well.

Rattner got this one thing right: megafinance corporations are not “job creators” after all. They’re wealth extractors and concentrators on behalf of their already wealthy investors. If you think that kind of behavior should be above question and purged from discussion, then by all means stand with Mitt Romney on the Republican side and with his allies in the “centrist” faction of the Democratic Party. Otherwise, isn’t it time to walk away?

Then, attention quickly turned to Joe Ricketts, the man who created the Ending Spending Action Fund. Ricketts is an extremely wealthy man, so full of cash that he once decided to buy Wrigley Field because he wanted a new toy.

Americans have been asking themselves: If Joe Ricketts is really for ending spending, why doesn’t he end his own spending on extravagant luxuries for himself, and share some more of his wealth with people in need?

Quickly, free association flew out of control, and Americans were starting to make radical comments about how, in a just society, one person wouldn’t be able to turn the discussion about a presidential election simply by proposing an absurd and racist advertising idea.

Weren’t the all just missing the real story, though? The core question remained: Does Barack Obama think of himself as a metrosexual Abraham Lincoln?

Then, late in the day, the photograph emerged… the one you see here. It clearly shows Barack Obama posing as a metrosexual Abraham Lincoln.

Suddenly, the debate shifted. People started demanding to know how many other people in the Obama White House think that they are metrosexual Abraham Lincolns. Does Michelle Obama secretly think that she is goth Eleanor Roosevelt, and if so, what are the policy implications?

But then, just after midnight, a journalist from the Chicago Sun Times discovered that this photograph is not what it first appears to be. It does not depict Barack Obama posing as a metrosexual Abraham Lincoln after all. It actually is right wing pundit Ann Coulter, posing as a black, metrosexual Abraham Lincoln.

Once that was discovered, conversation quieted down. After all, that’s just the sort of thing we would expect Ann Coulter to do. No surprise there, and nothing left to talk about. Sigh.

My goodness, she was an easy target.

Four years later, the beluga population of the Cook Inlet has dropped. The latest survey found just 284 belugas living there. This group of belugas is genetically distinct from other populations, and are supposed to be protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The Obama Administration apparently doesn’t think that’s important. Sarah Palin’s out of office, and Barack Obama is the one who got into the White House. So, it’s Obama who had the opportunity to stop offshore oil drilling in the Cook Inlet.

Barack Obama did not stop offshore oil drilling in the Cook Inlet. Instead, Obama has pushed forward a plan for the radical expansion of offshore drilling all along the coastlines of the United States. The Obama Administration gave the green light a plan for oil and gas exploration by oil drilling companies in the Cook Inlet.

Now, environmental groups trying to protect the endangered whales of the Cook Inlet have been forced to sue the Obama Administration in a desperate attempt to stop the beginning of offshore drilling there.

Sarah Palin did not find victory in the 2008 presidential election, but her idea of whales-be-damned pursuit of oil drilling seems to have won the day anyhow.

The plight of the belugas was a campaign issue in 2008. Should we look the other way on this issue in 2012, just because a Democrat is on the wrong side of the issue?

Powell didn’t just restrict her protest to what she wore, either. She wore that dress to other protests as well, getting arrested at the protest outside the White House last summer that demanded that President Barack Obama stop the XL Pipeline designed to send dirty tar sands oil from Alberta down to Texas, so that the oil can be refined and sold.

Compare Powell’s actions on sustainability and climate to those taken by President Barack Obama. In his State Of The Union address this year, Obama announced that he wouldn’t even try to get climate legislation passed through Congress. Then, Obama said there was nothing he could do to stop the tar sands pipeline proposed for construction across the U.S. Midwest, because, “Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do. That’s their national policy, they’re pursuing it.” In line with this comment, Obama hasn’t stopped the XL Pipeline. He’s merely delayed its construction until after the 2012 presidential election.

Of course, there’s a great deal that can be done by the U.S government to slow Canada’s development of the Alberta tar sands. The U.S. government can decide not to give a special exception to environmental regulations for the XL pipeline, and thus cut off the tar sands oil from easy access to American markets, cutting the profitability of the tar sands development.

Barack Obama isn’t willing to commit to take that action, however. He’s just throwing his hands up in the air and saying that nothing can be done. While Barack Obama may be the Chief Executive in name, activists like Kristy Powell are demonstrating a great deal more genuine executive leadership.

After the ridiculous vote in North Carolina in favor of a constitutional amendment banning equality of marriage law for heterosexual and homosexual couples, President Obama’s opposition to marriage equality became untenable. Obama’s aides saw the revulsion which the North Carolina vote caused outside of the South, and realized that the Obama re-election campaign was about to be stuck in the company of the country’s worst bigots.

So, thanks for making it clear, President Obama, that you personally think that North Carolina made the wrong decision. Welcome to the 21st century – 12 years late.

But now, Mr. President, what are you going to DO about it?

It looks like President Obama intends to do nothing. He said that his newfound acceptance of the idea that homosexual couples deserve equal rights is just personal. Even as he stated this new personal opinion, Obama declared that he still believes that states should have the right to vote to ban same sex marriage.

That places Barack Obama still on the wrong side, when it counts. It places President Obama still on the side of the bigots in North Carolina.

That’s because it’s not really the job of the President of the United States to express his personal opinions and leave it at that. It’s the job of the President of the United States to be the chief executive. It’s the President’s job to act.

And so, what Barack Obama has said today is that yes, he personally believes that it’s fine for same-sex couples to get married, but that as President he will not lift a finger to give them the right to do so. When bigots in backwards states like North Carolina decide to enact bans against marriage equality, Obama won’t do a thing to stop them.

That’s not just a betrayal of the gays and lesbians. It’s a betrayal of the Constitution and the rule of law.

The rule of law in the United States of America is founded upon the national Constitution, not the authority of the states. States cannot pass laws of any sort that contradict the rights guaranteed by the national Constitution, and the national Constitution requires equality under the law.

Barack Obama’s refusal to stand up for that principle is weakening the authority of the Constitution, and is, therefore, weakening the ability of anyone, heterosexual or homosexual to trust that their legal rights are going to be respected. Obama’s new position is akin to that of Abraham Lincoln before the Civil War. President Lincoln was happy to allow slavery to continue, just so long as there wasn’t a war fought between the states over the matter.

Lincoln’s wishy washy position against national abolition of slavery could not save the union, and it made for a weak moral position during the initial part of the Civil War. The only way that Abraham Lincoln could turn around his failed policy was to finally take executive action against slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Barack Obama is often likened to Abraham Lincoln – but right now, what we’re seeing from Obama is most like a reflection of Lincoln’s worst political instincts. Obama, like Lincoln, is letting a bunch of yahoos from the Carolinas lead the way.

Real leadership from Obama, appropriate to his position, would not allow such mean-spirited erosion of the national authority in order to defend cruel, outdated traditions of inequality. Real leadership would see that, through action of the Supreme Court or through Congress, the disloyal state of North Carolina forced to come back into line with the law of the land, and revise its state constitution to reflect the fact that, in the United States, no group may be given an unequal, inferior legal status.

If President Barack Obama does not take such action, then he has only succeeded today in communicating that he has no intention of using his power to defend the Constitution from domestic threats, as he promised to do when he took the Oath of Office two and a half years ago. If he will not honor his Oath of Office now, he should not be given the chance to dishonestly swear it again.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it, until Barack Obama stands up and takes responsibility in the job that he’s been given: Americans who truly believe in constitutional rights don’t need to vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. There is an alternative for us: Jill Stein, who has prominently supported equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians for many years, and who, just today, endorsed the platform of the New Progressive Alliance, which includes the following plank: “Our country was founded upon a set of principles and ideals that have their most eloquent expression in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Based on these core values, we support equal rights for all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, country of origin, or other status, including the right of same-sex couples to marry, and the right of all women to make decisions about their reproductive health.”

You read that right: “it comes as no shock that you have to tow the obama regime line or you will lose your job at the Fox entertainment network.” It will come as no surprise to anyone watching FOX News over the last decade that they just love Barack Obama and are conspiring to keep him in office. Why, those FOX News anchors are nothing but commie pinko Tinky-Winky hugging sushi eaters.

Still, when I see anti-Obama messages from the Republicans, I’m tickled at the unreflective stupidity of what they have to say.

This morning, it was anti-Obama social media that gave me a giggle. There are 1,400 members of the Facebook community that calls itself “I Support Removal Of The un-Constitutional President NOW – Not in 2012″.

Has it not occurred to one of these 1,400 people that they might change the name of their community, or did they consider the new name “I Support Removal Of The un-Constitutional President NOW – Not in 2013″, and decide that it just didn’t sound right?