Newspaper Ad Accuses Obama And Dems Of Christian Murder Conspiracy

Story from - Addicting Info.org
June 1, 2012
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Newspaper Ad Accuses Obama And Dems Of Christian Murder Conspiracy
background about the source:
Addicting Info.org is a Fibrillating Palpitating Foaming-at-the-Mouth Ultra-Liberal Super Left Wing Fanatical Radical Hot under the collar website.

No problem, as they often bring controversies to a debatable format.

This story is very debatable and attacks anything considered "Right-Wing".


Apparently a newspaper in Louisiana has published an ad that insinuates Obama and evil Democrats are plotting to destroy Christianity !!!

The story also goes off on a semi-tangent about Agenda 21 (a U.N. NWO plan) mentioned in the ad.

Very interesting.

First the ad, then the article excerpts.




The story opens:

A Louisiana newspaper has printed a right-wing extremist group’s ad depicting a Catholic priest being murdered in 1920s Mexico and accusing President Obama of conspiring with Democrats to do the exact same thing to Catholics and Christians here in America.

The Daily Advertiser claims to have a strict policy about which ads it chooses to run, saying that false, overly offensive, and other inappropriate content is kept out of the paper. But apparently the ad pictured below is completely fine.

The ad features a photo of Father Francisco Vera standing in front of a firing squad, preparing to be killed for celebrating mass. Underneath the photo is a letter to Louisiana and America that states,

“AMERICA is under siege by the same evil (Democrats, President Obama, etc..) as history shows over and over…We must learn from it or we are doomed to repeat it. We must be triumphant over terror.”

The ad goes on to claim that we must stop Agenda 21, which right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society claim is a United Nations conspiracy to conquer America. The RNC even claims that Agenda 21 is “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control,” that apparently requires the mass murder of Christians and Catholics...........(continues)

The story rants and raves on and on and ends with this:

This ad shows how vicious the right-wing intends to become as Election Day approaches. Ads like this should never appear in a newspaper and The Daily Advertiser should be boycotted by level-headed citizens until it stops giving crazy right-wing extremists a platform from which to preach their hate and scare the American people.

Wheeeew !!

God Bless the 1st Amendment !!

We are doomed to repeat history unless we learn from it and all one must do is take a close look at
Obama and his radical friends to see where he wants to take America. Those who blindly follow him
and totally refuse to ask the hard questions about who he is and where he came from and why he
conceals everything about his past are the same kind of blind sheep that followed Germany into the
WWII with its radical leader.

It is time people awakened and it is way beyond time the media did its job and quit covering for the
narcissist in chief.

This is absolutely disgusting and despicable, especially with republicans calling for rounding up gays and putting them in camps. How can they be such hypocrites, liars and traitors?

Will Obama and the Democrats shoot Catholics and Christians?

Before the NDAA and Obama's Kill list i would have said no but now ??

Run for the hills.

Originally posted by CB328
This is absolutely disgusting and despicable, especially with republicans calling for rounding up gays and putting them in camps. How can they be such hypocrites, liars and traitors?

What kind of a nonsensical statement is that? I've never in my life heard of republicans stating such a thing.

Yeah, 'cause the Democrats would never stoop to such lows.

I've never in my life heard of republicans stating such a thing.

Kansas pastor calls on U.S. government to kill LGBT people

www.rawstory.com...

If Obama destroys Christianity he will be a hero. Just think about how many children will be spared from all the Catholic pedos.

And spare all the children being brainwashed into being little hateful goblins



And make people stop being possessed by dogs



Oh wait, Obama went to a Christian church

for years........Bummer

*

Originally posted by neo96
Will Obama and the Democrats shoot Catholics and Christians?

Before the NDAA and Obama's Kill list i would have said no but now ??

Run for the hills.

edit on 1-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Except the GOP voted to uphold NDAA

222 REPUBLICANS FOR NDAA

17 AGAINST NDAA


And the vast Majority of Democrats voted AGAINST

Sorry I have to remind you again about the truth, you feel content lying about it

repeatedly

reply to post by xuenchen


More Fear mongering

Gotta love the Conservative strategy, they are consistent

Originally posted by CB328

I've never in my life heard of republicans stating such a thing.

Kansas pastor calls on U.S. government to kill LGBT people

www.rawstory.com...

edit on 1-6-2012 by CB328 because: (no reason given)

this guy ^ and the other preacher who want to round up all the gays with a fence around them, then when they die there will not be any more gays ?????I kid you not... he actually said that ( who does he think is making babies in the first place!!!!!)

You guys are getting mixed up on Republican and Democrats. Republicans=Democrats. Plain and simple. There is no way in hell you can sustain and manage an Empire if you had honest elections and parties. Just another pair of strings that's creased by the puppet masters.

222 REPUBLICANS FOR NDAA 17 AGAINST NDAA

reply to post by Beanskinner


and with a sign of the pen Obama could of struck it down... he didn't.

reply to post by benrl


And? Anyone that voted yes for it is just as bad as Obama.

Originally posted by benrl

222 REPUBLICANS FOR NDAA 17 AGAINST NDAA

reply to post by Beanskinner

 

and with a sign of the pen Obama could of struck it down... he didn't.

And the 93% of Republicans could have voted against it,,, they didn't.

The Democratic congressmen DID

well

i guess if a christian was really worried that the myth of heaven might not be true
then the christian might worry about getting killed

other then that
wouldn't these people be doing them a favor..sending them on to their foretold destination and all?
or are they just pretending to want to go there?


eta
also:
I'd swear I have heard democrats on bended knee swearing fealty to God and Israel.....just to get themselves elected
wouldn't that make them christians too?

reply to post by xuenchen


Pfffffffffft. Ridiculous Left Wing lunacy again. I just can't believe....wait. Are you seriously using this article to lash out at the left? So if the left does something wrong and redstate.com criticizes it, redstate is the asshat, right?

Let's forget who is a fault for Agenda 21 for a moment:

What in the world does the thing say?

Cover:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

This is innocent sounding enough, but the wording makes me uneasy: it gives the UN more control over what should be autonomous countries. Many of us already want the Federal Government to back off the states--why would we want UN authority over us? Why would anyone?

Next link in there:

Preamble: 1.1:

However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future.

While nice, the experience I've had with environmental laws is that if the infrastructure for more environmentally friendly sources of income is not there, all these types of laws do is ensure the poverty of the people in question. (As in no jobs.) I can understand that conceptually there are cases where this is not so. I know that the wood-milling industry is a great example of waste not, want not. And it does not seem to be affecting the labor pool, although I'm sure jobs were lost at some point.

1.2: This thing comes from the "General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989". No guarantee that it is true to that resolution.

1.3: Basically high-minded words for governments bullying governments into supporting this.

1.4:

The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development.

First, we already DO this, and people have a problem with it NOW. And the government is already trying to pass rules on Expatriots for taking money outside the system, so why in the world does the Government want to do this themselves?

1.5: Admits that this will cause problems to "governments in transformation" ~basically: we know this is going to cause upheaval.

1.6: There's programs.

Note at the bottom: this program is designed for Europe.

Next link broke.

2 after:

Report of the UN conference on Environment and Development The principles therein:
1. Humans have rights.
2. States can make their own Environmental rules.
3. Countries have a right to develop.
4. Environmental protection should be geared towards long-term sustainability. (This has NOT been my experience, consistently.)
5. Eradicate poverty as part of sustainable development. (Frankly impossible. You can only eradicate poverty when all work towards it. Some poor will not work. Those get in the way of taking care of those who cannot.)
6. Attend to special needs of developing countries:

But that development should include International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

So, in other words, if Scotland has needs, then the international law enforced upon Cuba should reflect Scotland's needs. This is 1. hard to prove the need, and 2. is likely to be misused.
7. States shall cooperate.
8. Reduce and eliminate "unsustainable jobs". So, if 5 is not met, then this could be misused to shut down jobs?
9.Share technology for all, gets in way of patents.
10. Local cleanup should be local governed cleanup.
11. Concession to some of this has got to be individualized due to how much it will cost the country involved.
12. Should not use trade to bully. Potentially contradicts preamble.
13. Need to develop laws on accountability and compensation.
14. Don't allow companies who will not cooperate to relocate. (Not cool. I don't agree with California's laws on some things (which may be lax here), so if the company wants to move here, California should have no right to prevent it.)
15. Precautionary approach until "irreverseable damnage": If the science can't fully back up the claims about damages, be-damned the science! Clean it up anyway. (Um, yeah, not liking this. "Be-damned the science" is what got that chemical spilled in the Gulf to take care of the oil quickly. Not a good idea.)
16. Try to cover the cost of change at the individual governmental level. Polluter should bear the cost of pollution.
17. Do Environmental Impact assessments.
18. Notify others of natural disasters causing real damage, and we should help internationally.

Continued.

reply to post by RealSpoke

And? Anyone that voted yes for it is just as bad as Obama.

Yep, they are, I hate them all, Rep, Dem, its all two sides of the same coin.

But the reply I was referring to was inferring Obama had no responsibility in the bills passage, if anything he was the ONE person who could of stopped it, the others just voted, if one of those senators said no, bill would of still passed.

Obama could of taken a stand for Liberty, he didn't, what ever happen to the "Buck stops here" Guess that doesn't matter any more.

Anyone whose been in politics for the duration of this mess we are in should be out on their asses with the state of this country.

Partisanship will be the death nail of the America we knew and loved.