skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Mainstream Media is ablaze with the probable corruption of Governor Blago of Illinois. The MSM and Conservatives should be ablaze of ACORN allied and George Soros inspired Secretary of State of Minnesota and the powers that be among the election board stealing the election from incumbent Senator Norm Coleman.
Al Franken cadres have been mysteriously locating missing votes and demanding duplicate votes be counted.
And what do you think has happened as a result? Franken has taken a 250 plus lead in the recount. The evil in this recount is obvious when Coleman won the election on November 4th with 700 plus votes.
Does no one else see the hypocrisy of the Dems and Franken when they accused GW of stealing the election in 2000 via the courts (legal measures)? Franken is currently winning the Minnesota seat for Senator via extra-legal means; i.e. CORRUPTION.
JRH 12/20/08
I have been very critical of the Bush Administration’s arm twisting of Israel to create a sovereign Palestinian State. Part of the reason for this criticism is that the Islamofascist Arabs terrorizing Israel have no claim to a creation of a nation. That sounds harsh doesn’t it?
After all these Arabs were holed up in refugee camps in Gaza and Arabs in the West Bank have been restricted to their locations in a less than glorious existence. These refugees began their existence after several Arab invading armies were defeated by the little Israeli army in 1949. The proof leans more toward the Israeli contention that the Arabs told their fellow Arabs residing in Israel to flee because they would be in the middle of an Arab army massacre of Jews. A majority of Arabs then fled.
The Arab version is that the Israeli army (or whatever it was called back then) forced the Arabs to leave. Indeed, there were minor cases of Jewish expulsion of Arabs. I say minor for the Jewish expulsion of Arabs in isolated areas was due to Arabs terrorizing Jews – a foretaste of things to come. Any Jewish/Israeli army expulsions were more the result of tactics against a hostile enemy than a forced march of non-Jews. An overwhelming number of Arabs fled just as they were told to do by the invading Arab armies who felt the hubris of assured victory.
The Arab refugee problem grew worse and worse:
1. The Arabs collectively agreed to NOT matriculate displaced Arabs within Arab nations that lost the war in order to create a continuous problem for Israel.
2. From 1949 through 1973 Arab nations launched multiple invasions of Israel which added to the misery of the Arab Refugees. Why? Because the invading Arab nations lost every single war they initiated. The resulted in Israel gaining military control that any other part of the world would be recognized at the least just compensation for invasions. The only provocation for these invasions was because Jews returned to the land of their origins so as to escape racism and persecution that had been experienced nearly since the Romans expelled the Jews in 70 AD.
First Europe and now the USA has began to arm twist Israel in giving up historical Jewish land that was won back as the result of hostile Arab invasions.
Now I have become enlightened as to way Obama associations are so very important.
John Perazzo writing for Front Page Magazine draws a pretty good picture that continued associations are ongoing. Barack Hussein Obama has a foreign policy adviser known as Robert Malley. Malley in the tank as an anti-Israeli and his lineage is a family of down right Jew haters.
Read About it!
JRH 11/12/08
**************************
Obama’s Road to Damascus
By John Perazzo
November 11, 2008
FrontPageMagazine.com
History will record that Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place two days after his election victory, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—to outline for them the forthcoming administration’s Mideast policy vis-à-vis those nations. An aide to Malley reports, “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests” than has President Bush. The Bush administration, it should be noted, has rightly recognized Syria to be not only a chief supporter of the al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, but also the headquarters of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the longtime sponsor of Hamas—the terrorist army whose founding charter is irrevocably committed to the annihilation of Israel. Yet unlike President Bush, Obama and Malley have called for Israel to engage in peace negotiations with Syria.
A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee).
In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East. Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998).
Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.”
In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat (the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolph Hitler) for the failure of the peace process.
Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch. It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).
Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq). In addition, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing …”
Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran. Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.
Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah…. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”
This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.
It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”
But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”
_______________________________________
Is BHO Arab Preference Emerging?
John R. Houk
© November 12, 2008
_____________________________________
Obama’s Road to Damascus
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com
Copyright©2008 FrontPageMagazine.com
Remember the Lancet Study that came out just before the U.S. 2006 elections that transformed Congress from a Republican majority to Democratic Party majority? The study that reported the deaths of over 650,000 Iraqis died during the invasion and the immediate chaos that followed.
To put that in perspective, the U.S government projected the Iraqi loss of life at 30,000 and the post Saddam Iraqi government at 50,000. Then the authors of the British medical journal insisted their findings be published before the American 2006 elections.
In the present not only is the methods of the study questioned to attain the Lancet Study conclusions, but the authors have been revealed as anti-war activists in addition the Lancet report was substantially financed by George Soros.
Soros’ hatred of Bush has inspired him to lie as propaganda in attempts to discredit President Bush.
So once again Democrats and Leftists lie with false data as one of their aids in swaying voters in 2006 to vote Democrat.
JRH
+the_hell.jpg)
I received this as part of the Blind Conservative Group (registration only) I belong to via emissives.com. The email post was by a member known as “CD.”
Soros is the embodiment of evil to American conservatives. In saying that I love it when someone paints a picture depicting old George as the Anti-Christ. This in fact is what author Paul R. Hollrah is doing.
Frankly I do not agree with Hollrah’s logic on Soros being the Anti-Christ; however there is a difference between THE Anti-Christ and many anti-Christs. The former is the evil being managed by Satan (of the Revelation of St. John) to hand total physical and spiritual control of the earth to Satan. The later is a reference to human individuals that operate under the oppressive domination of an anti-Christ spirit.
An example of the later would be Adolf Hitler. Nearly the whole spectrum of Christianity can agree on that person. Various divisions will name others having an anti-Christ spirit that includes liberals and conservatives over the 20th and early 21st centuries. I will not debate the validity of those depictions, for that will just lead to a religious debate that people simply will not budge on.
But Soros! Now there is a guy that could be a candidate for an anti-Christ spirit. According to Hollrah’s guess THE Anti-Christ will be a Jew. I assure you, many agree with that guess and many believe it will be a European or an Arab. It is just up for grabs in the theory/conspiracy realm. Old George is simply to old to fit the bill as THE Anti-Christ, however I believe one is coming soon.
A quick editor’s note on Hollrah’s essay: the Blind Conservative format posted by “CD” was somewhat jumbled. Thus I guessed on the grammar and punctuation in many places. If I screwed up the original, my apologies to Paul R. Hollrah.
JRH
******************************Something to think about.
George Soros - The Antichrist?
Paul R. HollrahAuthor: Paul R. Hollrah
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: May 10, 2007
George Soros
Why have once-great bastions of freedom, the Western media, become the purveyors of lies, leftist propaganda, and everything else that coarsens and degrades Western civilization? FSM Contributing Editor Paul R. Hollrah has a chilling theory about the possible reality of the Antichrist. Is he here now?
George Soros - The Antichrist?
By Paul R. Hollrah
I am not a big believer in the concept of an antichrist. It’s all far too mystical for me and I’m not into mysticism. I grew up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, where Church dogma has always held that the Pope is the antichrist. According to the Lutheran Book of Concord, Smalcald Articles, and Part 2:IV:10, “the pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power.”
It is true, the papacy has taken on an aura of princely splendor over the centuries, but to believe that one of those popes “who date back to Christ’s apostle, Simon Peter” could be the antichrist is a stretch; too much of a stretch for me.
However, I may be in the early stages of an epiphany. If the antichrist represents the ultimate evil, as religious fundamentalists tell us, then could it be that much of the unrequited evil we find in the world today is the work of the antichrist? Could that be the reason why the civilized world is faced with a holy war at the hand of Muslims; men who strap suicide bombs to the bellies of their women and children? Could that be why the people of the once-Christian nations of Europe suddenly and quietly acquiesce to the invasion of Islam?
Why have those once-great bastions of freedom, the western media, become the purveyors of lies, leftist propaganda, and everything else that coarsens and degrades western civilization? And why have the leaders of one of our two great American political parties sold their souls so shamelessly and so cheaply in the pursuit of political power?
So, if all of this can be attributed to the antichrist, who is he? According to the website Countdown to Armageddon, “The Antichrist could well rise out of the current chaos in the former Soviet Union. The prophet Ezekiel names him as the ruler of Magog,” a name that Biblical scholars agree denotes a country or region of peoples to the north of Israel. Many have interpreted this to mean modern day Russia. His power base will include the leading nations of Europe, whose leaders, the Bible says, will give their power and strength unto the beast.
The Bible even gives some clues about his personal characteristics. The prophet Daniel wrote that; he will have a “fierce countenance” or stern look, and will be “more stout than his fellows “more proud and boastful.”
So who could it be? Arthur W. Pink, author of The Antichrist, tells us, “The Antichrist will be a Jew,” although his connections and his sphere of influence will by no means confine him to the world of Jewry.
So, just for the sake of argument, let’s consider György Schwartz who was born on August 12, 1930, in Budapest, Hungary. His father, Teodoro Schwartz, a Hungarian Jew, was captured by the Russians during World War I but escaped and made his way back to Budapest. He was reunited with his family and eventually became a teacher of Esperanto.
György was thirteen years old when the Nazis invaded Hungary on March 19, 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944) and began exterminating Jews.
Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia, tell us that Schwartz worked briefly for the Jewish Council, an organization established by the Nazis to deliver deportation messages to Jewish lawyers. However, when his father became concerned for his safety he sent György to live with a non-Jewish government official, posing as his godson.
A year later, in 1945, Russian forces swept through Budapest. But the devastation of house-to-house fighting was not the only disaster that would befall the Hungarian people that year. By August of 1945, the hyperinflation rate in Hungary had grown to 50% per month, and just four months later the inflation rate reached several hundred percent per month. It was in that volatile economic arena, where the Hungarian government maintained two separate monetary units; that our subject learned to make money trading currencies.
György escaped the Soviet occupation by participating in an Esperanto youth congress in 1946, most likely in Sweden, and the following year he migrated to _England_(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). He graduated from the prestigious _London School of Economics_(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics) in _1952_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952) and in 1956 he moved to the United States.
Oh, and the name “Schwartz?” That was changed in 1936 when the Schwartz family became concerned about the Nazi threat to Jews. They chose the name “Soros,” a Hungarian name which, according to Wikipedia, means “next in line,” or “designated successor.” György Schwartz is now George Soros, the man who generously shares his multi-billion dollar fortune with the enemies of America, the man who gave Democrats $23.6 million in 2003-04 to defeat George W. Bush, the man who has totally subverted the American left and purchased the soul of the Democrat Party; the man who now conspires to purchase a Democratic president who will obey his every whim.
Could it be? It’s a very scary thought.
+the_hell.jpg)
Posts
