23 Oct

“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.” [Reader Post]

                                       


Those are the words of George Soros. And he feels the United States must be destroyed.

George Soros was born György Schwartz in Hungary in 1930. Soros, born a Jew but now an atheist, was the son of a Nazi colloaborator and accompanied his father while the father assisted in the confiscation of private property from Jews. Through it all, he feels no guilt. In fact

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: No.

In 2004 Joshua Muravchik wrote that in 1944:

“70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”

Soros has called 1944 “the best year of my life.”

In the introduction to his father’s book, Soros said

“It is a sacreligious thing to say, but these ten months [of the Nazi occupation] were the happiest times of my life… We led an adventurous life and we had fun together.”

Yes he did say that.

From the American Thinker:

“Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically…almost overnight.”

And

When asked about his sphere of influence in the Soviets’ demise for a New Republic interview in 1994, Mr. Soros humbly replied that the author ought to report that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.”

Soros wants to pop “the bubble of American supremacy.”

Soros says he “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

Soros’ goal is “to become the conscience of the world.”

In an interview in The Australian in 2009, Soros had this to say:

So do you have a sense that things are coming together for you now?

It is in a way a culminating point of my life’s work, so to speak. Everything is coming together. Yeah, the American election, the financial crisis, the theory of reflexivity. So it is actually a very stimulating period.

(emphases mine)

The recession, the pain of this country, the dire circumstances so many in this country find themselves in- it’s “stimulating” to Soros. It’s the culmination of his life’s work.

George Soros is a sociopath.

As Skookum noted, Soros ploughed $1 million into Media Matters to fight Fox News.

Soros has basically bought off NPR:

The left loves to go wild claiming that Ruppert Murdock, a famous conservative, owns a few news outlets. The left is also aghast that well-known righty Roger Ailes guides Fox News. Ailes’s ideology makes of his network a compromised product, they claim. It’s all a travesty of “news,” and “proof” that those agencies are contaminated by right-wing ideology say lefty detractors. So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.”

Soros’ investment has brought results. In an example of brazen hypocrisy NPR has fired Juan Williams because Williams appeared on Fox News, and O’Reilly’s show in particular.

Soros has set about to attack the Tea Party.

It should be no surprise that multi-billionaire and globalist George Soros, born György Schwartz, known as “the man who broke the Bank of England,” has launched a new front to attack and discredit the Tea Parties on with his new website TeaPartyTracker.org. Soros is a staunch opponent to the Tea Party and their ideals of constitutionally limited government by the people.

Soros has his fingers in an astonishing number of left-wing and anti-American organizations including Media Matters, the Tides Foundation, the Center for American Progress and the Open Society Institute.

Soros most definitely intends to take control of the United States. Part of that effort is to control the Courts:

For a lesson in courtroom politics, have a look at Nevada, where a first salvo in a nationwide campaign to end state judicial elections will greet voters on the November ballot. According to the measure, the state would switch to the so-called Missouri plan for choosing judges—putting the responsibility for courts in the hands of a legal elite, instead of with voters or elected representatives.

Used by more than 30 states, the Missouri plan lets a judicial nominating commission select a limited slate of judicial candidates (usually two or three) from whom the Governor may choose. Though created in the name of protecting judges from political influence, it hasn’t worked out that way. States using this so-called merit selection method have had their judicial selections manipulated by lawyers and bar associations that nominate guild favorites. In most cases this has pushed courts to the activist left.

That’s a nifty outcome for liberal groups who see the state courts as the next frontier for moving political agendas. The Nevada initiative is part of a nationwide effort supported by George Soros, among others, to eliminate judicial elections in state courts. Through groups such as Justice at Stake, Mr. Soros’s Open Society Institute has spent some $45 million on the cause nationwide, according to numbers tracked by the American Justice Partnership. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has emerged as an unofficial spokesman for the effort, but the big money is coming from the political left. Nevada is viewed as a test drive.

Another prong in the Soros pitchfork is aimed at taking control of the Secretaries of the States.

History’s most notorious Georgian-turned-Russian, the politically astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

The lesson has not been lost on the increasingly notorious Hungarian-cum-American George Soros.

A group backed by Soros is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. From such posts, secretaries of state can help tilt the electoral playing field.

From the SOS PRoject website:

We are proud of our 2006 victory in Minnesota, where long time reformer Mark Ritchie pulled off a major upset with our support. He was later under fierce media and legal scrutiny as he oversaw the recount of the Franken/Coleman senatorial race. Ritchie operated with transparency and integrity, such that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold the extremely close election results, finally sending Franken to the Senate where his vote has been much needed.

“Transparency and integrity”

Laughable, to say the least.

Let’s put this in perspective:

This is, of course, the same Soros, the same hyperpolitical left-wing philanthropist who makes no secret of his intention to destroy capitalism. In an interview with Der Spiegel last year, Soros said European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society.”

And Soros’ SOS Project have produced results:

More significant than outrageous statements being made are the actions being taken.

As the Wall Street Journal noted the “corrections” being made favor Al Franken in such a way that raises suspicions about the integrity of the process being overseen by Ritchie. The Powerline blog has had a running commentary on one suspicious action after another which give the correction process a very blue tinge. Among the “irregularities” are:

– misplaced” ballots turning up in an official’s trunk;

– “errors” in reporting vote totals almost entirely for the Senate race and no others;

– many of the new numbers coming out of three small precincts;

– and so on.

That election was most curious.

A review of Minnesota’s statewide database of registered voters revealed at least 2,812 deceased individuals voted in last November’s general election, according to a new report by the “traditional values” advocacy group Minnesota Majority.

And the dead weren’t the only problem:

The six-month election recount that turned former “Saturday Night Live” comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota’s Twin Cities.

That’s the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

Franken won by 312 votes.

Soros also had a hand in something even bigger- magical even.

Enter George Soros Stage Left

Early in the summer of 2004, following Obama’s fortuitous primary victory, he got noticed by a mighty hefty Democrat donor, George Soros.

An article, written by Robert Bluey, of CNSNews.com, entitled: “Unlike Kerry, Obama Covets George Soros’ Support,” included this:

“Shortly after Soros equated the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Obama joined him for a New York fund-raiser June 7.

“The event, held at Soros’ home, boosted Obama’s campaign at a time he was still facing a challenge from Republican Jack Ryan.”

And again, Soros’ investment is paying off:

President Obama is adept at rewarding those who put him into office. And hard-left financier George Soros is emerging as a leader of the patronage pack.

A payback to Soros was due. As the chief moneyman behind left-wing political action committees like MoveOn.org, Soros, an early supporter of Obama, played an instrumental role in drumming up voter mobilization and political advertising on the novice candidate’s behalf. In no small part, Obama’s triumph in the Democratic primary over better-known rivals was a testament to Soros’s deep pockets and his political commitment.

Now it’s time for Soros to collect on his investment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Obama administration has committed up to $10 billion to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance oil exploration off of Brazil’s coast.

Barack Obama has some strong competition for the title of “The Greatest Threat to America.”

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in George Soros, Liberal Idiots, Politics, The Shadow Party, The Shadow Warriors. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, October 23rd, 2010 at 8:51 am
| 2,959 views

69 Responses to “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.” [Reader Post]

  1. MataHarley says: 51

    @Greg: If one could only feed a starving child by stealing a loaf of bread from the baker’s rack, for example, one would be justified in breaking the commandment to do so. The act of theft is still wrong, but the correct moral decision in that hypothetical situation might be to commit the theft anyway.

    @Nan G: IF a Christian steals to feed his child he fully expects to pay the complete price when he is caught.

    Waiting on God is much more likely to be his choice, however.

    The first is a bizarre hypothetical, Greg, and smacks of lack of personal experience. It does make me wonder if you’ve ever had even the slightest brush with faith or religion.

    Would those of faith feel the need to “steal” food to feed their children? Or would they turn to those of the same faith, knowing they would receive what they needed… as they were taught in their religions… even from those with little to spare and share? And, in turn, they would give back in what ways they could in thanks and appreciation. Or, as the movie likes to call it, “pay it forward”.

    Nan G has the most likely response to “starving children” correct. And BTW, I even had to laugh at your predictable choice of set up… the typical “staving children” bit. There are no depths so low, apparently…. even in made up scenerios… to make your political point.

    What I believe is that your hypothetical is nothing more than philosophical fodder and Humanity 101 college speak, sans any basis in real exposure. Those of faith would not be stealing what is not theirs, but would be “waiting on God”… who manifests help in the form of other charitable humans giving of themselves (hence the word “charity” and not “government mandates”…). This is just the same as those around the world have experienced over and over with America’s charitable giving in times of need – despite religious or political differences, or even personal economic status.

    ReplyReply
  2. MataHarley says: 52

    Just to clarify the “humanity college speak 101″ crap: you (Greg) said

    @Greg: I believe what you object to, Old Trooper 2, is moral relativism. Moral relativists reject the idea that there are universal moral principles. For those who always put themselves first, it provides license to do and rationalize just about anything.

    Situational ethics, on the other hand, places high value on the traditional moral principles, but states that one’s moral choices should be guided within that context by love and compassion.

    Only those who don’t experience absolute and unconditional charity can come up with such absurd and lofty “explanations” and human “categories”. As OT2 says, his morals are non-negotiable. Therefore, only those that *do* bargain with their personal morals come up with this crap, by way of explaining their own lack of convictions. Not to mention their love of class/category warfare.

    ReplyReply
  3. Hard Right says: 53

    Rich wheeler again proves what we say about the left. They support a fellow leftist no matter what crimes they commit (Soros), are major hypocrites, and they are massively self deluded. Rich actually thinks he’s a moderate! They have anti-psychotics for that sort of thing RW.

    Like GREG, RW has never gone against party line that I can recall. Yet he claims not to believe in the very things he defends.

    Here is proof that Soros is a CONVICTED criminal.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-soros.1974397.html

    Another crime he was fined for.
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/soros-caught-manipulating-hungarian-market

    I also like how in one breath the left attacks greedy capitalists as the root of the housing collapse and credit industry, yet gives Soros a pass (and Frank, and Schumer..and obama…).

    Just for good measure:

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-soros-funded-fake-iraq-body-count

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 54

    @ MataHarley, #51 & 52:

    Only those who don’t experience absolute and unconditional charity can come up with such absurd and lofty “explanations”. As OT2 says, his morals are non-negotiable. Only those that do bargain with their morals come up with this crap, by way of explaining their own lack of convictions.

    It isn’t a matter of “bargaining with one’s morals”. It’s a matter of trying to stay true to the reason we have codified moral principles in the first place. An imperfect world has a way of presenting moral dilemmas.

    What I believe is that your hypothetical is nothing more than philosophical fodder and Humanity 101 college speak, sans any basis in real exposure. Those of faith would not be stealing what is not theirs, but would be “waiting on God”…

    It’s a classic instructive example, straight out of an Episcopalian ethics class. That “bizarre hypothetical” dilemma has never presented itself in my life and probably never will. (That assumption being based either on faith or foolishness.) On the other hand, the 6th commandment crossed my mind as I was preparing to go to Vietnam. Nothing struck me as hypothetical about that one. There were competing principles in the balance. I chose and went. Not without thinking about it. Maybe a year in Fr. Ramos’s Ethics classroom helped.

    I really don’t know what to say about “waiting on God”. Maybe God sometimes waits on us to decide? I don’t pretend to know.

    I respect OT2 for his non-negotiable principles, btw. He’s got his views and the integrity to stick to them. Nothing he said in #50 surprised me in the least.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 55

    @Greg: It isn’t a matter of “bargaining with one’s morals”. It’s a matter of trying to stay true to the reason we have codified moral principles in the first place. An imperfect world has a way of presenting moral dilemmas.

    You still don’t get it, do you Greg? You can’t “codify” and or “categorize” and or “classify” morals. Most especially into two speparate “codes, categories, or classifications”. Morals are either a part of you, or they aren’t. Those of you that attend “higher” learning may try to ‘splain them away, anyway you can, but it’s still beyond your grasp unless you possess them yourselves.

    It’s a classic instructive example, straight out of an Episcopalian ethics class. That “bizarre hypothetical” dilemma has never presented itself in my life and probably never will. (That assumption being based either on faith or foolishness.) On the other hand, the 6th commandment crossed my mind as I was preparing to go to Vietnam. Nothing struck me as hypothetical about that one. There were competing principles in the balance. I chose and went. Not without thinking about it. Maybe a year in Fr. Ramos’s Ethics classroom helped.

    I really don’t know what to say about “waiting on God”. Maybe God sometimes waits on us to decide? I don’t pretend to know.

    I’d say your 1st sentence just reinforces my first assertation. Your second paragraph is simply an admittance of what I keep saying about you. Unless you possess a sense of morality, to which you remain true, you’ll never understand categorizing a “compromise” of those morals, nor the community of faith that needs no government mandate to eliminate the need for someone to “steal” a loaf of bread to feed their child.

    I respect OT2 for his non-negotiable principles, btw. He’s got his views and the integrity to stick to them. Nothing he said in #50 surprised me in the least.

    As we all do, Greg. However why you’d think he’s alone in his “non-negotiable principles” will remain an enigma.

    Off on a redeye for family emergency. Carry on in my absence, as I know you will, oh FA friends.

    ReplyReply
  6. anticsrocks says: 56

    @rich wheeler: Just because Soros is super wealthy enough to give to some possibly well meaning organizations doesn’t mean he has no agenda for America.

    He founded the Open Society Institute which channels monies to individuals and organizations that espouse beliefs that support Soros’ agenda.

    In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder’s agendas. Those agendas can be summarized as follows:

    * promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
    * promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
    * opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
    * depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
    * promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
    * promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
    * promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
    * defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters
    * financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
    * advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending
    * opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
    * promoting socialized medicine in the United States
    * promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”
    * bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations
    * promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike
    * promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand
    * advocating stricter gun-control measures
    * advocating the legalization of marijuana
    Source

    During the 2000 presidential election season, Soros first experimented with the idea of raising campaign funds through “Section 527″ groups. Such organizations are used for raising “soft money” which is not intended for “express advocacy” of any particular candidate, but rather for “voter education,” “issue-oriented” political advertising, and other such nebulous enterprises. As such, there are no limits on how much money they may receive from any given donor. In practice, however, 527s can exert — through public statements, press releases, media citations, research reports, and direct action campaigns — immense influence on the political views and voting decisions of the American public.

    Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issues — gun control and marijuana legalization — by funneling large amounts of cash to some 527s that were committed to those particular objectives.
    ————————
    Having experienced this success in 2000, Soros moved to exploit the power of 527s on a much larger scale during the 2004 election cycle. Toward that end, he was a key force in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Party” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network’s activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation.

    According to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the book The Shadow Party:


    The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is … George Soros.

    He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control…. It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, ‘Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it.…'”
    Source

    So Soros wields no power over Obama and the Dems? Looks like you are wrong again, rich wheeler.

    ReplyReply
  7. anticrocks,atti and hardright(a perfect moniker).Lets be very clear.I am no fan of Soros.

    The raging hard on you all have for him probably brings him much glee. The power and influence you credit him with brings a new Oliver Stone movie to mind.Politics is by nature a dirty game.You think Repubs don’t have similar bad actors.You forgotten the Swift Boaters.

    Why waste so much hatred on Soros. He ain’t worth it.It ‘s probably more fun to call me a wannabe fascist,communist,socialist etc.As mentioned I believe the HARDRIGHT’s belligerance and stupidity(re. birthers) will bring a backlash leading to Tea Party Senatorial defeats in Delaware,Nevada,Pennsylvania and possibly Colorado and Alaska.Sarah will never win an election outside of Alaska.

    I predict the Tea Party will be powerless by 2012.That should get a good argument.

    Semper Fi,
    Wheeler

    ReplyReply
  8. anticsrocks says: 58

    @rich wheeler: It is evident that you are unable to read. Or at least it seems that way because you avoided every point I made in post #56.

    Why do you continue to support Soros by claiming he has no power? There is irrefutable evidence that he does wield power in the far left’s agenda and he is extending that into the Democratic Party.

    You said:

    You think Repubs don’t have similar bad actors.You forgotten the Swift Boaters.

    And I am assuming you meant that as a question.

    Let’s see:

    Swift Boaters=a group of veterans that wanted to set the record straight about the lies John Kerry told about his service in Viet Nam.

    Soros=a multi-billionaire who admits to participating in aiding in carrying out atrocities against his fellow countrymen and fellow Jews, and is also on record (as I pointed out in post #56) funding far left agencies set on tearing down the United States of America

    You equate those two?

    By the way, since when is shedding light on someone’s activities considered hatred?

    ReplyReply
  9. Greg says: 59

    @ MataHarley, #55:

    “As we all do, Greg. However why you’d think he’s alone in his “non-negotiable principles” will remain an enigma.”

    I don’t think that, actually.

    I always wonder how ethical people with non-negotiable principles resolve situations where two of those principles come into direct conflict. My theory is that some elements of situational ethics come into play, though they may not define the deliberation of heart and mind in such terms.

    The problem isn’t always the lack of a will to do what’s right. Sometimes it’s figuring out what the right thing is. The more complex and interrelated the affairs of the world become, the harder that gets.

    ReplyReply
  10. anticsrocks says: 60

    The more complex and interrelated the affairs of the world become, the harder that gets.

    Bullshit. If you have a good moral compass and you know what is right, then the answer is always there. No moral equivocation needed. The right thing to do is almost never the easiest thing to do. Those on the left need to learn that.

    ReplyReply
  11. johngalt says: 61

    @antics

    Everything for them is a grey area. There is no absolute wrong or right.

    You are correct, however. Having a solid, moral base from which to draw on, one can typically make the right choices, however hard those choices might be.

    ReplyReply
  12. Greg says: 62

    There are absolute rights and wrongs–on the compass. The world you’ve got to use it to navigate through is where you find the grey areas.

    ReplyReply
  13. Old Trooper 2 says: 63

    I can leave the ‘creation ‘of grey areas’ to the morally challenged. My Personal absolutes have served me well over the years and in some very tough locales. It woyld appear that there are some rather lucrative Career Opportunities in the manufacture of ‘grey areas’ but I already have a job.

    ReplyReply
  14. anticsrocks says: 64

    Greg, either something is right or it isn’t. No gray areas, sorry.

    ReplyReply
  15. SOOTHSAYER ONE says: 65

    George Soros has family, two sons and a daughter, and is not alone. His older brother Paul Soros emigrated to New York just prior to the anti-Soviet tanks in the streets upsising in Budapest Hungary. Fluent in Hungarian, German, English and Esperanto, very important within the Soros strategic structure, he touted a degree in machanical engineering, forged sheepskin, bandering about terms read in the magazine Popular Mechanics and got private placement funding (OPM) to set up a dock cleaning company sweeping and scrubbing the wharfs of Mamhattan and Brooklyn. With cheap labor fleeing Communist Hungary flooding NYC he paid those poor non-English speaking sops money in bags of coin after working ten to twelve hours with bloom and mop. Today Paul, looks of a silver haired Liberace, is a billionaire philanthepist donating time and money to the musical and dramatic arts.

    Megalomania must run deep within the Soros family genes which indicates the sons must be being groomed for government power. Perhaps this trait goes back to the Hapsburg Dynasty, proponents of a single language Europe, and the desire for monarchy rule, remember monarchy is just Socialism with a small “s”.

    ReplyReply
  16. Missy says: 66

    missing post, P&T

    ReplyReply
  17. soothsayer one, hi, I sure hope AMERICA remain the OBSTACLE for them
    as long as AMERICAN beleive in the CONSTITUTION unique among the COUNTRYS of the PLANET,
    the WORLD ORDER IS A UTOPIA and there is no chance to achieve it, among GOD LOVING PEOPLE
    from all theWORLD, because they see what is the AGENDA of the ORGANISATION,
    and DESPISE it.

    ReplyReply
  18. SOOTHSAYER ONE says: 68

    No intention here to appear anti-semitic, this dude is a Zionist true long-term lover of Israel, but there is no history of an European Jewish royal family so I, not totally alone here, believe one of the intrinsic motivators for Karl Marx was to replace the old order of Catholic or Protestant based royalty with a substitute equally powerful within Europe that would eventually have a global reach. George Soros, a puppet himself controlled by Big Oil, has royalist monarchial asperations for his children wearing an, in their future, America crown.

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks that is the true description of a TRAITOR of AMERICA,
    the FBI, must have a big multi page dossier on him, It’s a matter of time when he will go in a life emprisonment term,

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>