Barry & Georgey
Barry & Georgey
Can't help but thinking Georgey $oro$ has a lot to do with our current messes! So my on crac....errrr crack staff gave me some data to work from, strictly for our viewers edification: Obama has been different from most Democrats because of his willingness to embrace the controversial Soros. 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.
Remember, this George Soros called the U.S. under George Bush a menace to world peace while blaming Israel for causing anti-Semitism.
Soros’ profits are staggering. On September 16, 1992, he famously made a billion dollars in one day by betting against the Bank of England and the pound sterling. In July 1997, he contributed to the Southeast Asian financial crisis by shorting the Thai baht. In early 2000, he supposedly suffered losses on tech stocks, but some analysts now suggest that the burn of the NASDAQ was controlled and that Soros helped to start the fire. By last November ‘07, he was betting the U.S. dollar would plummet. As the London Independent reported (November 28, 2003), his activities were contributing to a growing belief on Wall Street that the dollar would slide even further.
There is nothing new in Soros’ approach to making money or in the ability of such a person to make an impact, invariably detrimental, on his host society’s morals and culture. What is new with Mr. Soros-in addition to the implausible claim that a private speculator could get as far as he has unaided by any established financial interests-is his systematic, concerted effort to use a large part of his fortune to promote his peculiar social and political views. He does so through a global network of “nongovernmental organizations” named after himself and active primarily in Eastern Europe but also in Africa, Latin America, and the United States. At age 75, money is not his object but his tool. He has used it to develop a well-coordinated global operation centered on the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York, which funds a network of subsidiaries in over 50 countries.
Even before the Open Society network came into being, Soros’ blueprint for post-communist “shock therapy” reform had been put to the test. First came Poland, where the first post-communist Prime Minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was close to Soros and subsequently remained associated with his local subsidiary, the Stefan Batory Foundation. In his book Underwriting Democracy, Soros says that he personally prepared the broad outlines of Poland’s comprehensive economic reform: “I joined forces with Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard University, who was advocating a similar program, and sponsored his work in Poland through the Stefan Batory Foundation . . . The IMF approved and the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain in order to see real change.”
Poland was only a start, however; far more important to his goals was his association in 1991-92 with Russia’s “reformist” leaders Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar and their Harvard guru Sachs. Within a year of their “shock therapy,” hyperinflation had wiped out Russians’ savings and the long-suffering middle class with it. Pensioners were literally starving. The parallel “privatization” of Russia’s huge resources-timber, oil, gas, chemicals, media-created the robber oligarchs and contributed to Russia’s effective deindustrialization. The country was lowered into neocolonial dependence: a supplier of energy and raw materials and an importer of high technology and manufactured goods. Nevertheless, in early 1993, Soros felt that Russia had not gone far enough: “The social safety net would also provide a powerful incentive to shut down loss-making enterprises. Factories could be idled and the raw materials and energy that go into production could be sold for more than the output.”
George Soros is out to deconstruct nations and states as Europe has known them for centuries, with Russia always the main prize. In an interview with the Moscow daily Komersant (August 8, 1997), he declared that “a strong central government in Russia cannot be democratic.” “The rescue of a free Russian economy depends on the attraction of Western investments,” he added, and, to that end, “Russia’s general public must accept the ideology of an open society.”
By that time, a total of 29 “Soros Foundations” were active in every post communist country. In 1994, his foundations spent a total of $300 million; by 1998, that figure had risen to $574 million. These are enormous sums in an impoverished and vulnerable Eastern Europe.
Those foundations say that they are “dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society.” What this means in practice is clear from their many fruits. Regarding “women’s health” programs in Central and Southeastern Europe, for instance, one will look in vain for breast-cancer detection or prenatal or postnatal care. Soros’ main goal is clear and frankly stated: “to improve the quality of abortion services.” Accordingly, his Public Health Program has supported the introduction of medical abortion in Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. In addition, “OSI has also worked with international and local NGOs to respond to the growing strength of the antiabortion movement. Through its influence on ministries of health and hospital administrators, that movement has made strides in reducing access to abortion . . . OSI will continue to support training in quality of care and efforts to keep abortion legal, safe, and accessible for all women in the region.”
Why is Soros so interested in promoting more abortions in Eastern Europe? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: The region is experiencing a colossal demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortion cannot be the answer either: According to a recent U.N. report, five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000-the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Rumania, and Ukraine. Overall, the report said, abortion rates are “substantially higher in central and eastern Europe and the CIS countries than in Western Europe and North America.” The only logical answer is that Soros wants as few Russians and others born into this world as possible….what was first thing Barry did when in office?? Congrats, you guessed it ! Your tax dollars will fund overseas abortions once more….. with 57 Dems supporting, one opposed & one abstaining (Teddy K)!!
Over the past five years, the Soros network has given a successful start to previously nonexistent “gay” activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for “LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Rights” is directed from Budapest, where Miriam Molnar’s 1999 policy paper published by OSI defined the “problem” as discrimination and the low level of acceptance, visibility, and political representation of LGBT’s. It was necessary either “to convince the society to accept LGBT people as equal and let the society make pressure [sic] to the politicians (through media) to change laws” or “to convince the politicians that LGBT people are equal and that they need help in convincing the rest of the society.” The overall goals were to generate discussion about LGBT identity within the community, to make them visible and “create a positive image,” and to establish regular forums of discussion with other groups in the region. Specific tasks included the development of websites in English with subsites in local languages, the establishment of task forces that would react to all “homophobic” media outbursts in one “Pink Book,” and the organization of two-week summer schools for teachers that would “provide training about discrimination of [sic] LGBT people, disabled people, overweight people etc.
In November 1999, a pilot project began at the Center for Publishing Development (OSI Budapest) on homosexual books in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, and Slovakia. That same year, Nash Mir (Our World) Gay and Lesbian Center announced that it had been registered as an NGO in the Ukraine. From that moment, the group was free to pursue its stated goals, including “fight against sexual-orientation discrimination” and “homophobic sentiments in societal consciousness” and “assistance to upbringing of gays’ and lesbians’ self-consciousness as equal and valuable members of society.” The group expressed gratitude for its legalization to the “Ukrainian branch of Soros Foundation Network (Renaissance Foundation) which lobbied our question in the Ministry of Justice and render [sic] legal assistance to us.”
Gay.ru is a Soros-funded Moscow NGO that has developed “into an established and recognized Russian gay and lesbian center” and “the clearing house for lesbian and gay groups scattered across the country”:
“We keep contacts with all existing gay, lesbian, and AIDS organizations in Russia and maintain on-going correspondence and reporting to international gay and lesbian organizations . . . We have collected the biggest off-line library that features over a hundred Russian titles and some fifty English classic books on gay studies. It was greatly enhanced by the Core Collection on Gay and Lesbian Issues awarded to us by the Soros Foundation in 2000.”
In Bucharest, Monika Barcsy of the local Soros branch bewailed the fact that, in Rumania, “the homosexual identity is stigmatized” and is one of the main bases for treating individuals as “the others” in an attitude of intolerance. Their families became the victims of prejudice “just because the society is unable to accept the legitimacy of same-sex relations as a ‘normal’ manifestation.” The author singles out the Rumanian Orthodox Church as a prime culprit: “The problem is that many Christian Orthodox students’ organizations and other student groups support the church.” In 1994, she points out, more than 100 theology students began a series of demonstrations in front of Rumania’s parliament against homosexual propaganda in the media and collected signatures demanding legislation to criminalize same-sex relations. Barcsy concludes by reiterating the standard Soros line: “Gay men and lesbians need rights that guarantee them the expression of their identity in the public sphere . . . [T]he legal status of gays and lesbians, their ability to move and appear in public, to speak out and act together should be considered a very good test of the civic openness. [It] can’t be resolved with the new laws made under the pressure of different human rights organizations. Romania needs . . . to ameliorate the negative responses towards the homosexuals from the majority population . . . There are “problems” with the society as a whole, and the society’s mentality can’t be changed overnight.”
A key pillar of Soros’ activities is his dictum that “no-one has a monopoly on the truth” and that “civic education” should replace the old “authoritarian” model. Civic education does not have to be “just a dialogue” between a teacher and students, he says; in addition, “we have projects like health education, where people use new ways to discuss issues like hygiene, diet, and sex.” While “this does not sound like traditional civic education,” he continues, it is “a new way for teachers to relate to their pupils,” just as citizens must relate in new ways to governments and elected officials in societies trying to become more open and democratic.
Accordingly, throughout postcommunist Eastern Europe, the Soros Foundation’s primary stated goal is to “democratize the education system” by “instituting curriculum reforms.” What this means in practice has been demonstrated over the past three years by Serbia’s education minister Gaso Knezevic, a friend and confidante of Soros. Since the first day of his tenure, Mr. Knezevic has insisted that schools must be transformed from “authoritarian” institutions into “exercise grounds” for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus vercoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the oppressive legacy of patriarchal past.” Mr. Knezevic started his reform with primary schools, with a pilot program of “educational workshops” for children ages 7 to 12. The accompanying manual, financed by the Open Society, rejects the quaint notion that the purpose of education is the “acquisition of knowledge” and insists that the teacher has to become the class “designer” and that his relationship with students should be based on “partnership.”
In Russia, Soros’ associates exercise great control over the selection of textbooks for Russian schools. According to a press release by the Gaidar Youth Library, financial support from the Open Society Institute provided it with computers, videocassettes, and CD’s, all of which made “special training” for the children of “underprivileged people” possible in the library: “We organized a special seminar “Children’s rights nowadays” for all specialists who took part in our project . . . The working group of the program “The Circle of Friends” is grateful to the “Open Society” Institute (Soros Fund, Budapest) for the opportunity to realize this project in a full volume.“
In 1999, the Moscow Open Society office started a major five-year project, “The Development of Education in Russia.” Its goal is to “reeducate rural teachers at a cost of US $100-150 million” (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 19, 1998). It is also applying a program called “Tolerance” in Russian secondary schools, but its masterminds may have made a linguistic blunder. According to a Russian critic of the program, The Russian translation of this Latin word-tyerpimost-has the dual meaning of prostitution and could be confused with doma tyerpimosti, houses of ill fame . How come this financial manipulator tries to teach us about tolerance, us who grew up with Leo Tolstoy, one of the first philosophers of non-violence? But Mr. Soros is also a horribly distorted mirror, which should make us see our own, present image, without blinking or turning away. There are times when evil can become an eye-opener, when its derisive laughter can waken us up and help regaining our strength. We should not miss this opportunity.
A first step in that direction may have been taken last November 7, when the OSI Moscow office was raided by a private security company hired by the owner of the building with whom the foundation was engaged in a protracted legal battle. Only weeks before, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the billionaire oligarch and OSI Moscow executive director who has his own NGO called the Open Russia Foundation, was arrested and charged with tax evasion, theft, forgery, and fraud. Soros denounced the arrest as an act of “persecution” that should disqualify Russia from belonging to the G-8 group of industrialized countries. “I believe that he acted within the constraints of the law. I am doing the same in the United States,” said Soros, alluding to his multimillion-dollar donations toward “regime change” in Washington next November. The American press indignantly reported that the raid was directed against a philanthropic organization that had spent “more than $US 1 billion on charitable projects in Russia in the past 15 years.”
“Racism” is Soros’ regular obsession, but he faced the potential problem of finding it in racially non-diverse Eastern European countries. This has been resolved by identifying designated victim group-Gypsies! “Few minority groups in Europe face as much social, economic, and political discrimination as do Romani people,” says OSI. Being a “Roma activist” has become a lucrative designation within the community. Seventy of the most promising ones came to the conference “Roma in Expanding Europe: Challenges for the Future,” held in Budapest last summer, at which Soros inaugurated a “Decade of Roma Inclusion.” The conference offered policy recommendations, some of which could have been written by Jesse Jackson: first, obligatory and free preschool education in desegregated classrooms; second, Romani assistants in the classroom, especially in preschool; third, anti-bias training for teachers and school administrators; and fourth, integration of Romani history and culture in textbooks at all levels.
Legally mandated affirmative-action programs for Roma in high schools and universities were recommended by the delegations of Rumania and Serbia-****. On employment, the conference recommended tax incentives for those who employ Roma and access to low-interest credit for small Roma-owned family businesses. The Czech and Slovak delegations also proposed setting aside a percentage of government contracts for Roma construction firms. In the area of housing, specific demands were made to combat “racism and discrimination,” including the “legalization” of shantytowns and “equal access” to municipal housing. The conference concluded that combating racial discrimination against Roma must be pursued through the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation complying with the requirements of the E.U. Race Equality Directive.
The Rumanian delegation demanded that the Bucharest government recognize the Roma holocaust by issuing a public apology along with urgent adoption of a reparations package. The European Union was asked to make sure that Roma are broadly involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of all E.U. spending on Roma projects.
Soros’ “programs” would have been deemed laughable or outrageous in their target countries only a decade ago. No one is laughing today, however. For thousands of young Eastern Europeans, to become a “Soroshite” represents today what joining the Party represented to their parents: an alluring opportunity to have a reasonably paid job, to belong to a privileged elite, and, for many, to travel abroad. The chosen few go to Soros’s own Central European University in Budapest, where they are taught that affirming a scientifically grounded truth is “totalitarian” and that the sovereign nation-state is evil.
There is not one patriot (Russian, Croat, Latvian, Serb, Rumanian, Hungarian) or one practicing Christian on Soros’ payroll. In all postcommunist countries, Soros relies on the sons and daughters of the old communist establishment, who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic attachments to their native soil, culture, and traditions. The more successful among them-and the most loyal-may spend years drifting from one “project” to another, and some have been living that way for more than a decade. Soros has revealed (in Underwriting Democracy) that his Open Society foundations will help create an international web, at the heart of which will be the computerized base of personal data that will enable Western multinationals to find the local candidates they need.
These new janissaries, just like those of the Ottoman army of old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the master himself; as the Balkan proverb has it, “a convert is worse than a Turk.” Nobody is more insanely vehement in his insults against the Serbian people and their history, religion, art, and suffering than a dozen Serb-born columnists who are on the payroll of Sonja Licht, Soros’ Gauleiter in Belgrade.
Hoi polloi are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by “the Soros media”-the term now exists in over a dozen languages-from the Gazeta Wyborcza in Warsaw to Danas (Today) in Serbia, the Monitor in ****, the Markiza TV channel in Bratislava, and Vreme weekly and the B-92 electronic media conglomerate in Belgrade. They invariably parrot Soros’ views and ambitions, reflected by the agenda of the local Soros foundation at home and, in world affairs, by the International Crisis Group (ICG), largely financed by Soros and run by his appointees.
Soros’ agenda in world affairs is clear from the fact that his appointees include Gen. Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO forces in the war against Serbia in 1999; Louise Arbour, the former chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal at The Hague; former assistant secretary of state Morton Abramowitz, an enthusiastic supporter of Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in the wars of Yugoslav succession; and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose visceral Russophobia aided and abetted the rise of Osama bin Laden and his jihadist cohorts.
As Gilles d’Aymery noted two years ago, Soros is not just the power behind the Open Society Institute, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Crisis Group: “Like an immense Jules Verne octopus, [he] extends his tentacles all over Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus as well as the republics of the former Soviet Union. With the help of these various groups [it is possible] not only to shape but to create the news, the agenda and public opinion to further aims which are, in short, the control of the world, its natural resources and the furtherance of the uniform ideal of a perfect world polity made in America.”
That he was anti-Bush is unremarkable, but Soros’ statement last December that the defeat of the President is “a matter of life and death” was silly. His largess e to Bush’s foes-although substantial-does not reflect the stated urgency of the moment: $15 million for America Coming Together; $3 million for John Podesta’s new think tank; and $2.5 million for MoveOn.org falls far short of a month’s cost of running his many foundations around the world.
Soros remains primarily committed to destroying the remaining bastions of the family, sovereign nationhood, and Christian Faith east of the Trieste-Stettin line. He senses that his full-throttle intervention in America is not necessary, because things are gradually going his way anyway.
PBS broadcaster and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy President Bill Moyers is a trustee of the Open Society Institute’s Board of Directors. The network of Soros foundations - the most prominent of which is the Open Society Institute - supports a wide array of leftist groups and causes.
While the Republican Party and the right-wing media had a field day last Fall, highlighting criminal probes into ACORN's alleged voter registration and subprime mortgage fraud schemes, hardly a word has been reported on ACORN's links to the Tides Foundation and the larger Soros Democracy Alliance nexus, which both pour an undisclosed fortune into ACORN annually.
ACORN founder and longtime SEIU organizer Wade Rathke left ACORN in the last year, after the New York Times revealed a decade-long ACORN/Tides cover-up of a million-dollar theft from the group's treasury by Rathke's brother. Rathke was recruited in 1972 by none other than Tides Foundation head Drummond Pike, who simultaneously launched Tides, as a conduit for radical environmental and "civil society'' groups, largely manned by radical flotsam and jetsam from the 1960s New Left--an apparatus that Lyndon LaRouche labeled at the time as "New Left local control fascists.'' At the time of his recruitment by Pike, Rathke was running a local community control organization in Arkansas, and with Tides money, backed by a later flow of Federal funds from the Carter Administration, ACORN went national.
But the Soros-Obama links, so frequently cited in news accounts, run much deeper and more personally than Soros's bankrolling of a network of aging New Left radicals, now swept up in a string of corruption scandals.
In August 2006 Soros wrote a Wall Street Journal piece titled “A Self-Defeating War.” The article’s premise is that “the war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies.” According to Soros, “Terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics.”
In December of 2006, Soros met with Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama in his New York office. Soros had previously hosted a fund-raiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 campaign for the Senate. On July 27, 2004, Soros held a fundraiser at his New York home for Obama, which raised at least $60,000, mostly from Soros's family members, according to news accounts. On Dec. 4, 2006, then U.S. Sen. Barack Obama traveled to New York City, to privately confer with Soros about a possible Presidential run in 2008. After a widely publicized closed-door meeting, Soros escorted Obama into an adjacent conference room, where a group of wealthy donors was waiting for Soros's imprimatur to begin seriously bankrolling Obama's drive for the highest office in the land. Among the billionaires who participated in that soire were Union Bank of Switzerland USA chief Robert Wolf and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer, both of whom would emerge as major "bundlers'' of cash for the Illinois Senator's Presidential run. On January 16, 2007, Obama announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee, and within hours Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign finance laws. Later that week the New York Daily News reported that Soros would back Obama over Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he had also supported in the past. Soros’s announcement was seen as a repudiation of Clinton’s presidential aspirations, though Soros said he would support the New York senator were she to win the Democratic nomination. On April 7, 2007, one of the biggest early fundraising events for Obama took place at the home of Steven Gluckstern, who had headed Soros's Democracy Alliance. Soros was a prominent participant in that event. Three weeks later, on May 18, 2007, Soros was again host to an Obama fundraiser, this time at the Greenwich, Conn. home of fellow hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Investment Corp. According to the Greenwich Times, the 300 guests each kicked in $2,300 to the Obama campaign.
And every one remembers the liberals lament: Chaney & Bush were ‘dirty’ because of Halliburton, the firm formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney? Well, soon after John Kerry lost the 2004 election, Soros not only launched his hostile takeover move on the Democratic Party through Democracy Alliance. He also unleashed his grassroots dupes in MoveOn to assail Halliburton, which had been handed a lion's share of contracts in Anglo-American-occupied Iraq. After the public assaults drove down Halliburton stock to $26 a share, from a peak of $40, Soros quietly bought 2 million shares in the company, called off his attack dogs, and made a quick $40 million profit, when share prices shot back up to $50.
Some noted that Obama -- in terms of finances -- is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, billionaire founder of Moveon.org and a full-time "Amerika-hater. Others noted that Soros is a supporter of Hamas, the terrorist organization centered in Gaza. Liberal critics reply that is part of "the Republican attack machine" in regard to Obama -- and that Soros merely wanted to "negotiate" with Hamas. “Negotiate" with Hamas about what? The morality of suicide bombings? The wisdom of firing Kastusha rockets into Israeli settlements? The seriousness of Hamas about its stated commitment to the destruction -- the annihilation -- of Israel? Or about the mass killings of members of the rival Fatah political group?
The second annual look at the pay of folks who run hedge and private equity funds shows that the top 20 took home a collective $18.7 billion last year, 43% more than in 2006. To even make the list you needed minimum earnings of $350 million, which is $90 million higher than the year before. No chief executive of a traditional Wall Street investment bank even came close…
For hedge fund billionaires Pickens and second-ranked George Soros ($2.4 billion), whose own investments compose a significant portion of their funds, there’s more to be made from asset appreciation than from fees. Soros made $2 billion from the growth of personal investments within his $17 billion Quantum Endowment Fund, which returned 32% for the year…
Gee, a suspicious person might even wonder if Mr. Soros hasn’t had something to do with both the collapse of the housing market, stock market and the spectacular rise of the cost of oil in ‘08.
Where were the Congressional investigations?
Or is it all right to make billions (with a b) a year off of the back of the suffering poor as long as you are the Democrat’s top money man?
And in case this was not enough irony for your daily minimum requirement, we also have this article from France’s AFP last Apri:
Soros urges regulation for hedge funds
04.17.08
BRUSSELS (Thomson Financial) - Hedge fund pioneer George Soros called on Thursday for regulation of such highly speculative investment vehicles and the banks that lend to them.
‘I think that hedge funds need to be regulated like all other market participants,’ Soros told a conference in Brussels, where he was promoting his most recent book.
The Hungarian-born billionaire financier said that hedge funds would be best regulated through the banking system by requiring banks that lend to them to hold greater reserves…
Hedge funds leverage capital provided by wealthy and institutional investors with borrowed money, which they use to make often highly risky and complex trades.
They are currently largely unregulated despite growing calls for action from authorities.
Of course Mr. Soros has done more than his part to talk the economy down.
And now that he will soon have his minions back in power, he is all for regulating those evil hedge funds.
________________________________________________________________________
I've also noted that Obama was not only militantly pro-abortion, but also that he favored a form of infanticide. As Michael Barone, favorable in many ways to Obama's political skills, said in the current edition of The Almanac of American Politics : "He [Obama] voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who survived abortions."
Unfortunately, I'm not making this up, and, yes, I do attack Obama for refusing to support any limitations on abortion. Remember, Obama talked a lot in his campaign about the importance of "our children." He won't indicate that he favors the destruction of our most vulnerable children, those gasping for air. I guess his commitment to "universal health care" doesn't apply to children who are victims of botched abortions. Just one more bad consequence of the brain dead who were lulled into voting for a radical liberal by the mindless manta of “hope and change.”
How does this man sleep at night? Would he have advocated such a fate for his own beautiful children? You won't ever hear Tim Russert or Katie Couric asking such questions, but they should!!!!
And here is another one I really struggle with…..he was going to get us outa’ Iraq; Obama's prescription for what we should do in Iraq is to have us flee as soon as possible, leaving the country to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and other sectarian fanatics…. now it is okay that we are there till Sept 2010??? On the other hand, he apparently doesn't have a problem invading Pakistan in search of al Qaeda leaders and sending significantly increased troop levels into Afghanistan (anyone recall a Russian debacle there??). In other words, his foreign policy is to desert one ally and alienate another. This is Soros-ism to a fault. It makes no sense, but it does produce standing ovations from the mindless Move on types.
He has a terrible record, one of extreme partisanship and dishonesty about his motives. An individual who favors denying medical care to injured infants is beneath contempt. That's not a gratuitous attack on Obama. Rather, it's just a call for him to practice some basic human decency.
Remember, this George Soros called the U.S. under George Bush a menace to world peace while blaming Israel for causing anti-Semitism.
Soros’ profits are staggering. On September 16, 1992, he famously made a billion dollars in one day by betting against the Bank of England and the pound sterling. In July 1997, he contributed to the Southeast Asian financial crisis by shorting the Thai baht. In early 2000, he supposedly suffered losses on tech stocks, but some analysts now suggest that the burn of the NASDAQ was controlled and that Soros helped to start the fire. By last November ‘07, he was betting the U.S. dollar would plummet. As the London Independent reported (November 28, 2003), his activities were contributing to a growing belief on Wall Street that the dollar would slide even further.
There is nothing new in Soros’ approach to making money or in the ability of such a person to make an impact, invariably detrimental, on his host society’s morals and culture. What is new with Mr. Soros-in addition to the implausible claim that a private speculator could get as far as he has unaided by any established financial interests-is his systematic, concerted effort to use a large part of his fortune to promote his peculiar social and political views. He does so through a global network of “nongovernmental organizations” named after himself and active primarily in Eastern Europe but also in Africa, Latin America, and the United States. At age 75, money is not his object but his tool. He has used it to develop a well-coordinated global operation centered on the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York, which funds a network of subsidiaries in over 50 countries.
Even before the Open Society network came into being, Soros’ blueprint for post-communist “shock therapy” reform had been put to the test. First came Poland, where the first post-communist Prime Minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was close to Soros and subsequently remained associated with his local subsidiary, the Stefan Batory Foundation. In his book Underwriting Democracy, Soros says that he personally prepared the broad outlines of Poland’s comprehensive economic reform: “I joined forces with Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard University, who was advocating a similar program, and sponsored his work in Poland through the Stefan Batory Foundation . . . The IMF approved and the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain in order to see real change.”
Poland was only a start, however; far more important to his goals was his association in 1991-92 with Russia’s “reformist” leaders Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar and their Harvard guru Sachs. Within a year of their “shock therapy,” hyperinflation had wiped out Russians’ savings and the long-suffering middle class with it. Pensioners were literally starving. The parallel “privatization” of Russia’s huge resources-timber, oil, gas, chemicals, media-created the robber oligarchs and contributed to Russia’s effective deindustrialization. The country was lowered into neocolonial dependence: a supplier of energy and raw materials and an importer of high technology and manufactured goods. Nevertheless, in early 1993, Soros felt that Russia had not gone far enough: “The social safety net would also provide a powerful incentive to shut down loss-making enterprises. Factories could be idled and the raw materials and energy that go into production could be sold for more than the output.”
George Soros is out to deconstruct nations and states as Europe has known them for centuries, with Russia always the main prize. In an interview with the Moscow daily Komersant (August 8, 1997), he declared that “a strong central government in Russia cannot be democratic.” “The rescue of a free Russian economy depends on the attraction of Western investments,” he added, and, to that end, “Russia’s general public must accept the ideology of an open society.”
By that time, a total of 29 “Soros Foundations” were active in every post communist country. In 1994, his foundations spent a total of $300 million; by 1998, that figure had risen to $574 million. These are enormous sums in an impoverished and vulnerable Eastern Europe.
Those foundations say that they are “dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society.” What this means in practice is clear from their many fruits. Regarding “women’s health” programs in Central and Southeastern Europe, for instance, one will look in vain for breast-cancer detection or prenatal or postnatal care. Soros’ main goal is clear and frankly stated: “to improve the quality of abortion services.” Accordingly, his Public Health Program has supported the introduction of medical abortion in Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. In addition, “OSI has also worked with international and local NGOs to respond to the growing strength of the antiabortion movement. Through its influence on ministries of health and hospital administrators, that movement has made strides in reducing access to abortion . . . OSI will continue to support training in quality of care and efforts to keep abortion legal, safe, and accessible for all women in the region.”
Why is Soros so interested in promoting more abortions in Eastern Europe? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: The region is experiencing a colossal demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortion cannot be the answer either: According to a recent U.N. report, five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000-the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Rumania, and Ukraine. Overall, the report said, abortion rates are “substantially higher in central and eastern Europe and the CIS countries than in Western Europe and North America.” The only logical answer is that Soros wants as few Russians and others born into this world as possible….what was first thing Barry did when in office?? Congrats, you guessed it ! Your tax dollars will fund overseas abortions once more….. with 57 Dems supporting, one opposed & one abstaining (Teddy K)!!
Over the past five years, the Soros network has given a successful start to previously nonexistent “gay” activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for “LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Rights” is directed from Budapest, where Miriam Molnar’s 1999 policy paper published by OSI defined the “problem” as discrimination and the low level of acceptance, visibility, and political representation of LGBT’s. It was necessary either “to convince the society to accept LGBT people as equal and let the society make pressure [sic] to the politicians (through media) to change laws” or “to convince the politicians that LGBT people are equal and that they need help in convincing the rest of the society.” The overall goals were to generate discussion about LGBT identity within the community, to make them visible and “create a positive image,” and to establish regular forums of discussion with other groups in the region. Specific tasks included the development of websites in English with subsites in local languages, the establishment of task forces that would react to all “homophobic” media outbursts in one “Pink Book,” and the organization of two-week summer schools for teachers that would “provide training about discrimination of [sic] LGBT people, disabled people, overweight people etc.
In November 1999, a pilot project began at the Center for Publishing Development (OSI Budapest) on homosexual books in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, and Slovakia. That same year, Nash Mir (Our World) Gay and Lesbian Center announced that it had been registered as an NGO in the Ukraine. From that moment, the group was free to pursue its stated goals, including “fight against sexual-orientation discrimination” and “homophobic sentiments in societal consciousness” and “assistance to upbringing of gays’ and lesbians’ self-consciousness as equal and valuable members of society.” The group expressed gratitude for its legalization to the “Ukrainian branch of Soros Foundation Network (Renaissance Foundation) which lobbied our question in the Ministry of Justice and render [sic] legal assistance to us.”
Gay.ru is a Soros-funded Moscow NGO that has developed “into an established and recognized Russian gay and lesbian center” and “the clearing house for lesbian and gay groups scattered across the country”:
“We keep contacts with all existing gay, lesbian, and AIDS organizations in Russia and maintain on-going correspondence and reporting to international gay and lesbian organizations . . . We have collected the biggest off-line library that features over a hundred Russian titles and some fifty English classic books on gay studies. It was greatly enhanced by the Core Collection on Gay and Lesbian Issues awarded to us by the Soros Foundation in 2000.”
In Bucharest, Monika Barcsy of the local Soros branch bewailed the fact that, in Rumania, “the homosexual identity is stigmatized” and is one of the main bases for treating individuals as “the others” in an attitude of intolerance. Their families became the victims of prejudice “just because the society is unable to accept the legitimacy of same-sex relations as a ‘normal’ manifestation.” The author singles out the Rumanian Orthodox Church as a prime culprit: “The problem is that many Christian Orthodox students’ organizations and other student groups support the church.” In 1994, she points out, more than 100 theology students began a series of demonstrations in front of Rumania’s parliament against homosexual propaganda in the media and collected signatures demanding legislation to criminalize same-sex relations. Barcsy concludes by reiterating the standard Soros line: “Gay men and lesbians need rights that guarantee them the expression of their identity in the public sphere . . . [T]he legal status of gays and lesbians, their ability to move and appear in public, to speak out and act together should be considered a very good test of the civic openness. [It] can’t be resolved with the new laws made under the pressure of different human rights organizations. Romania needs . . . to ameliorate the negative responses towards the homosexuals from the majority population . . . There are “problems” with the society as a whole, and the society’s mentality can’t be changed overnight.”
A key pillar of Soros’ activities is his dictum that “no-one has a monopoly on the truth” and that “civic education” should replace the old “authoritarian” model. Civic education does not have to be “just a dialogue” between a teacher and students, he says; in addition, “we have projects like health education, where people use new ways to discuss issues like hygiene, diet, and sex.” While “this does not sound like traditional civic education,” he continues, it is “a new way for teachers to relate to their pupils,” just as citizens must relate in new ways to governments and elected officials in societies trying to become more open and democratic.
Accordingly, throughout postcommunist Eastern Europe, the Soros Foundation’s primary stated goal is to “democratize the education system” by “instituting curriculum reforms.” What this means in practice has been demonstrated over the past three years by Serbia’s education minister Gaso Knezevic, a friend and confidante of Soros. Since the first day of his tenure, Mr. Knezevic has insisted that schools must be transformed from “authoritarian” institutions into “exercise grounds” for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus vercoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the oppressive legacy of patriarchal past.” Mr. Knezevic started his reform with primary schools, with a pilot program of “educational workshops” for children ages 7 to 12. The accompanying manual, financed by the Open Society, rejects the quaint notion that the purpose of education is the “acquisition of knowledge” and insists that the teacher has to become the class “designer” and that his relationship with students should be based on “partnership.”
In Russia, Soros’ associates exercise great control over the selection of textbooks for Russian schools. According to a press release by the Gaidar Youth Library, financial support from the Open Society Institute provided it with computers, videocassettes, and CD’s, all of which made “special training” for the children of “underprivileged people” possible in the library: “We organized a special seminar “Children’s rights nowadays” for all specialists who took part in our project . . . The working group of the program “The Circle of Friends” is grateful to the “Open Society” Institute (Soros Fund, Budapest) for the opportunity to realize this project in a full volume.“
In 1999, the Moscow Open Society office started a major five-year project, “The Development of Education in Russia.” Its goal is to “reeducate rural teachers at a cost of US $100-150 million” (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 19, 1998). It is also applying a program called “Tolerance” in Russian secondary schools, but its masterminds may have made a linguistic blunder. According to a Russian critic of the program, The Russian translation of this Latin word-tyerpimost-has the dual meaning of prostitution and could be confused with doma tyerpimosti, houses of ill fame . How come this financial manipulator tries to teach us about tolerance, us who grew up with Leo Tolstoy, one of the first philosophers of non-violence? But Mr. Soros is also a horribly distorted mirror, which should make us see our own, present image, without blinking or turning away. There are times when evil can become an eye-opener, when its derisive laughter can waken us up and help regaining our strength. We should not miss this opportunity.
A first step in that direction may have been taken last November 7, when the OSI Moscow office was raided by a private security company hired by the owner of the building with whom the foundation was engaged in a protracted legal battle. Only weeks before, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the billionaire oligarch and OSI Moscow executive director who has his own NGO called the Open Russia Foundation, was arrested and charged with tax evasion, theft, forgery, and fraud. Soros denounced the arrest as an act of “persecution” that should disqualify Russia from belonging to the G-8 group of industrialized countries. “I believe that he acted within the constraints of the law. I am doing the same in the United States,” said Soros, alluding to his multimillion-dollar donations toward “regime change” in Washington next November. The American press indignantly reported that the raid was directed against a philanthropic organization that had spent “more than $US 1 billion on charitable projects in Russia in the past 15 years.”
“Racism” is Soros’ regular obsession, but he faced the potential problem of finding it in racially non-diverse Eastern European countries. This has been resolved by identifying designated victim group-Gypsies! “Few minority groups in Europe face as much social, economic, and political discrimination as do Romani people,” says OSI. Being a “Roma activist” has become a lucrative designation within the community. Seventy of the most promising ones came to the conference “Roma in Expanding Europe: Challenges for the Future,” held in Budapest last summer, at which Soros inaugurated a “Decade of Roma Inclusion.” The conference offered policy recommendations, some of which could have been written by Jesse Jackson: first, obligatory and free preschool education in desegregated classrooms; second, Romani assistants in the classroom, especially in preschool; third, anti-bias training for teachers and school administrators; and fourth, integration of Romani history and culture in textbooks at all levels.
Legally mandated affirmative-action programs for Roma in high schools and universities were recommended by the delegations of Rumania and Serbia-****. On employment, the conference recommended tax incentives for those who employ Roma and access to low-interest credit for small Roma-owned family businesses. The Czech and Slovak delegations also proposed setting aside a percentage of government contracts for Roma construction firms. In the area of housing, specific demands were made to combat “racism and discrimination,” including the “legalization” of shantytowns and “equal access” to municipal housing. The conference concluded that combating racial discrimination against Roma must be pursued through the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation complying with the requirements of the E.U. Race Equality Directive.
The Rumanian delegation demanded that the Bucharest government recognize the Roma holocaust by issuing a public apology along with urgent adoption of a reparations package. The European Union was asked to make sure that Roma are broadly involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of all E.U. spending on Roma projects.
Soros’ “programs” would have been deemed laughable or outrageous in their target countries only a decade ago. No one is laughing today, however. For thousands of young Eastern Europeans, to become a “Soroshite” represents today what joining the Party represented to their parents: an alluring opportunity to have a reasonably paid job, to belong to a privileged elite, and, for many, to travel abroad. The chosen few go to Soros’s own Central European University in Budapest, where they are taught that affirming a scientifically grounded truth is “totalitarian” and that the sovereign nation-state is evil.
There is not one patriot (Russian, Croat, Latvian, Serb, Rumanian, Hungarian) or one practicing Christian on Soros’ payroll. In all postcommunist countries, Soros relies on the sons and daughters of the old communist establishment, who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic attachments to their native soil, culture, and traditions. The more successful among them-and the most loyal-may spend years drifting from one “project” to another, and some have been living that way for more than a decade. Soros has revealed (in Underwriting Democracy) that his Open Society foundations will help create an international web, at the heart of which will be the computerized base of personal data that will enable Western multinationals to find the local candidates they need.
These new janissaries, just like those of the Ottoman army of old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the master himself; as the Balkan proverb has it, “a convert is worse than a Turk.” Nobody is more insanely vehement in his insults against the Serbian people and their history, religion, art, and suffering than a dozen Serb-born columnists who are on the payroll of Sonja Licht, Soros’ Gauleiter in Belgrade.
Hoi polloi are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by “the Soros media”-the term now exists in over a dozen languages-from the Gazeta Wyborcza in Warsaw to Danas (Today) in Serbia, the Monitor in ****, the Markiza TV channel in Bratislava, and Vreme weekly and the B-92 electronic media conglomerate in Belgrade. They invariably parrot Soros’ views and ambitions, reflected by the agenda of the local Soros foundation at home and, in world affairs, by the International Crisis Group (ICG), largely financed by Soros and run by his appointees.
Soros’ agenda in world affairs is clear from the fact that his appointees include Gen. Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO forces in the war against Serbia in 1999; Louise Arbour, the former chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal at The Hague; former assistant secretary of state Morton Abramowitz, an enthusiastic supporter of Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in the wars of Yugoslav succession; and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose visceral Russophobia aided and abetted the rise of Osama bin Laden and his jihadist cohorts.
As Gilles d’Aymery noted two years ago, Soros is not just the power behind the Open Society Institute, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Crisis Group: “Like an immense Jules Verne octopus, [he] extends his tentacles all over Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus as well as the republics of the former Soviet Union. With the help of these various groups [it is possible] not only to shape but to create the news, the agenda and public opinion to further aims which are, in short, the control of the world, its natural resources and the furtherance of the uniform ideal of a perfect world polity made in America.”
That he was anti-Bush is unremarkable, but Soros’ statement last December that the defeat of the President is “a matter of life and death” was silly. His largess e to Bush’s foes-although substantial-does not reflect the stated urgency of the moment: $15 million for America Coming Together; $3 million for John Podesta’s new think tank; and $2.5 million for MoveOn.org falls far short of a month’s cost of running his many foundations around the world.
Soros remains primarily committed to destroying the remaining bastions of the family, sovereign nationhood, and Christian Faith east of the Trieste-Stettin line. He senses that his full-throttle intervention in America is not necessary, because things are gradually going his way anyway.
PBS broadcaster and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy President Bill Moyers is a trustee of the Open Society Institute’s Board of Directors. The network of Soros foundations - the most prominent of which is the Open Society Institute - supports a wide array of leftist groups and causes.
While the Republican Party and the right-wing media had a field day last Fall, highlighting criminal probes into ACORN's alleged voter registration and subprime mortgage fraud schemes, hardly a word has been reported on ACORN's links to the Tides Foundation and the larger Soros Democracy Alliance nexus, which both pour an undisclosed fortune into ACORN annually.
ACORN founder and longtime SEIU organizer Wade Rathke left ACORN in the last year, after the New York Times revealed a decade-long ACORN/Tides cover-up of a million-dollar theft from the group's treasury by Rathke's brother. Rathke was recruited in 1972 by none other than Tides Foundation head Drummond Pike, who simultaneously launched Tides, as a conduit for radical environmental and "civil society'' groups, largely manned by radical flotsam and jetsam from the 1960s New Left--an apparatus that Lyndon LaRouche labeled at the time as "New Left local control fascists.'' At the time of his recruitment by Pike, Rathke was running a local community control organization in Arkansas, and with Tides money, backed by a later flow of Federal funds from the Carter Administration, ACORN went national.
But the Soros-Obama links, so frequently cited in news accounts, run much deeper and more personally than Soros's bankrolling of a network of aging New Left radicals, now swept up in a string of corruption scandals.
In August 2006 Soros wrote a Wall Street Journal piece titled “A Self-Defeating War.” The article’s premise is that “the war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies.” According to Soros, “Terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics.”
In December of 2006, Soros met with Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama in his New York office. Soros had previously hosted a fund-raiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 campaign for the Senate. On July 27, 2004, Soros held a fundraiser at his New York home for Obama, which raised at least $60,000, mostly from Soros's family members, according to news accounts. On Dec. 4, 2006, then U.S. Sen. Barack Obama traveled to New York City, to privately confer with Soros about a possible Presidential run in 2008. After a widely publicized closed-door meeting, Soros escorted Obama into an adjacent conference room, where a group of wealthy donors was waiting for Soros's imprimatur to begin seriously bankrolling Obama's drive for the highest office in the land. Among the billionaires who participated in that soire were Union Bank of Switzerland USA chief Robert Wolf and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer, both of whom would emerge as major "bundlers'' of cash for the Illinois Senator's Presidential run. On January 16, 2007, Obama announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee, and within hours Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign finance laws. Later that week the New York Daily News reported that Soros would back Obama over Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he had also supported in the past. Soros’s announcement was seen as a repudiation of Clinton’s presidential aspirations, though Soros said he would support the New York senator were she to win the Democratic nomination. On April 7, 2007, one of the biggest early fundraising events for Obama took place at the home of Steven Gluckstern, who had headed Soros's Democracy Alliance. Soros was a prominent participant in that event. Three weeks later, on May 18, 2007, Soros was again host to an Obama fundraiser, this time at the Greenwich, Conn. home of fellow hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Investment Corp. According to the Greenwich Times, the 300 guests each kicked in $2,300 to the Obama campaign.
And every one remembers the liberals lament: Chaney & Bush were ‘dirty’ because of Halliburton, the firm formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney? Well, soon after John Kerry lost the 2004 election, Soros not only launched his hostile takeover move on the Democratic Party through Democracy Alliance. He also unleashed his grassroots dupes in MoveOn to assail Halliburton, which had been handed a lion's share of contracts in Anglo-American-occupied Iraq. After the public assaults drove down Halliburton stock to $26 a share, from a peak of $40, Soros quietly bought 2 million shares in the company, called off his attack dogs, and made a quick $40 million profit, when share prices shot back up to $50.
Some noted that Obama -- in terms of finances -- is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, billionaire founder of Moveon.org and a full-time "Amerika-hater. Others noted that Soros is a supporter of Hamas, the terrorist organization centered in Gaza. Liberal critics reply that is part of "the Republican attack machine" in regard to Obama -- and that Soros merely wanted to "negotiate" with Hamas. “Negotiate" with Hamas about what? The morality of suicide bombings? The wisdom of firing Kastusha rockets into Israeli settlements? The seriousness of Hamas about its stated commitment to the destruction -- the annihilation -- of Israel? Or about the mass killings of members of the rival Fatah political group?
The second annual look at the pay of folks who run hedge and private equity funds shows that the top 20 took home a collective $18.7 billion last year, 43% more than in 2006. To even make the list you needed minimum earnings of $350 million, which is $90 million higher than the year before. No chief executive of a traditional Wall Street investment bank even came close…
For hedge fund billionaires Pickens and second-ranked George Soros ($2.4 billion), whose own investments compose a significant portion of their funds, there’s more to be made from asset appreciation than from fees. Soros made $2 billion from the growth of personal investments within his $17 billion Quantum Endowment Fund, which returned 32% for the year…
Gee, a suspicious person might even wonder if Mr. Soros hasn’t had something to do with both the collapse of the housing market, stock market and the spectacular rise of the cost of oil in ‘08.
Where were the Congressional investigations?
Or is it all right to make billions (with a b) a year off of the back of the suffering poor as long as you are the Democrat’s top money man?
And in case this was not enough irony for your daily minimum requirement, we also have this article from France’s AFP last Apri:
Soros urges regulation for hedge funds
04.17.08
BRUSSELS (Thomson Financial) - Hedge fund pioneer George Soros called on Thursday for regulation of such highly speculative investment vehicles and the banks that lend to them.
‘I think that hedge funds need to be regulated like all other market participants,’ Soros told a conference in Brussels, where he was promoting his most recent book.
The Hungarian-born billionaire financier said that hedge funds would be best regulated through the banking system by requiring banks that lend to them to hold greater reserves…
Hedge funds leverage capital provided by wealthy and institutional investors with borrowed money, which they use to make often highly risky and complex trades.
They are currently largely unregulated despite growing calls for action from authorities.
Of course Mr. Soros has done more than his part to talk the economy down.
And now that he will soon have his minions back in power, he is all for regulating those evil hedge funds.
________________________________________________________________________
I've also noted that Obama was not only militantly pro-abortion, but also that he favored a form of infanticide. As Michael Barone, favorable in many ways to Obama's political skills, said in the current edition of The Almanac of American Politics : "He [Obama] voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who survived abortions."
Unfortunately, I'm not making this up, and, yes, I do attack Obama for refusing to support any limitations on abortion. Remember, Obama talked a lot in his campaign about the importance of "our children." He won't indicate that he favors the destruction of our most vulnerable children, those gasping for air. I guess his commitment to "universal health care" doesn't apply to children who are victims of botched abortions. Just one more bad consequence of the brain dead who were lulled into voting for a radical liberal by the mindless manta of “hope and change.”
How does this man sleep at night? Would he have advocated such a fate for his own beautiful children? You won't ever hear Tim Russert or Katie Couric asking such questions, but they should!!!!
And here is another one I really struggle with…..he was going to get us outa’ Iraq; Obama's prescription for what we should do in Iraq is to have us flee as soon as possible, leaving the country to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and other sectarian fanatics…. now it is okay that we are there till Sept 2010??? On the other hand, he apparently doesn't have a problem invading Pakistan in search of al Qaeda leaders and sending significantly increased troop levels into Afghanistan (anyone recall a Russian debacle there??). In other words, his foreign policy is to desert one ally and alienate another. This is Soros-ism to a fault. It makes no sense, but it does produce standing ovations from the mindless Move on types.
He has a terrible record, one of extreme partisanship and dishonesty about his motives. An individual who favors denying medical care to injured infants is beneath contempt. That's not a gratuitous attack on Obama. Rather, it's just a call for him to practice some basic human decency.
Last edited by vman on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I have to say thank you to me ..." for not being stupid enough to go to Penn State."
-
Sgt. O'Rourke
- Senior
- Posts: 184
- Joined: August 28th, 2007, 7:08 pm
Re: Barry & Georgey
Have you people that voted for Barry realized YET that you were better off pre-election? GW gave you a CHECK to spend! Barry trumps that with his H U G E package of pork sausage. Barry says NO to earmarks, then what happened? He lies through his teeth and signs the porkulus package. He signs away millions of untold lives via his abortion abomination. Again, he's a lying S O B. Anything to get elected. Say anything to convince all you saps and suckers to vote for him. Happy? Sleeping better at nights? Better off financially? Oh, YEAH! Can't wait for my $13 a pay tax CREDIT on your next year's returns. Gonna go right out and buy ( borrow on credit) that new Hummer before GM quits making them, just to do my part to "help the economy". Get real. Get bent, liberals.
Last edited by Sgt. O'Rourke on September 20th, 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
deliverance
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 4036
- Joined: August 27th, 2003, 6:23 pm
Re: Barry & Georgey
Do you need a tissue, sarge?