THE FATHER AND THE SON

(Click title above)

THE FATHER AND THE SON
(FALSE PROPHETS)

****

Why are George Soros and Warren Buffet united in supporting Obama?

.

Is it only out of the humane goodness of his heart that George Soros is:

- downplaying Islamofascism;

- working with cronies to buy up media;

- undermining the dollar;

- trying to burst the bubble of American hegemony;

- trying to discredit capitalism;

- promoting a new world order based on organization directed by and among globalist power brokers;

- and fronting Obama?

Why are the media, academia, and major billionaires all so comfortable with Obama?

Why does Olbermann do so much pimping for Obama?

Why has Obama been so comfortable with designing or using presidential like seals on podiums and airplanes?

How and why was ACORN established, and why is Obama lying about it?

Just how radically left will Soros expect Obama, with Pelosi and Reid, to push?

How far is the fix already in?

****

Who stands to gain when volatility, wars, and recessions are started?

How much do well connected bildenbergers and billionaires stand to gain by uniting in concerted action to use volatility to bring about a common currency (Amero) for a North American Union and eventual New World Order?

Is anyone in Congress other than Ron Paul fighting this?

****
About “The N.W.O.”:

SOCIALISM (TRICKLE DOWN GOODNESS) — ELITE (IVY LEAGUE) POWER FOR DIRECTING AND ORGANIZING THE PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL SECURITY OF ALL UNDERLINGS: Should we just assume, once a global power structure were organized and suffused in place, any old power structure, to be ruled at topmost tiers by those chosen within a select band of elites, loyal among themselves, that general security and mutual-regard would just naturally follow, so that general goodness would trickle down to everyone?

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY (TRICKLE UP GOODNESS) — INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND POWER: Or, should we prefer as much freedom and power as possible, to be retained even among lower-tier individuals, even to replace rulers at topmost tiers of power?

GOOD “BORG”?

****

EVIL:

COMMENTS:

Can George Soros be trusted, as he fronts Obama to espouse the wish for “the United States to lead a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character”?

Does Soros really expect that power players will cooperate: (a) in respect of the good of humanity, or (b) in respect of the good of themselves?

What is Soros’ history for showing trustworthiness, character, honor, lack of deceit, or lack of criminality?

Has Soros, under personal pain or hardship, displayed concern or loyalty to any cause higher than blind faith in Will to Power?

Why should we trust one who believes so much in his ends and his power as to rationalize all means?

If Soros’ ends are so self-evidently beneficent and rational, then why should he and his understudies need to be so willing to resort to Alinsky tactics, rather than to free, honest, and open debate?

Should we just blindly trust that Soros is a good-hearted benefactor, as adept in philosophy, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, and humanities as he is in manipulating market bubbles?

In Soros’ eyes, what is “good” for humanity? For example, does Soros consider it “good” that humanity should be allowed its security only upon the surrendering by each of us of individual autonomy and freedom, with all of us to come willingly under his thumb, singing his hosannas?

Is Islamic radicalism, rather than being an existential threat, really nothing more than an overstated grudge, to be easily assuaged and reformed, merely upon appreciating how jihadism is rooted only in feelings of being disrespected and wronged, market-wise?

Will Islamic grudges peacefully subside as soon as we usher in an age of international socialism, under the stern but beneficent rule of Soros, “the father,” as fronted by “his son,” Obama?

In each American’s eyes, what does hard but sure experience teach about what is “good”?

Is now really an opportune time for America to unilaterally disarm, to turn its swords into plowshares?

Is "the main reason why anti-American feelings are so strong in the world today ... that we are not providing it (leadership) in the present," as Soros says, or is it because N.W.O. forces aligned with Soros are benefiting financially from holding sanity hostage in order to entertain the continuing volatility?

****

Selfish Evil Will to Power vs. Empathetic Good Will to Math:

"Hope is a good breakfast, but a bad dinner." Sir Francis Bacon

Snippets from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_radical_revolutionits_a.html:
October 15, 2008
Obama's Radical Revolution:Its Alinsky Root and Global Vision
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

....

When Barack Obama made his world tour this summer, he introduced himself in Berlin as a "fellow citizen of the world." Americans should make no mistake; he wasn't kidding. As Pope Benedict (writing then as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) also warned in his 2003 book, Truth and Tolerance, the international Marxist dream did not die with the fall of the USSR:

"The collapse of realist socialism in the East European states has not quite laid aside all such hopes, and here and there they still subsist, silently awaiting some new form."


Even though the Soviet system fell and its Marxist "utopia" was clearly revealed as the antithesis of the promise to bring liberation and light to the world, the hope lives on and thrives within the heart of Obama and his followers, and the plan is a global one.

....

In his 2004 book, Unholy Alliance, former 60s radical David Horowitz defines the reasons underlying the left's rationale in dealing with the radical Islamic terrorists and their national sponsors. Leftists in the Western world, explains Horowitz, are not bothered by the religious dimension of the Islamic fundamentalists. Secular leftists rationalize this religious pathology, "believing that religion itself is merely an expression of real-world misery, for which capitalist property is ultimately responsible."

According to Horowitz, leftists maintain an unwavering faith in universal rationality that tells them "even people who blow themselves and little children up in the expectation of a place in heaven, and seventy-two virgins besides, must ultimately be inspired by real-world grievances."

....

Obama's one piece of signature legislation in the Senate is the Global Poverty Act [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the_global_candidate_proposes.html], aimed at curing what socialists deem as the root cause of all violence and war -- poverty.

In this belief, Obama has high-powered company. He is joined by a cabal of international socialists, especially his biggest-moneyed backer, George Soros [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html]. Soros himself backs a global tax on wealthy countries, especially the United States. And Soros, like Obama, believes that the Global War on Terror is ill-intentioned and based on the desire of conservatives to build lasting American hegemony.

The current economic meltdown, coupled with the well-laid foundation of socialist radicals throughout this Country, now threaten to bring America closer than we've ever been to joining the international collective. And Barack Obama has demonstrated that he will do anything -- anything -- it takes to be The One to close their long-envisioned revolutionary deal.

*****

Snippets from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html:

February 27, 2008
George Soros and the Alchemy of 'Regime Change'
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

....

When George Soros failed to obtain the election of his candidate, John Kerry, in 2004, he brooded for a while, even said he might get out of politics altogether, but he just couldn't stop himself. He has stated publicly that he wishes to burst the "bubble of American supremacy," [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200312/soros] because he says our preeminence in the world is a detriment to global "equilibrium." So far, he has failed, but he keeps on trying.


....

And Mr. Soros has made no secret either of the fact that he sees the shortest way to effect political shake-ups, what he terms "regime changes," is through very difficult economic conditions.

America has not yet felt the full force of Soros style economic shock treatment. But others have.

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 in comparative worth almost overnight.

When the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 threatened to spread globally, George Soros was right in the thick of it. Soros was accused by the Malaysian Prime Minister of causing the collapse with his monetary machinations, and he was branded in Thailand as an "economic war criminal" who "sucks the blood from the people." Right in the middle of this crisis, Soros dashed off his book, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, which demanded a "third way" toward economic stability.

Coincidentally, or not, during the height of the fears of worldwide recession, then President Clinton told the New York Times that he was proposing a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately for Soros, U.S. markets rebounded quickly, his predicted catastrophe was forestalled, and his brave new global economic plans receded for a bit.

This may have been to Soros' own good, though, because he was by 1998 up to his neck in the collapse of the Russian ruble, and buying up valuable East European resources at fire-sale prices.

....

... 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."

When our House Banking Committee investigated the Russia-gate scandal in 1999, trying to determine just how $100 billion had been diverted out of Russia, forcing the collapse of its currency and the default of its enormous loans from the International Monetary Fund, Soros was even called to testify. He denied involvement of course, but finally admitted that he had used insider access in a deal that was barred to foreign investors to acquire a huge chunk of Sidanko Oil.

The Russia scandal was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history." (Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 96)

Of course, Russia-gate was quickly hushed up and pushed aside in the public's lurid, and quite insatiable, interest in Monica-gate.

Then, George Soros did some more shady economic fooling around in France. And he actually got caught and charged with illegal insider trading in his attempt to takeover the Societe Generale bank. He was convicted and the conviction was upheld in 2 separate appeals, the last in June of 2006. They let him off, however, with a piddling $2.9 million fine.

....

Just after he failed in 2004 to bring about Bush's demise, he went right on trying to force a conclusion to his self-fulfilling prophecy of doom for the U.S. [COMMENT: WHY IS THIS NOT PROSECUTED AS SEDITION?] And this year, it appears as though he may have finally hit pay dirt in the sub-prime meltdown which threatens to actually bring on that long hoped-for recession.

In Davos this year, at the World Economic Forum, Soros even went so far as to say that the current housing "bust" would signal the end of the dollar as the world's default currency.

"The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom," Soros said. "It's basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency."


Being that Mr. Soros' stated goal for more than a decade has been to burst the "bubble of American supremacy," it stands to reason that the financial gloom he is predicting for us would be precisely his own little cup of tea.

And if the economic picture is bleak in this election year, who stands to benefit? Why, the Democrats, of course, the beneficiaries of Soros' 527 largesse.

In April 2005, Soros' Open Society Institute was the primary sponsor of a conference at Yale Law School, called, "The Constitution in 2020." The conference's task was to produce "a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be." (Emphasis mine.) When one sees references in progressive speak about the "evolutionary character of constitutional law," they are talking about changing the Constitution to formally enshrine their policy preferences so they can avoid the messy necessity of having to win elections. (Shadow Party; Horowitz and Poe; p. 71)

It would seem, then, that progressives stand at the threshold of fulfilling their wildest dreams right here on American shores. With a Republican Party in disarray, the economy seemingly poised on the brink of recession, one candidate with the charisma of a snake charmer and another master schemer as backup, and a new Constitution already being planned, what will stand in their way?

These folks have designs not only on a reinvention of America, but on the whole world. Both Democrat candidates for the presidency have plans for an American cure for global poverty that make our current, quite generous, foreign aid look like a tiny Band-Aid.

Hillary's utopian plan is of a global village, where the role of America is that of supreme benefactor, with herself as our beneficent queen. Hillary's plans for the redistribution of American wealth extend benefits not just to other Americans, but to every other country in need.

Obama, too, sees global poverty as the root cause of all evil in the world, including crime, war and terrorism. His single piece of signature legislation in the Senate is a bill that would authorize an additional $845 billion from American tax payers to eradicate global poverty, and legislate a demand on future presidents to bring America in line with UN mandates on percentage of national GDP given to fight global poverty.

These plans are in perfect sync with Soros' own support for the Tobin Tax, a global tax on currency transactions. This taxation would be forced on sovereign nations by an international body, coercing capitalist economies into sharing their wealth with poor nations for the eradication of poverty and the myriad problems associated with it.

So, that which we and our ancestors have sacrificed to build and maintain will be stolen from us and our offspring and given away by the new Robin Hoods, George Soros and the Democratic Party, who seem to envision global perfection at last, with every single soul living happily ever after in absolute peace and harmony, together singing kumbaya in the same language...the language of love.

*****

Snippets from http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/bobamasunlikelypoliticaledu.html:
The Agitator
by Ryan Lizza
Post date: 03.09.07

....

The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: "You want to organize for power!"

Galluzzo shared with me the manual he uses to train new organizers, which is little different from the version he used to train Obama in the '80s. It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: "power analysis," "elements of a power organization," "the path to power." Galluzzo told me that many new trainees have an aversion to Alinsky's gritty approach because they come to organizing as idealists rather than realists. But Galluzzo's manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. "We are not virtuous by not wanting power," it says. "We are really cowards for not wanting power," because "power is good" and "powerlessness is evil."

The other fundamental lesson Obama was taught is Alinsky's maxim that self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo's manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: "get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.") Obama was a fan of Alinsky's realistic streak. "The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people's self-interest was met," he told me, "and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in."

....

From Wright and others, Obama learned that part of his problem as an organizer was that he was trying to build a confederation of churches but wasn't showing up in the pews on Sunday. When pastors asked him the inevitable questions about his own spiritual life, Obama would duck them uncomfortably. A Reverend Philips put the problem to him squarely when he learned that Obama didn't attend services. "It might help your mission if you had a church home," he told Obama. "It doesn't matter where, really. What you're asking from pastors requires us to set aside some of our more priestly concerns in favor of prophesy. That requires a good deal of faith on our part. It makes us want to know just where you're getting yours from."

After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright's church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for "Buppies"--black urban professionals--and didn't have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity's guiding principles--what the church calls the "Black Value System"--included a "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.'"

....

As a result, over the years, Wright became not only Obama's pastor, but his mentor. The title of Obama's recent book, The Audacity of Hope, is based on a sermon by Wright. (It's worth noting, however, that, while Obama's book is a coolheaded appeal for common ground in an age of political polarization, Wright's sermon, "The Audacity to Hope," is a fiery jeremiad about persevering in a world of nuclear arms and racial inequality.) Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his Senate victory in 2004, and he recently name-checked Wright in his speech to civil rights leaders in Selma, Alabama.

....

Even at Harvard, Obama kept a foot in the world of organizing. He spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by the IAF, a station of the cross for Alinsky acolytes. And, after he returned to Chicago in 1991, he served on the boards of both the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, which also gives grants to Alinsky-style groups, and continued to teach organizing workshops.

....

Obama initially planned to inherit the seat of a much-admired incumbent named Alice Palmer, a fixture in South Side activist circles since the '60s. Palmer had opted to run for Congress, clearing the way for Obama to replace her, but, when she lost the primary, she decided she wanted to keep her old Senate seat, after all.

Obama was faced with a decision: step aside and wait his turn or do everything he could to take down a popular incumbent. In one meeting, an old guard of black political leaders tried to force Obama to abandon the race, but he wouldn't budge. Instead of deferring to Palmer's seniority, Obama challenged the very legitimacy of her petitions to get on the ballot, dispatching aides to the Chicago Board of Elections to scour Palmer's filing papers, and, while they were at it, every other candidate's, signature by signature. Many were fake. Obama won the challenge and cleared not just Palmer but all his potential rivals from the field.

[COMMENT: Why is it racist to challenge Acorn voter registrations, but ok for Obama to have gotten his first political job by challenging opponents’ petitions to get on the ballot?]

....

Speaking of what he learned as an organizer, Obama himself told me, "I think that oftentimes ordinary citizens are taught that decisions are made based on the public interest or grand principles, when, in fact, what really moves things is money and votes and power."

....

"One of the things that community organizing teaches you is to do something called power analysis. You have to understand how to have a relationship with people in power, to be a peer with them, not to go on your knees begging but understand yourself as a co-equal and find a way that someone who has power will understand your power. That's the whole point of organizing: What is it that people in power need to accommodate your needs?"

******

Snippets from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200312/soros:
December 2003
by George Soros
The Bubble of American Supremacy

... September 11 could not have changed the course of history to the extent that it has if President Bush had not responded to it the way he did. He declared war on terrorism, and under that guise implemented a radical foreign-policy agenda whose underlying principles predated the tragedy. Those principles can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails. The United States is unquestionably the dominant power in the post-Cold War world; it is therefore in a position to impose its views, interests, and values. The world would benefit from adopting those values, because the American model has demonstrated its superiority. The Clinton and first Bush Administrations failed to use the full potential of American power. This must be corrected; the United States must find a way to assert its supremacy in the world.

....

The Bush doctrine, first enunciated in a presidential speech at West Point in June of 2002, and incorporated into the National Security Strategy three months later, is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

....

It is ironic that the government of the most successful open society in the world should have fallen into the hands of people who ignore the first principles of open society. At home Attorney General John Ashcroft has used the war on terrorism to curtail civil liberties. Abroad the United States is trying to impose its views and interests through the use of military force. The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.

....

To explain the significance of the transition, I should like to draw on my experience in the financial markets. Stock markets often give rise to a boom-bust process, or bubble. Bubbles do not grow out of thin air. They have a basis in reality—but reality as distorted by a misconception. Under normal conditions misconceptions are self-correcting, and the markets tend toward some kind of equilibrium. Occasionally, a misconception is reinforced by a trend prevailing in reality, and that is when a boom-bust process gets under way. Eventually the gap between reality and its false interpretation becomes unsustainable, and the bubble bursts.

Exactly when the boom-bust process enters far-from-equilibrium territory can be established only in retrospect. During the self-reinforcing phase participants are under the spell of the prevailing bias. Events seem to confirm their beliefs, strengthening their misconceptions. This widens the gap and sets the stage for a moment of truth and an eventual reversal. When that reversal comes, it is liable to have devastating consequences. This course of events seems to have an inexorable quality, but a boom-bust process can be aborted at any stage, and the adverse effects can be reduced or avoided altogether. Few bubbles reach the extremes of the information-technology boom that ended in 2000. The sooner the process is aborted, the better.

The quest for American supremacy qualifies as a bubble. The dominant position the United States occupies in the world is the element of reality that is being distorted. The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position.

Where are we in this boom-bust process? The deteriorating situation in Iraq is either the moment of truth or a test that, if it is successfully overcome, will only reinforce the trend.

This foreign policy is part of a comprehensive ideology customarily referred to as neoconservatism, though I prefer to describe it as a crude form of social Darwinism. I call it crude because it ignores the role of cooperation in the survival of the fittest, and puts all the emphasis on competition.

....

The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy. That pursuit, in turn, will continue to generate resistance. Further, by turning the hunt for terrorists into a war, we are bound to create innocent victims. The more innocent victims there are, the greater the resentment and the better the chances that some victims will turn into perpetrators.

The terrorist threat must be seen in proper perspective. Terrorism is not new. It was an important factor in nineteenth-century Russia, and it had a great influence on the character of the czarist regime, enhancing the importance of secret police and justifying authoritarianism. More recently several European countries—Italy, Germany, Great Britain—had to contend with terrorist gangs, and it took those countries a decade or more to root them out. But those countries did not live under the spell of terrorism during all that time. Granted, using hijacked planes for suicide attacks is something new, and so is the prospect of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. To come to terms with these threats will take some adjustment; but the threats cannot be allowed to dominate our existence. Exaggerating them will only make them worse. The most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. To make the war on terrorism the centerpiece of our national strategy is an abdication of our responsibility as the leading nation in the world. Moreover, by allowing terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing into the terrorists' hands. They are setting our priorities.

A recent Council on Foreign Relations publication sketches out three alternative national-security strategies. The first calls for the pursuit of American supremacy through the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action. It is advocated by neoconservatives. The second seeks the continuation of our earlier policy of deterrence and containment. It is advocated by Colin Powell and other moderates, who may be associated with either political party. The third would have the United States lead a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character. It is not advocated by any group of significance, although President Bush pays lip service to it. That is the policy I stand for.

The evidence shows the first option to be extremely dangerous, and I believe that the second is no longer practical. The Bush Administration has done too much damage to our standing in the world to permit a return to the status quo. Moreover, the policies pursued before September 11 were clearly inadequate for dealing with the problems of globalization. Those problems require collective action. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead the effort. We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates, but nothing much can be done in the way of international cooperation without the leadership—or at least the participation—of the United States.

Globalization has rendered the world increasingly interdependent, but international politics is still based on the sovereignty of states. What goes on within individual states can be of vital interest to the rest of the world, but the principle of sovereignty militates against interfering in their internal affairs. How to deal with failed states and oppressive, corrupt, and inept regimes? How to get rid of the likes of Saddam? There are too many such regimes to wage war against every one. This is the great unresolved problem confronting us today.

I propose replacing the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action with preventive action of a constructive and affirmative nature. Increased foreign aid or better and fairer trade rules, for example, would not violate the sovereignty of the recipients. Military action should remain a last resort. The United States is currently preoccupied with issues of security, and rightly so. But the framework within which to think about security is collective security. Neither nuclear proliferation nor international terrorism can be successfully addressed without international cooperation. The world is looking to us for leadership. We have provided it in the past; the main reason why anti-American feelings are so strong in the world today is that we are not providing it in the present.

******************

COMMENT: Have blue-blood Republicans, in effect, become servants of the same cabal of international socialists as George Soros, bent on reducing most of us to service as debt slaves?

RED ASS MODERATES NEED TO NOT BE HOODWINKED!

****

Soros endorses Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK5Dm7tbm9g
Buffet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ladJCfaDpr4; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejIWp5E8_Fo
Vultures in wait: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvXv9GhfH4k
Amero and Bildenbergs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMS8ojFlSxE
Amero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98
North America Security and Prosperity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
Gordon Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0
Ron Paul --- N.W.O.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8DpKKSmaa8
Rothschild: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZftD3gfW3g
Soros attacking capitalism and Reagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0
Obama lying about ACORN: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-continues-to-lie-about-acorn
Olbermann Pimping: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7_P-U-V_J0
Why Obama would govern from the far left: See http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021758.php.

****

FALSE PROPHETS AND Faux Religion:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_religious_ruse_the_cult_1.html.
.

Orwellian Lunchtime Manipulation of News and Information:

Snippets from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/hedge_funds_politics_and_the_m.html:
October 21, 2008
Hedge Funds, Politics, and the Market Crash
By Ed Lasky

....

The collapse in the American stock markets was a calamity for the campaign of John McCain. In September, McCain was running strongly against Barack Obama. Some polls had him leading Barack Obama by 3 percent before the market broke. By October 7th, Obama had taken the lead across America. What changed in one month? The trigger was the market crash. Who pulled the trigger and why? Who benefitted?

....

Who else may have benefited? Indeed, who may have helped precipitate the crisis by taking actions that would weaken the ABX Index? We don't know, but there are some obvious suspects.

George Soros for one.

....

Soros's hedge fund -- like most hedge funds -- is based overseas and escapes much scrutiny and regulation (more on this later). Word of Paulson's early success got "around in the world of hedge funds" and Soros invited Paulson for lunch, "asking for details of how he laid his bets, with instruments that didn't exist a few years ago"

Paulson made billions betting against the ABX Index. When you bet against the value of an index it exerts pressure on it -- hastening a decline and thus a decline in the value of the products that are priced using this index.

....

Robert Morgenthau, the legendary district attorney for Manhattan, penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal recently highlighting the dangers of overseas hedge funds (Too Much Money is Beyond Legal Reach):

A major factor in the current financial crisis is the lack of transparency in the activities of the principal players in the financial markets. This opaqueness is compounded by vast sums of money that lie outside the jurisdiction of U.S. regulators and other supervisory authorities.

The $700 billion in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's current proposed rescue plan pales in comparison to the volume of dollars that now escape the watchful eye, not only of U.S. regulators, but from the media and the general public as well.

There is $1.9 trillion, almost all of it run out of the New York metropolitan area, that sits in the Cayman Islands, a secrecy jurisdiction. Another $1.5 trillion is lodged in four other secrecy jurisdictions.

....

Hedge funds are a major source of donations for Democrats. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer heads, received $779,100 from employees of private-equity head funds in June 2007 (as the tax battle was heating up in the Senate), far exceeding the $60,000 received by the Republican Senate Committee.

....

... sources have mentioned that "financial terrorism" may be at work.

....

It seems that Obama was just lucky that a market slide seems to have decisively swung the campaign in his favor. That Obama was again lucky that the meltdown occurred just as John McCain was overtaking him in the polls. And that Obama simply lucked out that one of his most influential supporters, one of the world's most adept fund managers (as the Bank of England learned the hard way) also benefited from the meltdown in the markets.

This financial tsunami, and its timing, like the election-eve sex-scandal exposés of his opponents during his Illinois races, might just be one in a long chain of Barack Obama's "lucky" breaks.

If so, Barack Obama must be the luckiest politician, ever.

....

Market manipulations to achieve geopolitical ends. Is it beyond the realm of possibility?

....

And here's a final, unpleasant thought: Pakistan. This is a country with 25 percent inflation and a currency in free fall; a country with a jihadist insurgency on its border with Afghanistan, permanent hostility on its border with India, nuclear weapons and a tradition of street demonstrations in response to suspect newspaper articles. Dozens of people, with all kinds of agendas, have an interest in using financial markets to destabilize Pakistan, and Afghanistan along with it. Eventually, one of them will.


BTW — HOW TO TELL IF YOU’RE AN ELITIST — SEE: http://townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2008/10/21/you_know_youre_an_elitist_if.