Obama as the Messiah

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."- Obama, Super Tuesday

The more I see and hear of Barack Hussein Obama, the more he creeps me out. The adulation and the unabashed worship of and gushing about this somewhat unaccomplished first term Senator make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. I will be writing more on the Obama phenomenon, but I just read an interesting stream of consciousness from Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism blog on Obama that I would like to bring to your attention.

Here is another website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?". There is serious weirdness afoot.

Like I said, much more will follow on this subject. Much more.

Retired Teacher Reveals He Was Illiterate Until Age 48

Well, I guess this explains a lot.

Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

(via Corner)

As still another piece of evidence that Islam is incompatible, by its own choice, with modernity comes this:

Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.

Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".

The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.

Minutes of a clinical academics' meeting at Liverpool University revealed that female Muslim students at Alder Hey children's hospital had objected to rolling up their sleeves to wear gowns.

Similar concerns have been raised at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate
handwashing".

Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


But the Islamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam.

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said.

Dr Majid Katme, the association spokesman, said: "Exposed arms can pick up germs and there is a lot of evidence to suggest skin is safer to the patient if covered. One idea might be to produce long, sterile, disposable gloves which go up to the elbows."

Tolerance of this type of foolishness must simply come to an end. If Muslims cannot function in the modern world then they should leave it and go back to the medieval hellholes from which they came. There is a reason that Muslim countries are socially, technologically and culturally stunted; Islam is a retarding agent and will continue to be as long as its backward precepts are left unchallenged.

Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure'

(HT Roger Simon)

If the Democrats are not completely embarassed by Nancy Pelosi by this point, I can only assume that they are beyond shame. Roger Simon indicates that she's stupid, but I think he may be too kind. I think she's simply lost all sight of "duty to country"; now it's all about "duty to party".

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

"The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.”

I like the way she threw a bone to the troops, as an obvious afterthought. She's an absolute disgrace to her country and to her office. Along with far too many members of her party, she has chosen to put electoral politics above the good of her nation. There are any number of terms that can be applied to that type of action, many would be considered overwrought and inflammatory. Instead, I'll just say that she is beneath contempt and wholly unfit to be Speaker of the House.

Holy Toledo! Mayor Asks Marines to Leave

In a display of anti-military sentiment and sheer political tone-deafness Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner asked the Marines, who were scheduled for exercises days in advance, to leave immediately.

A company of Marine Corps Reservists received a cold send-off from downtown Toledo yesterday by order of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

The 200 members of Company A, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., planned to spend their weekend engaged in urban patrol exercises on the streets of downtown as well as inside the mostly vacant Madison Building, 607 Madison Ave.

Toledo police knew days in advance about their plans for a three-day exercise. Yet somehow the memo never made it to Mayor Finkbeiner, who ordered the Marines out yesterday afternoon just minutes before their buses were to arrive.

"The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people," said Brian Schwartz, the mayor's spokesman.

"He did not want them practicing and drilling in a highly visible area."

I have no doubt that the repercussions from this incredible act of stupidity will be swift and sure. The Blogosphere is awash in this story and Carty Finkbeiner's name is, even as we speak, becoming mud. As Toledo is not Berkeley, I am sure that the good citizens will make this putz pay dearly.

Fractured

I am proud that Republicans are a party of principle; a diverse group to which ideology is paramount. I wonder though, if this is harmful helpful to the cause.

At some point, we will have to come together and do what's best for America. At some point, we have to concentrate on what unites us, rather than ewhat divides us. The sooner we get to that point, the better chance we will have.

Fred Thompson Backs McCain

While this is not necessarily earth-shattering news (who else would he support?), the fact that he's doing so publically shows he's doing his part to heal the GOP - a party in dire need of healing:

Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee.

"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

Thompson's endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain.

The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party
around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years,
is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.

Thompson as VP? Could be; it would certainly go a long way in mollifying conservatives. At the very least, I would like to see Fred in a highly visable position in a McCain administration (as I would Giuliani) - should that come about.

I also think that McCain needs to reach out to Romney in order to show some magnanimity and show that he is also willing to do what it takes for the good of his party. This personal enmity he has for Romney hinders his cause and validates the concerns as to his temperament.

Music cannot change the world, says Neil Young

You mean nobody listens to the political rantings of drug-addled rock stars any more? Maybe things aren't as bleak as I though they were!

It's funny though, he says it like it's a bad thing....

Global COOLING?

In news that is sure to stun Nobel Prize winning climatologist Al Gore (he's not really a climatologist, but he does stay at Holiday Inn Express), the earth may well be headed for a period of global cooling:

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Oh well, Al Gore is in good company; the guy who developed lobotomies won a Nobel Prize as well. While I'm not a climatologist, the sun having an enormous impact on the Earth's weather patterns seems like a no-brainer to me. Then again, I've been staying at Wingate Inn quite a bit lately.

An American First, a Conservative Second

John McCain is not the likely Republican nominee; he is the Republican nominee. The time is now for the supporters of all of the previous candidates to get behind McCain and start thinking about your country rather than your ideological purity. In short, get over it.

The howling from conservative ranks has been deafening. Many are indicating that they will “never vote for McCain” and will sit out the election. I am sure that the Democrat nominee is counting on them doing just that and will be deeply grateful for their support – even if the support is passive. Make no mistake, regardless of intention that will be the outcome of such an electoral boycott. Go ahead, make their day.

To those who will take this course I ask: is your ideology so important to you that you would sacrifice your country on its behalf? I would expect this from a liberal, I would not expect it from a conservative.

McCain wasn’t my first choice, in fact, he wasn’t even close. I have serious problems with any number of his positions over the years, his temperament and his propensity to poke his fellow Republicans in the eye and the particular (and peculiar) glee that he seemed to take in doing it.

I have long noted that, for me, the winning of Iraq and the larger war was the main issue and I must say that my position on that has not changed. Well, as they say, be careful what you wish for. I believe that John McCain is right on that issue and I have no reason to believe that he will not deliver as president. He was a vocal critic of Rumsfeld and the previous strategy in Iraq, but our current level of success may well indicate that he was correct in doing so. While I still have enormous respect for Don Rumsfeld, he would be the first to admit that he is not infallible. The point is that we are now winning and McCain, for all of his faults, was a major proponent of our current successful strategy.

Again, on any number of other issues, I have enormous apprehension as to a McCain presidency. He does have an 82.3% rating from the American Conservative Union, which should dispel the charges that he’s a liberal. Unfortunately, those issues on which he has strayed from conservatism have been very high profile and sensitive, particularly immigration and campaign finance. As it is a key component of our national security, I am deeply concerned about his position on immigration, but I am concerned about Bush’s as well. Still, without a vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq and the wider war on Islamic fundamentalism, many of these issues become rather moot.

The fact is, the next president will be John McCain, Clinton v2.0 or (shudder) Barack Hussein Obama. The gulf between McCain and either of the Democrat candidates is enormous, regardless of what his critics might say. If you feel that your principles are so sacrosanct that you feel forced to hand the White House over to Hillary or Obama, it’s your right to do so.

As for me, I will support McCain with all of his faults. I will set my philosophical differences aside and do so for the good of my country. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I am doing the best I can do, given the choices available.

Should you be of the mind to “sit this one out”, I only ask that you consider the consequences of your inaction. I ask you to put your country first.

Three (3!) Terrorists Were Waterboarded

Unbelievable. All of this hand-wringing and national soul searching was over this technique being used on a grand total of 3 terrorists?

At the same hearing, CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly confirmed for the first time the names of three suspected al-Qaida terrorists who were subjected to a particularly harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding, and why.

“We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time,” Hayden said. “There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed.”

Hayden said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the purported mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States — and Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were subject to the harsh interrogations in 2002 and 2003. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that critics call torture.

Waterboarding induces a feeling of imminent drowning with the restrained subject’s mouth covered and water poured over his face.

“Waterboarding taken to its extreme, could be death, you could drown someone,” McConnell acknowledged. He said waterboarding remains a technique in the CIA’s arsenal, but it would require the consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.

From the coverage this has received, you would think that it was something that was being used as a general rule, on at least hundreds.......but 3?

If we don't have the stomach for something as reletively benign as this, we simply do not have a chance against the barbarians.

Chelsea Clinton: "You're not voting for the Clintons. You're voting for my mother"

Oh yeah, that eases my mind. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Chelsea.

"She makes the best applesauce. She reads to me still when I don't feel well. I've never doubted that I'm the most important person in the world to her."

Well there you have it! What more do we need in a President?

Is the GOP the REAL Party of Diversity?

What is a political party about, if not about political philosophy? It's not about gender, it's not about race, as neither of these factors is relevant, nor should they be. Since I can remember, the Democrats have talked about their "big tent" where all were welcome as they portayed themselves as the "party of diversity", but I find that portayal increasingly suspect, and their tent becomes smaller by the day. If you want to talk about ideological diversity in the Democrat party, talk to Joe Leiberman.

From where we find ourselves at this point, it would appear that the "big tent" that the Republican Party has sought for so long has indeed been pitched and diversity abounds. One need only to look at the Republican hopefuls in the 2008 Presidential race to see a wildly divergent field of candidates in terms of philosophy:

John McCain: A foreign policy hawk whose commitment to the military is unquestioned. On the flip-side however, he also has a history of pandering to the left on domestic and social issues which has infuriated conservative purists. His commitment to fiscal conservatism seems questionable as do many of his stands on domestic issues. Lack of executive experience is a minus.

Mitt Romney: The clear candidate of fiscal conservatives, whose business acumen is unquestioned. While there has been some questions regarding his stance on some social issues in the past, his foreign policy stands have seemed well in line with those who see foreign policy as a paramount concern. Domestically, he seems to be, at the very least, center-right. Good executive experience in both the private and public sector is a big plus.

Mike Huckabee: The social conservative candidate who is a favorite among the evangelical crowd , who seem to be his main constituency. He's a foreign policy neophyte, and his domestic policy seems questionable, at best. While being governor of Arkansas does qualify as executive experience, the fact that it was Arkansas is a mitigating factor.

Ron Paul who is technically still in the race is little more than a curiosity, whose main contribution to the debate has been comic relief.

Fred Thompson, who was probably the clear all-around conservative in the race, has, unfortunately dropped out. His mature and common sense views will be sorely missed as the selection process moves forward, but he and his campaign never seemed very determined and that was unfortunate.

Rudy Giuliani, who has also dropped out, was an interesting contradiction: a foreign policy hawk, a fiscal conservative with centrist domestic views and rather liberal social views. I liked Rudy and I think that he may well have been able to unite manyof the main factions of the Republican Party and would have have had pretty broad appeal in the general election.

This is a pretty varied field of individuals, philosophically speaking, with no one candidate being the embodiment of all the needs of all Republicans. The debate has been vibrant, indeed even hostile at times, but such is the nature of intra-party politics. Most importantly, the debate has been centered on policy and political philosophy, which is, and should be, the nature of politics in general.

In contrast, among the Democrats we have the following field of contenders:

Hillary Clinton: Could become the first woman to be nominated by a major party for the office of President who is a foreign policy dove, but has dabbled in periods of hawkish platitudes when it suited her ends. She's fiscally, domestically and socially liberal. She's an unreconstructed 60s-type leftist who believes in the power of the state in all matters and whose basic views have not changed in more than 40 years. Her role while her husband was president was to pull him to the left, while his better instincts (to his credit) pulled him to the right. During that time, her claim to fame was the design of a top-down government takover of the nation's health care system which, thankfully, failed miserably. She was elected to the US Senate as her first elective office, almost exclusively due to her last name. Save the health care debacle, she has no executive experience and her claim to the highest office in this country seems to rest upon the fact that she's a woman, and her husband was president for 8 years.

Barack Obama: Could become the first black to be nominated by a major party as a candidate for President of the United States. He's been a US Senator for 3 years and previously was an Illinois State Senator. Obama is, admittedly a great speaker who has chosen "change' as is campaign slogan, but offers few clues as to what that change might be. He speaks in flowery oratory which is rooted in little substance. He was recently named the most liberal member of the US Senate for 2007 by the National Journal. He has been a consistent opponent of the Iraq war and favors withdrawl - a position that he has consistently maintained. Obama has no executive experience, few concrete ideas but has garnered the support of such bastions of liberalism as Ted Kennedy. He has captured the imagination of many on the left, presumably because imagination is a key component in understanding why he is a candidate in the first place. Oh, did I mention he was black?

Yes, there was also John Edwards who has recently pulled out of the race. Edwards was always a bit of an empty suit who was never a serious contender.

The Democrats seem intent on 2008 being the year of identity politics as they pin their hopes on either the leftist woman, or the leftist black man. Where does a moderate or conservative Democrat go? There is actually a place for liberal Republicans, such as Giuliani, in the Republican Party, is there a place for conservative Democrats in the Democrat party? If so, where are they in the field of contenders? The Left rejoices in the idea of diversity, as long as the diverse identities are philosphically monolithic. While the Republicans are debating a variety of policies and ideas, the Democrats seem to be mired in gender and race.

From my perspective, the party of "diversity" is, and continues to be the Republicans - for better or worse.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR......

At the time of this writing, John McCain seems to be the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. While the race is far from over, it's clear that the nominee will be either McCain or Romney and McCain does seem to be in the driver's seat.

I've often said that the narrow war (Iraq) as well as the broader war (the war on Islamism in general) is the defining issue of our time and is, quite simply, the single most important issue in this race. I believe that John McCain will prosecute the war on both fronts and will do so admirably.

Alas, I disagree with him on practically every other issue.

Like I said, be careful what you wish for.

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

Who Do You Want in The Big Chair When The Unthinkable Happens?

That's really the only question that you have to ask yourself. It's not about abortion or healthcare or any of the other ancillary issues that we currently face, though these are all important. It's about the ongoing war that is being waged on our civilization. It's about Iran obtaining nukes, it's about the security of Pakistani nukes. It's about radical Islam and its commitment to the destruction of western civilization. It's about our survival and who you trust with that survival. All else is secondary.

Remember how your priorities were reordered on 9/11, and how what was truly important achieved a clarity heretofore unknown to you? In the past 6 1/2 years, much of that clarity has been replaced with a murky preoccupation with the narcissistic navel-gazing to which successful and prosperous societies such as ours are subject. Many of us want to tell ourselves that such a thing simply cannot happen again and have chosen to throw that day and the painful feelings that accompanied it down the memory hole. Do so at your own risk.

Call me a panic monger if you wish, but if the unthinkable does happen I hope that you will have chosen an individual who has the capacity and the will to do what it takes to defend and save our civilization. I hope that on your personal list of issues that "survival" has a prominent place, for without survival all else is worthless fantasy. Think carefully and choose wisely.

WHAT? BILL CLINTON IS NOT A SLAVE TO THE TRUTH?

From Drudge: EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA RIPS INTO BILL CLINTON MONDAY DURING ABC INTERVIEW WITH 'GOOD MORNING AMERICA' HOST ROBIN ROBERTS... SAYS HE FEELS LIKE HE RUNNING AGAINST BOTH CLINTONS... Bill 'has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonnna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'

So where's Obama been for the last 16 years? If he thinks it's bad now, he ain't seen nothing yet. Oh, as far as directly confronting Bill Clinton on his inaccuracy, good luck with that one.

CHECK MATE

Bobby Fischer is dead at 64. What can one say about Fischer? He may have been the greatest chess master who ever lived. Aside from that, he was just another hateful loser and a thoroughly miserable human being.

UPDATE: John at Powerline has a more comprehensive obituary, that comes to pretty much the same conclusion.

ANIMAL-HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH IS APPROVED

I haven't posted much (if at all) on the the cloning/embryo research issue, but this is an idea who's time should not come. While I'm sure that the purpose, as the article states, is research into disease and to make the world a better place and all of that, it's creepy in the extreme.

Cytoplasmic hybrids, they call them. The name itself make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck

That they say that "they will not be used in therapy" and of course, "It's illegal to implant them in the womb". Oh sure, that makes me feel better.

GOOD LORD, WHAT HAS BECOME OF US?

Has everyone in this country gone lost their minds? There was a time when the garbage that is spewed at DailyKos would have been reviled by ANY decent person, Democrat or Republican (feel free to peruse the comments to see the true face of the left; it’s not pretty). The filth that is allowed to be written on that digital rag is enough to make any reasonable person ill. Freedom of speech is one thing, sedition is another. Yes, I know that sedition is a bit of an antique term, but it seems to be a very modern practice these days, alas.

There was a time when a freak like Ron Paul would have been standing on the corner handing out poorly mimeographed copies of his drivel and promptly dismissed - now he stands on stage as though he's legitimate presidential candidate. The sad part is that in some polls he drawing 5% and that's far too much for the madness he's peddling.

There was a time when a State Senator like Barack Obama would never have been elected to the US Senate, much less be a serious presidential candidate scarcely 3 years later. And that's just speaking of his profound dearth of experience...don't get me started on his far left fantasy politics. No one seems to care whether he has the timber to sit in the Big Chair, he speaks well and he's black and that seems to be good enough. Voting FOR someone because of their race is just as racist as voting AGAINST someone because of their race.

As for Hillary Clinton, if sleeping with the president qualifies you for the job by some sort of weird osmosis, then there should be a number of female candidates in the field. That's aside from the fact that she's another dyed-in-the-wool, unrepentant leftist who's never really done anything, despite her sanctimonious claims to the contrary.

There was a time when George "Darth/Blofeld" Soros would have been seen for the real threat that he is. My God, the man had made billions screwing around with the values of world currency and he's financing the very subversion of the United States. He's like a villain out of a James Bond movie.

There was a time when a group of terrorist thugs like Hamas called the President of the United States "the Anti-Christ", there would be outrage expressed from the Left as well as the Right - now, I fully expect many on the left to publicly agree, and probably vote to increase their stipend. Hugo Chavez called our president "Satan" on the floor of the UN and a steady stream of celebrities rushed to Venezuela to break bread with him. I guess they figured that if the Speaker of the House could go to Syria to suck up to the "chinless one", then any type of loyalty to the US was well out of fashion. There was a time when that was called treason.

There was a time when neither political party would brazenly favor snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as the Democrats STILL favor doing. Their hatred of Bush far outweighs the success of their very nation - for them defeat is victory and victory is defeat. There was a time when that was called being an enemy of the United States.

There was a time when love of country superseded Democrat and Republican, because in the end we were all Americans. It would appear that time has passed.

I read the Gingrich's dissertation that was part of the course that he taught before he became Speaker of the House. One of the points that he made is that a nation can lose it's culture in a single generation. That has stuck in my mind ever since. We carry much of our culture and our history inside of us, building on what came before and expecting our children to build on that. Respect for the past and accepting the knowledge that has been gained from that past, both good and bad, is part of that culture. We write our history on a slate, and expect future generations to add their chapters and the whole of that slate is our culture.

We don't seem to be doing that anymore.

We live in an age when much of what many people believe is fantasy. Schools seem to be more intent on teaching the history that suits their political bias that what actually happened. Too many people get their information about the Kennedy assassination from Oliver Stone movies and their information about 9/11 from crackpot websites and they believe all of this to be true. They know little or nothing about World War II, or even what happened 30 years ago. The gulf that used to exist between fact and fantasy is becoming far too narrow and many of us are simply forgetting our history and this is why we may well be losing our culture.

We are choosing to forget many of the struggles, the victories and the defeats that brought us to this point. I have a feeling that the slate is being wiped clean and our culture is being erased with it, all in the name of “peace”. There is no peace as long as evil exists in this world, and it always will exist. Our only hope is to counterbalance it and to rrender it impotent. Years ago, some very smart men determined that maintaining enormous power in the hands of good men and denying that power to evil men was as close as we could come to lasting peace, at least in terms of the United States. It has worked pretty well in that within the confines of the U.S., life has been placid because no one dared attack us for fear of the consequences.

It seems that we have no taste, in many quarters, for maintaining the enormous power that has protected us for so long and incidentally has protected the world for so long. In certain quarters, within our own country, there are those who feel that relinquishing power is the way toward world peace and some of them are running for president. I believe that to be a mistake of epic proportions and one that cannot easily be corrected once made.

A scant 6 1/2 years after 3,000 innocent American citizens were murdered in the most heinous act of war in our history, it appears that a majority of this country is satisfied to let bygones be bygones, even as new plots are drawn against us. There was a time when that was called capitulation.

An ill wind is already blowing against us and the isolationists and the pacifists-at-any-cost are poised to assume power just as the thick of the storm arrives at our shores.

May God help us.

ANTI-WAR SOROS FUNDED IRAQ STUDY

January 13, 2008
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. (Emphasis mine)

Typical strategy of the far left; control the conversation and if the facts don't support your argument, then manufacture facts that do. The sad truth is that, even today, that 650,000 figure is still bantered about and taken gospel by a good number of people and when it's refuted, the fall back position is that the refutation itself is an attempt to suppress the truth.

Facts and truth seem to hold decreasing value in an environment where whatever shallow beliefs people still hold can be backed up on fringe websites that produce "theories" on everything from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11 based completely on fantasized "facts" designed specifically to support the so-called theories. If one tries to interject the voice of reason, they are shouted down as "tools" or "fools" because of their acceptance of the obvious and their rejection of the ever-complex web being woven by the paranoid conspiracy "theorists".

As for Soros, he understands all of this and plays these poor, ignorant souls as a puppet master would marionettes. He well understands that the lie will stay out there forever and no matter how many times it is proven false, it gains currency because people believe it and as long as that is the case, in some perverse way, it becomes "truth".

Soros like to use his personal story as a Hungarian refugee from Nazi oppression to lend credence to his obsession with left-wing causes. In practice though, he seems to have learned well from his former masters - Joseph Goebbels would be proud.