OBAMA TAKES ORDERS FROM GEORGE SOROS

At this point, a mere 2 months into the Presidency of Barack Obama, it seems painfully clear that we have not only elected a deceitful knave, but one intent on the complete dismantling of our own defenses, with seemingly very little concern for the consequences.

The icing on this poisonous cake would seem to be that we ourselves will pay for our own destruction.

Boiled down to the dry pot, we must conclude that President Obama, his entire Administration, the Democratic Congress and their favorite benefactor, George Soros, have an evolved form of slavery in mind. It's a type of slavery whereby the productive class is held shackled to the political class's outlandish worldview that there isn't a single problem under the sun, which cannot be swiftly solved with our money, produced by the sweat of our collective brow. They consider our wages and the wages of our children and grandchildren to be their own property, to be squandered in whatever manner they see fit.

And I believe this has a name, even though we modern folks have long forgotten not only its name, but the centuries of toil and buckets of blood that went into dismantling the system than enthroned it. It's called, I believe, serfdom.
SEE DEFINITION OF SELFDOM BELOW....









The Soros Doctrine in Obama Foreign Policy

President Obama is rapidly replacing the Bush Doctrine with the Soros Doctrine, implementing the foreign policy tenets of the principal financier of the American left.

When Charlie Gibson peered pedantically down his nose at Sarah Palin last fall, asking "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?," I could not help but wonder whether anyone in our esteemed mainstream media would have the intelligence or the temerity to ask candidate Barack Obama whether he agreed with the Soros doctrines.

Too late now.

Soros doctrines reign in the Obama White House and we're about to learn firsthand whether they represent the ideology of choice for a safer U.S.A.

Or whether they were just the cockamamie delusions of an aged, amoral currency manipulator put in play by a neophyte politician with a staff-scripted teleprompter glued to each hip.

But first, a little review of the Bush doctrine and its track record.

This is for you, Charlie Gibson.

In a piece titled, "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe," Washington Post writer, Charles Krauthammer offered the most succinct summation of the Bush doctrines (There were four.), stating emphatically that Gibson's smug definition came up quite short of the mark.

Krauthammer (who was himself the first to use the term, "Bush doctrine") delineated four distinct and superceding elements to Bush foreign policy:

#1 (pre-9/11) - unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the Kyoto protocol and other international initiatives, which were deemed by President Bush harmful to U.S. interests.

#2 - the "with us or against us" speech to Congress nine days after 9/11, which quickly resulted in the 7-point ultimatum given to President Musharraf of Pakistan, demanding his withdrawal of support for the Taliban.

#3 - in the wake of our invasion of Iraq, President Bush gave his justification for preemptive war for defensive purpose.

#4 - enunciated in President Bush's second inaugural address, that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to aid the spread of democracy throughout the world.

The bottom line for America is that we know for certain the Bush Doctrines kept us safe for seven whole years, kept our IslamoFascist foes magnetized in Afghanistan and Iraq and kept other enemies balanced on their toes with the full knowledge that any belligerent move would be met with U.S. force.

Say whatever you will, Charlie Gibson, the cowboy kept us safe.

Soros, the Anti-Bush

"I have made rejection of the Bush doctrine the central project of my life."
-- George Soros, Wall Street Journal; March 3, 2004

The relevant question here would seem to be, Why? What was it, specifically, about the Bush Doctrines that so roiled George Soros?

Soros published his own book on the subject in 2003: The Bubble of American Supremacy: The Cost of George W. Bush's War in Iraq. The Soros Doctrine boils down to a short list of simple tenets:

President Bush's reaction to 9/11 was an extreme over-reaction. The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been counterproductive in the world scheme of things, causing far more harm than help.
The Global War on Terror was ill-conceived, ill-fought and ought to be dismantled, the sooner the better for international relations.
The desire to spread American democracy to other regions is based on a false set of documents, namely the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Soros' belief that there is no such thing as a universal truth, that all things are relative and all moral systems are essentially equivalent leads him to conclude that our founding documents are fundamentally flawed in that they claim to rest upon "self-evident truths."

These might be called more accurately, anti-tenets, as they merely serve to refute the Bush Doctrines. But any careful observer would be inclined to make special note of Soros' ever-present insistence that American foreign policy be formulated in a way that puts international objectives ahead of U.S. objectives. Soros expects the U.S. to subjugate herself to what he believes will help the whole world, not merely us and our interests.

So, what doctrines does Soros specifically advocate?

The United States should use its position of financial and military might to "lead a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character."
The United States should increase foreign aid to all who need it. Soros believes that by giving grants, as opposed to loans, to developing countries, we make friends and give people what they need, thereby decreasing the incentives for making war against us.
Terrorists have always been with us, Soros insists, and terrorism requires "police action," not wars based upon "imperialist intentions."
Only an international body (such as the U.N.) can solve the problem of terrorism as it is an inherently international problem.
The Bush Doctrine of holding host nations responsible for their support and protection of terrorist entities shuts down the necessary diplomatic channels, which would otherwise lead to joint solutions.

The bottom line is that George Soros is an internationalist; he always has been. He has even said that the only thing the U.S. does for him is issue his passport, which is itself an obsolete instrument of the even more obsolete nation-state concept.

Soros Doctrines and President Obama

President Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has begged the Chinese to support our debt, while sloughing off human rights abuses by the communist regime and has praised the environmental efforts of our Mexican neighbor, while making no mention of the flood of Mexican illegal immigrants invading our southern borders. Madame Clinton has finger-wagged our Israeli allies, while securing $900 million in American aid to the beleaguered Palestinians (read Hamas) while there are no demands on them to stop firing rockets into Israel. Madame Clinton has additionally pledged a $200 million scholarship fund for Palestinians.

Buying friends is a staple of Soros foreign policy. Greased palms, he seems to believe, provide a great deal of "cooperation."

Candidate Obama echoed this view in his Berlin citizen-of-the-world address, stating,

"Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity."

Adhering to Soros doctrine again, President Obama has declared that the United States is no longer engaged in a "Global War on Terror." We are now conducting "overseas contingency operations." For seven long years, George Soros vociferously attacked Bush for declaring war on terrorism, calling the Global War on Terror a "false metaphor," which inevitably resulted in catastrophic civilian casualties, in turn creating more terrorists for the future.

In addition, Obama has echoed Soros' objection to Gitmo and has declared that it will be closed within the year. Obama seeks to revert to the failed Clinton policy of treating terrorism as an international policing problem, and plans to rely on the Soros doctrines of cooperation, international law and law enforcement actions that do not use military force except for police functions.

Interestingly, President Obama's intention to deploy 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan falls into what Soros counts as a police function. The original intention of Operation Enduring Freedom (War in Afghanistan) was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda. If bin Laden is ever captured, then presumably the Afghan "contingency operation" will end and President Obama will work out a peace accord with the "moderates" of the Taliban, as Pakistan has done.

When President Obama announced last week his intention to add 4,000 troops to the earlier declared 17,000 additional forces to Afghanistan, he added that he intends to garner Congressional approval for a $15 billion aid package for Pakistan. The $15 billion for Pakistan's leaders will most likely be approved, in spite of our own intelligence evidence, which concludes the Pakistan government is using our money to finance the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban is killing U.S. soldiers, using our own money, funneled through the middleman, Pakistan.

One must surely wonder whether Soros and Obama have ever read the Koran. It certainly appears that they have not.

At this point, a mere 2 months into the Presidency of Barack Obama, it seems painfully clear that we have not only elected a deceitful knave, but one intent on the complete dismantling of our own defenses, with seemingly very little concern for the consequences.

The icing on this poisonous cake would seem to be that we ourselves will pay for our own destruction.

Boiled down to the dry pot, we must conclude that President Obama, his entire Administration, the Democratic Congress and their favorite benefactor, George Soros, have an evolved form of slavery in mind. It's a type of slavery whereby the productive class is held shackled to the political class's outlandish worldview that there isn't a single problem under the sun, which cannot be swiftly solved with our money, produced by the sweat of our collective brow. They consider our wages and the wages of our children and grandchildren to be their own property, to be squandered in whatever manner they see fit.

And I believe this has a name, even though we modern folks have long forgotten not only its name, but the centuries of toil and buckets of blood that went into dismantling the system than enthroned it. It's called, I believe, serfdom.

(Serfdom) is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.

Serfdom involved not only work in fields, but also various other activities, like forestry, mining, transportation (both land and river-based), and crafts. Manors formed the basic unit of society during this period, and the lord and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs were labourers who were bound to the land; they formed the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs were also defined as people in whose labour landowners held property rights. Before the 1861 abolition of serfdom in Russia, a landowner's estate was often measured by the number of "souls" he owned. Feudalism in Europe evolved from agricultural slavery in the late Roman Empire and spread through Europe around the 10th century; it flourished in Europe during the Middle Ages but lasted until the 19th century in some countries. The Black Death broke the established social order and weakened serfdom. For example, serfdom was de facto ended in France by Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318).[1][2] With the exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century. In Early Modern France, French nobles nevertheless maintained a great number of seigneurial privileges over the free peasants that worked lands under their control. Serfdom was formally abolished in France in 1789.[3]

After the Renaissance, serfdom became increasingly rare in most of Western Europe but grew strong in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known as "later serfdom"). In England, the end of serfdom began with Tyler’s Rebellion and was fully ended when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574.[2] There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799, when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation. However, most Scottish serfs had been freed before this time. In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. It persisted in Austria-Hungary till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861.[4] In Finland, Norway and Sweden feudalism was not established, and serfdom did not exist.

According to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs in Russia was 23.1 million.[5] By comparison, the United States had approximately 4 million slaves by 1860,[6] and the British Empire had 776,000 slaves when it abolished slavery in 1834.[7]

Feudalism, according to Joseph R. Strayer, can be applied to the societies of Iran, ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt (Sixth to Twelfth dynasty), Muslim India, China (Zhou Dynasty, and end of Han Dynasty) and Japan during the Shogunate. James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the Chinese Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) as also maintaining a form of serfdom.[8] According to Pierre Bonnassie, feudalism could also be seen in Spain. Although serfdom is believed to exist in all these regions, it was not uniform throughout them. Tibet is described by Melvyn Goldstein[9][10] to have had serfdom until 1959, but whether or not the Tibetan form of peasant tenancy qualified as serfdom was widespread is contested.[11][12] Bhutan is described by Tashi Wangchuk, a Bhutanese civil servant, as abolishing serfdom officially by 1959, but Wangchuk believes less than or about 10% of poor peasants were in copyhold situations.[13]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_soros_doctrine_in_obama_fo.html