How Evil is George Soros?

Is George Soros the world's most evil man? The question relates to and includes women too, for whatever it's worth. I have my reasons for phrasing it in an exclusively male context (If you must know... In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that any woman who is not an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend --- your ex-wife or girlfriend to be specific, not just anyone's --- could be more evil than the world's most evil man? . . . I didn't think so).

Is he (Soros) even evil to begin with? Or, is it possible for a person to be as genuinely confused about right-and-wrong as Uncle Soros would have us all believe is the case with himself?

The question unfortunately begs numerous other questions best left to a theologian to answer. Some of these include:

• What is evil?
• Is evil defined by actions, behaviors, words, beliefs and/or some combination thereof?
• Who is to say what is evil?
• Is morality relative? What about ethics?
• Is it possible that some people who are born with fully functioning brains and organs lack what most of us would refer to as a conscience?
• Who am I to judge ("Judge not, lest thee be judged")?
• Can evil exist without the existence of God (a question for athiests and agnostics, obviously)?
• Does evil exist period?

Is there a certain threshold as to what constitutes evil in any sense (actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.), or is whether or not something "is evil" determined on a case-by-case basis? If so, by whom (another question for non-believers, who for the record I am not judging in any way, shape, manner or form, and against whom I have not one iota of angst)?

I'm not going to attempt to answer any of those questions, but for those who wish to delve into them further, I will provide to the resources I utilize to help wrap my mind around these concepts:

• Regarding Moral Conscience
• Regarding Good and Evil
• Regarding the Nature and Sources of Morality
• Regarding Sin

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other person that is alive at present that I'd consider to be "more" evil than George Soros, at least according to my understanding of evil*. And yes, that includes serial killers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (whom I'm still 98% certain died in 2007 or 2008, but is still "officially" alive, so he's included here for the purposes of conversation).
In the case of Ahmadinejad, while he may aspire to kill more Jews than Hitler himself was responsible for murdering, he lacks the capacity to single-handedly orchestrate such a massacre, and could only succeed in doing so with significant help from George Soros --- which he has gotten. That said, Soros has the ability to put a stop to the nutjob in Iran if he wished to do so. Unfortunately, he does not, and in fact has been an integral part of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons, not to mention the fact that for at least the past three years, Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without a hitch, but with the blessing of the U.S. Commander in Chief, who as we all know was hand-picked by Soros, who propagandized America for long enough to get him elected. Not that he really needed to, Soros' SOS Project (SOS is an acronym for Secratary of State, which makes the complete name of this sinister undertaking by George Soros the Secretary of State Project) has been such an unprecedented success that Obama would only have needed to win about 35% of the popular vote in any of the states he won in order to "win" those states.

For anyone unfamiliar with the SOS Project, Soros funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into statewide elections for the position of Secretary of State. He did this across the entire United States. The mission behind Project SOS is to ensure that in any election between a democrat and a Republican in which the statewide demographics are such that a democrat victory would be anything less than proposerous to even conceive of --- meaning that a vast majority of the voting population would be less than 100% certain of a fraudulent outcome should the democrat emerge on top --- that the democrat wins each and every one of those elections regardless of what it takes to meet those ends.

The responsibilities of the Secretary of State on a statewide level are far different than the position at the federal level. For states, the SoS's job is typically to oversee business and corporate filings, and to manage and coordinate elections for each given state. Relative to any other position in a typical U.S. state government, the SoS has the most power to illegally influence the outcome of an election in a variety of ways, and Soros' minions have figured out all of them, mastering most in the process.

Take the 2010 Nevada election for U.S. Senate between Harry Reid (who has been termed the "Second-Most Evil Man in America") and Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle. All of the polls leading up to and even on election day (exit polls in the case of election day itself) showed Angle with a comfortable lead ranging from 3.5 - 5.5 percentage points. Not a blowout by any stretch of the imagination, but outside the margin of error for all but a few of the more obscure polls that were released. Nevada's Secretary of State, who was effectively appointed by Soros via the SOS Project, contracted with --- of all people --- the SEIU (an uber-liberal, proactive democrat PAC. The name is an acronym for the Service Employees International Union) to manage, maintain and perform "maintenance" on Nevada's electronic voting machines.

This directly resulted in two (2) different types of election fraud. Not surprisingly, both just "happened" to work to Harry Reid's advantage. The two different forms of mass election fraud from Nevada's 2010 race are:

1. Thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of the machines were pre-programmed to cast votes for Harry Reid. Upon each vote being registered and the voting form cleared for the next voter, the device was set to vote for Harry Reid by default!! Wait, it gets worse. When intelligent and informed voters with stable minds went in to cast their ballots, hundreds of voters observed their vote for Sharon Angle switched at the last second by the machine. The switch occurred after the voter had pressed the "cast ballot" button, but was apparently visible for just long enough for several hundred voters to take notice. We can only guess at how many hundreds or thousands just pressed the button and left the polling place, never even stopping to consider that a United States Senator would resort to such scandalous and illegal tactics for the purpose of subverting the democratic process and the will of the people.
2. In heavily democratic precincts (those most predictable and most likely to favor Reid over Angle by a wide margin based on demographics and past voter behavior alone), numerous precincts submitted more votes than there were registered voters residing within and/or registered to vote within the precinct. For anyone wondering how that happens, there are two scenarios that in all likelihood both occurred. The first involved the same people voting more than once. It's no secret that this goes on in every election involving a democrat without exception, and has ever since the days when the democrat party was heavily aligned with the Klan (sadly, not much has changed on that front), with both organizations' (the democrats and the KKK) primary objective being the subversion of the rights of black U.S. citizens. The second scenario us unfortunately also fairly common in elections involving democrats. This latter scenario involves union thugs simply pulling the lever over-and-over again for Reid after the polls had closed.

When all was said and done, Harry Reid was "reelected" by a slim margin. TRANSLATION: Sharon Angle won the election by 6-10 percentage points, but Reid was reelected anyway due to the rampant fraud that occurred, which was on display for all to see, and of which little attempt was made by the guilty parties to conceal the sinister actions and intents. With a so-called Department of Justice that is in cahoots with Reid, Obama and the democrats, it came as little surprise that there was no federal investigation into these widely documented reports and claims, for which the evidence is so readily available one could fill the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans with all the witnesses and documents supportive of the allegations.

The point of this story is that none of this (Harry Reid's fraudulent reelection) would have been possible if it weren't for a Hungarian-born devil of a man by the name of George Soros.

VIDEO: George Soros Discussing China's
Role in the New World Order





* NOTE: For the purposes of discussion and debate, I am obviously taking a leave of absence from my usual approach of deferring judgment to someone I deem more qualified than myself to judge other human beings (that would be God, for those of you in Eugene, Oregon).

Capybara, Would You Like to Explain This?

Is Capybara the Beast from the book of Revelation? His recent activity over at the Mixxingbowl seems to suggest so.

I was minding my own business, reading the news and occasionally commenting when I came across something disturbing while perusing through some of Capybara's submissions. Rather than describe to you what I saw, I included the screenshot below, in which you can see exactly what I saw when I happened upon a page I was never supposed to see.

FALSE ALARM:  Capybara was briefly considered a potential Antichrist suspect as a result of an apparent misunderstanding.

Needless to say, I was extremely alarmed upon seeing that, especially as Capybara has never shown any indication whatsoever for a capacity for evil, much less the potential for being the sinister villain from the final book of the Bible. I decided to double-check so as to be absolutely certain it was true before publicly levying the accusation.

I pulled up the official Antichrist Identification Device from Jaspax.com and ran the name. In a split-second, the suspense was over:

Capybara IS NOT the Antichrist.

We looked through 55 different calculations for the numerical value of "Capybara", but NONE of them were equal to the number of the beast. Congratulations!

I wasn't totally shocked by the result, but there was one detail over which I was puzzled. If Capybara isn't the Antichrist, why did his activity page at the Bowl boldly display the number of the beast? The only logical reason would be if the Mixxingbowl itself were some way tied to Prince of Darkness.

On a hunch, I decided to try running through a couple of names of people I knew are affiliated with the site. The results were predictable.

Gregory Davies IS the Antichrist!

Here's proof:

1. Write "Gregory Davies" as separate words.
2. Transliterate the result into Greek: γρεγωρι δαβηης. Numerical values for Greek letters are found here.
3. Alternately subtract and add the numerical values of the letters in each word, then take the absolute value of the result. Add together the numerical values of each word. This gives the following:
γ ρ ε γ ω ρ ι δ α β η η ς
( 3 - 100 + 5 - 3 + 800 - 100 + 10) + ( 4 - 1 + 2 - 8 + 8 - 6)
4. The result is 616! Did you know that in the earliest manuscripts of the Bible 616 is the number of the beast? It's true! Plus, wouldn't it make perfect sense for the Enemy to disguise his true face all these years by getting people to believe in the wrong Bible?

Don't be deceived! Now you have absolute PROOF that Gregory Davies is the Antichrist!

Spread the word! Click here to go to a linkable page, or copy and paste the following text into your webpage or blog to let everyone know that Gregory Davies is the Antichrist.
Mathematical proof that Gregory Davies is the Antichrist!

For anyone scratching their head, the aforementioned also goes by the name of cGt2099. It should come as no surprise Davies has emerged as a candidate/suspect to become the most evil person in all of religion. Back in 2009, he admitted/proclaimed as much when early rumors were beginning to surface.

So is cGt2099 the Antichrist? If only it were so simple.

At least two other names that have been widely rumored to be the Antichrist have been confirmed as such.  It is unclear at this point if Davies is in cahoots with Kevin Rose and Barack Hussein Obama as a sinister apocalyptic trifecta, or if the three must contend for the singular honor.

God did not respond to an email seeking comment about the Antichrist situation.

Worthy Opponent Remembered: Fat Lester's Tribute to JeffK

I know that there have already been several different tributes done since JeffK's departure for the hereafter. While I do not want to be redundant, I think it is only appropriate that I, Fat Lester, publish my own tribute to JeffK (formerly known as "janejas"). 

For one thing, the tribute song chosen for one of the dedications to Jeff was the same song used in a faux tribute to Violet Planet following her banning from Mixx. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though that cheapens it some when included in a tribute to one of the other three 100k karma Mixxers (no offense to VP, it's the likening of being banned versus the real thing that bothers me). The other thing is that enough time has passed now that I can write the tribute that best commemorates my time here with Jeff without the shock-factor influencing me.

The other reason I decided to go ahead with this tribute is that unlike the authors of Jeff's other candlelight-posts, this one was written by someone on the side of the aisle opposite Jeff. That is significant to me. That someone who spent countless hours arguing back-and-forth with Jeff would take the time to pen a tribute weeks after his passing says something about the kind of man Jeff was. I've debated hundreds if not thousands of different people during my time at Mixx, but none ever challenged me the way Jeff did.

Conservatives tend to classify liberal arguments as being rooted in emotions as opposed to logic and reason, thereby discrediting left-wind arguments on the basis that left wingers don't think logically. While many liberals do indeed wear their hearts on their sleeves, JeffK's logic was as sharp as any conservatives, and he made quite the habit of routinely shredding the widespread over-generalization regarding left-wingers and logic. Defeating him in debate was never easy, and most of our arguments ended with a mutual agreement to disagree for the sake of allowing ourselves enough time to experience worldly things other than Mixx. That isn't to say liberals are right about anything, just that proving they were wrong was far more difficult when Jeff was on the other side of the debate than it would have been with most others.

Jeff and I butted heads more than a few times the first couple of weeks he was a Mixxer. I can recall dozens of heated exchanges between the two of us during the two-plus years I knew the man. However, despite our frequent disagreements over politics and philosophy, the two of us came to develop a relationship based upon mutual respect.

It didn't take long at all for the two of us to realize that the other was not a fool or an idiot, and that our failure to see eye-to-eye on many of these matters was not a byproduct of either of us being an intellectual superior to the other. Essentially, we reached a point where we could accept our disagreements as such without villainizing the other.

Within a matter of weeks after he had joined the Mixx community, Jeff and I had developed a strong mutual respect for each other in spite of the fact that disagreed often about politics, and neither of us was shy about expressing our views about a given subject. We each were able to come to terms with the fact that neither of us were bad people, and that neither of us was severely lacking in intellectual capability. We recognized that so long as our debates pertained to the given issue or topic at hand and did not become personal (meaning neither of us would insult the other despite the extent to which we disagreed on a subject), that our lively debates could be fun, educational and an overall positive contribution to the community.

There was a period of about eight-to-ten months when the discussions at Mixx well far more civilized, intelligent in nature, thought-provoking and educational. For a while there, we really did have the best community of its type on the web, and the ability of Mixxers such as Jeff and myself (and dozens of others - you know who you are) to debate rationally and with respect and civility to all despite our differences that set the example for new users. For a period, that mature and intellectually-stimulating culture was the dominant culture at Mixx.

I was forced to take a five-month leave-of-absence from Mixxing last summer to address some medical issues and later pursue a job opportunity that was prohibitive of my involvement in social media. When I returned, Mixx was not the same place it was when I had left it.

While Jeff certainly didn't have this sort of relationship with everyone he interacted with at Mixx, it was his leadership as an outspoken representative of the political left that helped set the tone for debate and raise the bar on the community standards for interactive conversation. There were some people on both sides of the aisle who eventually made their presence felt in the community, much to the detriment of said community. It was very challenging to have a conversation with some of these folks without insults flying. In most cases, these were the people who lowered the bar for everyone and helped spur the eventual decline in the community and the standards for debate that for years we Mixxers took so much pride in.

If I had to choose a song to represent my relationship with JeffK (aka: "Janejas"), it would have to be "We Just Disagree" by Dave Mason. The words that best express my experiences with Jeff were articulated to perfection by Mason in the song: "There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree."

Jeff, you were the epitome of a worthy opponent, and while I vehemently disagreed with many of your political views, I hadn't the slightest bit of animosity for you whatsoever --- in fact, quite the contrary (as you well know). There are not many people with whom I can have such challenging and intelligent conversations without having to worry about ruffling anyone's feathers. You were a warrior, and your skin was impenetrable by the words of mere mortals.

God Bless you and your family Jeff. Your presence is missed, but I take comfort knowing that you're probably sitting around having a beer throwing darts with Michael and Gabriel, helping the Easter Bunny prepare to kick off the year's most important Holy Day.

I miss you man. Now more than ever. Since I know you're already in Heaven and do not need my prayers in that regard, I instead will pray for your family, that they may come to peace with your departure for the next world. While I admit I'm in no hurry to get there, I hope one day I am deemed worthy of joining you in paradise so we can resume our ideological jousting, ostensibly for all eternity. Until then, you'll not be forgotten.

God's Apple Pie

I recently came across a blog post at a site called Daddy Hogwash that discussed God's desire for a hot apple pie, and the 13 billion year wait he had to first endure before it was ready for him to ear. The post is entitled: "What God Wants".

Since it (the post) was so short, it would be difficult to use a truncated citation without losing an important part of the message. I quoted the entire post, and linked to it as well (the link appears at the end of this post).

Anyway, here are the contents of the post:

It turns out, all God really wanted was an apple pie. Unfortunately for him, he had to wait a little over 13 billion years for all of the ingredients to ripen they way he wanted.

You would think that if God wanted an apple pie, he would have just created an apple pie.

Can you imagine the finger-tapping at the table waiting for the apple pie for 13.7 billion years?

“A watched universe never bakes a pie,” his auntie told him in some language that no one understands.

While the author certainly brings up a good point, the post is lacking a crucial piece of information that I know would at least leave me feeling unfulfilled upon reading the post if I didn't already know the answer to the obvious question raised by the above.

[Image: Almighty God and his Angels enjoy some divine apple pie]

No Longer Hungry

The worst part about it is that by the time the pie was finally ready, the overwhelming likelihood is that he wasn't even hungry and didn't want it anymore. Since he is infallible, we can deduce that he would not have eaten the pie out of gluttony. This begs the question of what exactly happened to the pie if God didn't eat it.

So what ultimately became of the pie?

Being in that he's God, he most likely donated it to a homeless shelter instead. That way, those who really need it would have been able to enjoy it, and the food would not have gone to waste.

My guess would be that if God for whatever couldn't make it to the homeless shelter, he most likely fed it to his dog. And yes, God's pet can indule on treats that our earth-bound pets cannot. If one of them ever does happen to eat enough of something harmful to potentiall hurt or kill the animal, Jesus can always go and pray over (which completely heals it).

How do you know all this?

How do I know all this? I was recently hired to build God's website and serve as his webmaster once it is complete.  The site should be ready in a couple of weeks.  The domain name at which God's website will reside is either going to be AlmightyGod.info or AlmightyGod.ws.

For what it's worth, as best I could discern during my first and only visit to the site, Daddy Hogwash seems to be a blog about religion, as seen through the eyes of an atheist. I could be wrong I suppose (although it's not likely), as I only spent a couple of minutes on the site after I finished reading the article.

The post from Daddy Hogwash referenced within this article can be viewed here.