The Devil Went Down To Georgia

 Political  Comments Off on The Devil Went Down To Georgia
Apr 192017
 

Democrat Jon Ossoff is headed for a runoff in June against a Republican contender after failing Tuesday to score an upset victory

The Devil Went Down To Georgia

Georgia congressional race: Democrat Ossoff, Republican Handel will go to run-off.

Seems like an appropriate song for today!

The Devil went down to Georgia – He was looking for a soul to steal – He was in a bind, ’cause he was way behind – He was willing to make a deal – When he came across this young man – Sawing on a fiddle and playing it hot – And the Devil jumped up on a hickory stump and said – “Boy let me tell you what:

I guess you didn´t know it, but I’m a fiddle player too,
And if you’d care to take a dare,
I’ll make a bet with you
Now you play a pretty good fiddle,
Boy, but give the Devil his due
I bet a fiddle of gold against your soul
‘Cause I think I’m better than you”
The boy said, “My name’s Johnny and it might be a sin,
But I’ll take your bet, you’re gonna regret,
‘Cause I’m the best there’s ever been”
Johnny, rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard,
‘Cause hell’s broke loose in Georgia and the Devil deals the cards
And if you win you’ll get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the Devil gets your soul!
The Devil opened up his case and he said, “I’ll start this show”
And fire blew from his fingertips as he rosined up his bow
And he pulled the bow across the strings and it made an evil hiss
Then a band of demons joined in,
And it sounded something like this
When the Devil finished, Johnny said,
“Well you’re pretty good old son
But sit down in that chair right there
And let me show you how it’s done!”
Fire on the Mountain, run, boys, run
The Devil´s in the house of the rising sun
Chicken in the bread pan a picking out dough,
Granny does your dog bite, “No, child, no”
The Devil bowed his head because he knew that he’d been beat
And he laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny´s feet
Johnny said, “Devil, just come on back
If you ever want to try again,
I done told you once, you son of a bitch,
I’m the best there´s ever been”
He played,
Fire on the Mountain, run, boys, run
The Devil’s in the house of the rising sun
Chicken in the bread pan a picking out dough,
Granny will your dog bite, “No, child, no”

Where is Jon Ossoff’s money coming from?
Watch:

ActBlue is a cousin of ShareBlue.
Ossoff is a Soros pawn.

 

 

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

 Political  Comments Off on Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets
Apr 132017
 

Who are the White Helmets? This is a question that everyone should be asking themselves.

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

The White Helmets – here are a few facts that you need to know. Share this with your family and friends who rely on the Western Mainstream Media:

 
• The White Helmets, also called Syria Civil Defence, are not who they claim to be. The group is not Syrian; it was created with USA/UK funding under the supervision of a British military contractor in 2013 in Turkey.

• The name “Syria Civil Defence” was stolen from the legitimate Syrian organization of the same name. The authentic Syria Civil Defence was founded in 1953 and is a founding member of the International Civil Defense Organization (1958).

• The name “White Helmets” was inappropriately taken from the legitimate Argentinian relief organization Cascos Blancos / White Helmets. In 2014, Cascos Blancos / White Helmets was honored at the United Nations for 20 years of international humanitarian assistance.

• The NATO White Helmets are primarily a media campaign to support the ‘regime change’ goals of the USA and allies. After being founded by security contractor James LeMesurier, the group was “branded” as the White Helmets in 2014 by a marketing company called “The Syria Campaign” managed out of New York by non-Syrians such as Anna Nolan. “The Syria Campaign” was itself “incubated” by another marketing company named “Purpose”.

• The White Helmets claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” and to “serve all the people of Syria” is untrue. In reality, they only work in areas controlled by the violent opposition, primarily terrorists associated with Nusra/AlQaeda (recently renamed Jabhat Fath al Sham).

• The White Helmets claim to be unarmed is untrue. There are photos which show their members carrying arms and celebrating Nusra/AlQaeda military victories.

• The White Helmets claim to be apolitical and non-aligned is untrue. In reality they actively promote and lobby for US/NATO intervention in violation of the norms of authentic humanitarian work.

• The Right Livelihood description that “Syria Civil Defence” saved over 60,000 people and “support in the provision of medical services to nearly 7 million people” is untrue. In reality the zones controlled by terrorists in Syria have few civilians remaining. That is why we see “cat” video/media stunts featuring the White Helmets.

• The NATO White Helmets actually undermine and detract from the work of authentic organizations such as the REAL Syria Civil Defence and Syrian Arab Red Crescent.

• The recent Netflix movie about the White Helmets is not a documentary; it is a self promotional advertisement. The directors never set foot in Syria. The Syrian video, real or staged, was provided by the White Helmets themselves. From the beginning scenes showing a White Helmet actor telling his little boy not to give mommy a hard time until the end, the video is contrived and manipulative. The video was produced by a commercial marketing company Violet Films/Ultra Violet Consulting which advertises its services as “social media management”, “crowd building” and “campaign implementation”.

The true face of the White Helmets:

[arve url=”https://commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-true-face-of-the-White-Helmets.mp4″ mode=”normal” align=”center” /]
 

The REAL Syria Civil Defence

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-syria-civil-defence-exposes-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/5547528

Who are the Syria White Helmets?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/21/who-are-the-syria-white-helmets/

White Helmets Deceive Right Livelihood and CodePink

http://truepublica.org.uk/global/white-helmets-deceive-right-livelihood-codepink/

White Helmets cat video showing terrorist zone with no civilians.  “The homeowners abandoned this district and its kittens.”  How fake does it get?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfcE-Drnas

White Helmets are caught staging rescue only to claim they were making a mannequin challenge video.

http://archive.is/5D2Ew

[arve url=”https://youtu.be/8aAaReVn2I4″ mode=”normal” align=”center” /]

 


 

 
via

The Collusion Between Russia and Obama

 Political  2 Responses »
Apr 122017
 

Rich Lowry documents the collusion between Russia and Obama

The Collusion Between Russia and Obama

What Rich Lowry has done here is put it down in a page and a half in almost chronological order, in as simple and understandable a way as possible.

From Rush Limbaugh:

Rich Lowry has done a great piece of work here at National Review. “Turns Out Obama Was the Real Russian Stooge”. All of this that Lowry writes about is known and has been known, but it was known and reported on, discussed in piecemeal fashion. What Rich has done here is put it down in a page and a half in almost chronological order, in as simple and understandable a way as possible. And he has a very clever beginning of the piece.

Rich Lowry“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels.” Now, the hoi polloi and the great unwashed reading that are obviously going to think that Lowry is talking about the Russians colluding with Trump to beat Hillary.

“The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the US government at the highest levels. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geo-political foe?”

Let me take each one of these. How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression. That’s Obama and Crimea. That’s Obama and Ukraine. And that’s Assad. At every step of the way, when Russia, when Putin commits an act of aggression, Obama said (imitating Obama), “You better cut it out. You better stop doing it,” and with Syria he drew a red line and dared Assad to cross it. Assad crossed the red line; Putin kept acting aggressive. Nothing was done to stop it.

Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal, that’s Iran. Agreeing that the region’s number one terror state will be permitted to develop nuclear power under terms of an agreement with the American president, that’s Obama. That is not Trump. And mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represented our foremost geopolitical foe, that’s the presidential campaign of 2012 when Mitt Romney was doing everything he could to convince people that Russia was a foremost enemy, and it was Obama and his team mocking Romney for seeing a communist behind every rock, making a mountain out of a molehill and being stereotypical in his foreign policy.

https://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

It was Obama at every stage of the way aiding and abetting and facilitating Putin and the Russians. But we’re not through. How else to explain a newly elected president “accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally?” Of a president, an American president “welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East?” Hello, Syria. Hello, Iran.

How about an American president “refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia?” Hello, Ukraine. An American president “diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?” That would be Obama and climate change, which benefits Putin and the Russians. All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by Barack Hussein Obama, not by Donald Trump.

“To take them in order: He re-set with Russia shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected him as a Cold War relic.

“The president then went on to forge an agreement with Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine ‘lethal’ weapons to defend itself from Russian attack,” which we had sworn by treaty to do. We were the ones that made Ukraine give up its military in exchange for our defending them against such aggression.

The Collusion Between Russia and ObamaThen when the aggression happened and they had no weaponry to defend themselves, we sided with the aggressor, Russia. All of this, Barack Obama. Not a single instance of this collusion can be laid to Donald Trump because he was not even running for president when this stuff happened. The evidence of Kremlin, Moscow, and Washington collusion is with Obama and Putin. “Finally, Obama cut US defense spending and cracked down on fossil fuels — a policy that Russia welcomes, since its economy is dependent on high oil prices.”

So it is abundantly clear that if anybody in our country was working with Russia to their benefit, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. It was not Donald Trump. All of this business about Russia and Trump colluding to deny the election, it would have made every bit of sense in the world for Putin to want Hillary Clinton to win to continue just this kind of deference.

With this evidence and using common sense guided by intelligence, there is no way Putin would want to deal with some newcomer like Trump who was talking tough. America first and all this sort of stuff. He would much rather prefer Hillary Clinton, guaranteed to continue the same appeasement policies of Barack Obama as she was promising to do.

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries