Traditional Roman Catholic circulates Gematria analysis purporting to reveal that US President Barack Obama is the Antichrist

[jose v]

Traditional Roman Catholic circulates Gematria analysis purporting to reveal that US President Barack Obama is the Antichrist
The analysis was written by a Jewish Torah scholar. Is the American Neocon right wing being manipulated by Zionists who are terrified that Obama is going to take the US off a war footing, and deal more equitably in the Middle East? More about the Hebrew Gematria system

Sunday, March 15, 2009
"Team Obama's Anti-Israel Turn"


This week I learned that a "traditional Catholic" is circulating a gematria analysis that purports to reveal that President Obama is the antichrist. The "analysis" was written by a "Torah scholar." In this case, "Torah scholar" is a euphemism for a Kabbalist, and gematria is nothing more than occult numerology - an abomination in God's eyes - and this promoted by a "traditional Catholic" here in Idaho.

In the eight years in which George W. Bush, the Skull and Bones secret society initiate ruled and bankrupted our nation, lied us into war, seeking to overthrow the Constitution and enshrine the monarchial principle that any citizen can be jailed indefinitely without trial if King George labeled that citizen an "enemy combatant," I seldom saw any Right wingers describe him as "antichrist" or pin any other diabolic description on this evil servant of the rabbis.

In less than 60 days since his inauguration, however, I have witnessed a substantial campaign to overthrow Obama and tar him as a "false messiah" and antichrist.

I am not an Obama supporter, but I wonder how it is that in a mere two months he bears more contumely than Bush did in eight.

In my opinion the thoroughly kosher Neocon Right wing is being manipulated behind-the-scenes by Zionists who are terrified that Obama is going to take the U.S. off a war footing, and deal more equitably in the Middle East, as evidenced by the following column by that servant-of-the-rabbis John Bolton.

TEAM OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL TURN

By John Bolton
NY Post | March 13, 2009

THE Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the "Arab-Is
raeli dispute," seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle
East. This is bad news for Israel - and for America.

In its purest form, this theory holds that, once Israel and its neighbors
come to terms, all other regional conflicts can be duly resolved: Iran's
nuclear-weapons program, fanatical anti-Western terrorism, Islam's
Sunni-Shiite schism, Arab-Persian ethnic tensions.

Some advocates believe substantively that the overwhelming bulk of other
Middle Eastern grievances, wholly or partly, stem from Israel's founding and
continued existence. Others see it in process terms - how to "sequence"
dispute resolutions, so that Arab-Israeli progress facilitates progress
elsewhere.

Pursuing this talisman has long characterized many European leaders and
their soulmates on the American left. The Mideast "peace process" is thus
the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone - its mere existence being its
basic justification.

And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by
two key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as
special envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's
recent insistence on a "two-state solution" sooner rather than later.

Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy - rather than keeping
the portfolio under Secretary Clinton's personal control - separates Israel
from the broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell's role underlines both
the issue's priority in the president's eyes and the implicit idea it can be
solved in the foreseeable future.

Obama and Mitchell have every incentive to strike a Middle East deal - both
to vindicate themselves and, in their minds, to create a basis for further
"progress." But there are few visible incentives for any particular
substantive outcome - which is very troubling for Israel, since Mitchell's
mission essentially replicates in high-profile form exactly the approach the
State Department has followed for decades.

When appointed, Mitchell said confidently: "Conflicts are created, conducted
and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings." This is
true, however, only if the conflict's substantive resolution is less
important than the process point of "ending" it one way or another.
Surrender, for example, is a guaranteed way to end conflict.

Here, Clinton's strident insistence on a "two-state solution" during her
recent Mideast trip becomes important. She essentially argued
predestination: the "inevitability" of moving toward two states is
"inescapable," and "there is no time to waste." The political consequence is
clear: Since the outcome is inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse
for not making "progress." Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure -
something President Obama can't tolerate, for the sake of his policies and
his political reputation.

In this very European view, failure on the Arab-Israeli front presages
failure elsewhere. Accordingly, the Obama adminstration has created a
negotiating dynamic that puts increasing pressure on Israel, Palestinians,
Syria and others.

Almost invariably, Israel is the loser - because Israel is the party most
dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most
susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western
diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure
must be applied to make compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more
reasonable side.

How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even
military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming
pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist
groups, and to negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some
artful camouflage). The pattern is so common that its reappearance in the
Mitchell-led negotiations is what is really "inevitable" and "inescapable."

Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the
security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel's
intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral
economic ties, among many others, are important national-security assets
that should not lightly be put at risk.

The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes
that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until
Israel's disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing
Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a
relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic "outreach."

No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama's
"Arab-Israeli issues first" approach to the region.

This approach is exactly backward. All the other regional problems would
still exist even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his fondest wish and Israel
disappeared from the map: Iran's nuclear-weapons program, its role as the
world's central banker for terrorism, the Sunni-Shiite conflict within
Islam, Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda and other regional ethnic,
national and political animosities would continue as threats and risks for
decades to come.

Instead, the US focus should be on Iran and the manifold threats it poses to
Israel, to Arab states friendly to Washington and to the United States
itself - but that is not to be.

President Obama argues that he will deal comprehensively with the entire
region. Rhetoric is certainly his specialty, but in the Middle East rhetoric
only lasts so long. Performance is the real measure - and the
administration's performance to date points in only one direction:
pressuring Israel while wooing Iran.

Others in the world - friend and foe alike - will draw their own
conclusions.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow.