"called the Fat or the Wolf (Latin: Lupus, Welsh: Flaidd)" (italics mine), I've just got to add that the first Stewarts, from a certain Flaad of Brittany, worshiped the dog. The second earl was also of Avranches, and was cousin to Ranulph le Meschin third earl. Although I say that the neo-Aphrodite cult of Britain was carried by Avranches elements, the Ranulph Danes trace back to the same cult essentially...if I'm correct in tracing Randolphs to the Mures river, named after her mate, Mars. The Bernicians turn out to be a third (Germanic) element in the Obama bloodline, if it can be shown that Lucy Barns was named in honor of Bernician stock.March 7
I opened an article just now from AINA on "foreign policy gurus Lee Hamilton and James A. Baker. So I checked the Baker Coat and found a white shield with black saltire! We already know the Hamilton surname is from Leicester roots and that it merged along the way with the Rodham family. This is just fantastic, for the Baker surname was first recorded in Durham. I will show the Obama-importance of this gradually below.
In the second Durham treaty, a Norman king of England (Stephen) gave to David I of Scotland the regions of Northumberland, regions ruled by Bernicians for centuries previous. On this topic, Wikipedia writes: "Ranulf [II le Meschin] claimed these [Northumbrian] lands through his father [also Ranulph le Meschin], who had been forced to surrender them to the crown so he could inherit the Earldom of Chester." Very interesting. There were at least four Ranulph le Meschin from which the FitzRanulph surname of Derbyshire (next to Chester/Cheshire) may have been formed, but being from Northumberland first of all, the Meschins may have been Bernicians to some degree. In other words, Obama's expected tie to Bernicians may have been through the Meschins.
Look first at how the Meschin Coat uses the Sinclair-like waves seen on the black saltire of the Baker Coat. Then compare the Meschin Coat to the Scottish Mitchell Coat in combination with the English Mitchell Coat. There must be a link between the two surnames.
Did Obama chose George Mitchell, in other words, because he knew that George was from his own Meschin bloodline? I'm a novice at tracing individuals and families through the use of heraldry; Freemasons have been at it for centuries. The Rhodians must know all about their family ties, and the peoples to which they once sprung.
Well, after asking whether Meschins married Bernicians, I learned that Ranulf le Meschin (third earl of Chester) married Lucy Barns (webpage below), and together they had Ranulf le Meschin the next earl. Interesting, for this could make the latter Ranulph (also "Randle") the Bernician leading to the Randolphs (who in turn merged much later with the Dunham surname).
Ranulph, the husband of Lucy Barns, had Maud De Avranches as mother, who should represent the aforementioned Aphrodite/Hebrew element, for as "Avranches" was also "Abrincis," it should be the Abreu bloodline in Evreux (near Avranches, Normandy). The Arms of Ranulph le Meschin, third earl of Chester, is a red lion on gold (see Wikipedia article), the symbol of both Abreu and Normandy in reverse colors. The next Ranulph le Meschin (fourth earl of Chester) is shown at his Wikipedia article with two gold lions on red (= Arms of Normandy).
Now look: "The city [of Durham] has been known by a number of names throughout history. The original Nordic Dun Holm was changed to Duresme by the Normans and was known in Latin as Dunelm. The modern form Durham came into use later in the city's history." DUNholm can now viably be the foundation of the city of Dunham-Masci in Cheshire, for it was named after Meschins who were once rulers of the Dunholm region.
I should also mention that there was a mythical story told of Durham's origins in a so-called dun cow. "Isaac Taylor, in his Words and Places (p. 269), says the dun cow is a corruption of the Dena Gau (Danish region) in the neighbourhood of Warwick." This is some reason to suspect that the Dunham bloodline began as a cross between Danes and (Anglo-Saxon) Bernicians. If true, the Danish portion should prove to be the Ranulph side, even as I've already traced Randolphs to the Rollo/Ragnvald Danes.
The tie of the dun cow to Warwick is conspicuous with the bear that is the Arms of Warwickshire. The cow was killed by a ruler of Warwick, suggesting a battle between Bernicians at Warwick and the Danes of Dunholm.
Hugh d'Avranches was the first earl of Chester, and as Wikipedia reports that he was
The relationship between Hugh d'Avranches and the Veres of Normandy seems likely in that "Hugh was given the command of Tutbury Castle Staffordshire but in 1070 he was promoted to become Earl of Chester...Tutbury with its surrounding lands was passed to Henry de Ferrers." More in particular, it passed to Henry de Ferrers:
"Henry became a major land holder and was granted 210 manors throughout England and Wales, but notably in Derbyshire and Leicestershire, by King William for his conspicuous bravery and support at Hastings."
Well, that explains how Ferrers got to the Leicester theater.
As evidence that Ranulph le Meschin was Danish, he had brothers named Richard and William, evoking the Sinclair dukes of Normandy. Moreover, Ranulph's mother was a daughter of Richard d'Avranches. If that's not enough, Ranulph's daughter married Richard de Clare. Ranulph was styled "de Briquessart" from his father, Ranulf de Briquessart, which father was also styled, Ranulf de Meschines (extra letters in Normandy), viscount of Bayeax/Bessin.
Where's the Egyptian/Ethiopian element that should be in the picture? By these late times, any dark skin from north Africa in about the times of the Trojan war (1200 BC) would have paled to white. Perhaps Briquessart has the clues. It was in the commune of Livre, the name of a region also in Nievre, the French department where the city of Nevers is situated. The city was that of the Aedui people. If you know my writings on the topic, these trace back to mythical Aedon, granddaughter of mythical Meropes, the code-name of a king of Ethiopia to which I trace the Merovingian Franks. Nevers itself goes back to Nefertiti; Autun, the land of the Aedui, goes back to Nefertiti's god, Aten/Atun. Nice and neat.
I'm asking myself how "Livry" could fit into the line from Ethiopia to Lydia to Sparta to Italy to France. "Libya" comes to mind, and/or the Luwians that I think went back to Obama's Luo tribe...whatever it may have been called in those early years. Better yet, the mythical bull of Crete, penned up in the mythical Labyrinth, might connect with the dun cow of Dunholm since the Meschines line to Dunholm went through Livry. The Merovingians claimed to come from a sea bull, after all, and I do trace Nebelung-branch Merovingians to Morvan near Nevers and Autun.
I don't want to go deep into this now. It doesn't feel like the time. But it's "on paper" for when I am ready. Compare the diagonal bars of the Burgundian Arms with the diagonal bars in the Danish Boer Coat. Then see the Arms if Nievre, the same as in the Burgundian Arms. Since Nebelungs were known from the Burgundian fold (beside Nievre), who came in turn from the Danish realm of Bornholme, the Boer Coat must connect to the Boernicians (same as the Bernicians). I had independently traced Nebelungs to Bernicians, you see.
Here's an interesting piece if news:
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is trying to stabilize the nation's banking industry, implement a housing rescue plan and prop up a plunging stock market -- all with about 18 vacant senior positions, virtually the entire upper echelon of his department.
...'The fundamental, major problem for Tim Geithner is that there aren't a couple of people under him who can help pick up the slack...said Peter Madigan...
'The house is on fire and you've got one guy with the hose,' he added."
This is interesting because the one-man show may be the plan. How better to get a scam passed than by avoiding friction from fellows? Why risk having your own fellows catch you in a scam? Why bother arguing with them, or subject oneself to counter-ideas, or to solutions of problems unsupportive of the scam?
The following is the first criticism of Israel by the EU that I've read in a while. When Olmert was the Israeli leader, relations swelled, but Netanyahu promises to make enemies out of the two on the single Jerusalem issue alone:
"An EU report accuses Israel of attempting to annex east Jerusalem by expanding Jewish settlements, demolishing Arab homes, implementing discriminatory housing policies and exploiting the West Bank security fence, The Guardian reported Saturday morning. "
I wouldn't call it an annexation attempt, but the next best thing. Netanyahu's government is threatening to tear down some Palestinian homes because they were built illegally. It's being viewed as a needless and provocative move, though the ones who plan for it must have the purpose of making East Jerusalem, over a long haul, less of a Palestinian region. Ultimately, the Israeli right wants to control the Temple Mount and Old Jerusalem again.
The net result of the EU's opposition to Netanyahu's government on this and related issues, along with Obama and Brit opposition, is going to embolden the Palestinians. The impression that I'm receiving is that Palestinians are steadying to announce a state of their own by force, whether Israel likes it or not, simply because the West is dead-serious in calling for a state. There is no way that anti-Israel Palestinians in the West Bank want this golden opportunity to slip by during Netanyahu's term(s). Obama could agree to forcing a state, the degree by which he does so depending on Netanyahu's insistence not to. Obama could even consider it a political victory to see a state created by force.
This situation would not exist today had George Bush not worked toward making a Palestinian state a natural expectation. In essence, the West is causing the great tribulation of Israel in combination with anti-Israeli forces. It would be interesting to know which persons of the EU wrote the report, but the article doesn't reveal. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama supporters are forwarding the report.
Britain has announced openly that it is wishing to hold talk with Hezbollah. The latter has fired back that the talks are dandy...so long that they are open to the public:
"Hizbullah officials said [yesterday] they would welcome talks with Britain but that they had rejected what they said were British demands for the contacts to take place secretly.
...Mahmoud Komati, deputy leader of Hizbullah's political bureau, said Friday: 'The British have been constantly trying for nearly a year to hold a dialogue with us, but they wanted a secret dialogue.'"
Clearly, Hezbollah does not respect nor appreciate Britain's involvement, meaning that whatever Britain was offering secretly was insufficient. A curiosity is the following:
"The U.S. State Department said late Friday that it has not changed its stance regarding Hezbollah, and that it feels the time is not right for renewed contacts with the Lebanon-based militant group.
The comments from Washington came after Britain announced its decision to reestablish ties with Hezbollah as part of an effort to press the militant organization to disarm.
The U.S. also said it would closely follow developments between the U.K. and Hezbollah. "
It's not a wonder that Hezbollah doesn't respect Britain if it's trying to disarm Hezbollah. It's no wonder the talks had to be secret, for how else could Britain possibly accomplish such a thing without purchasing the will of Hezbolah for an incredibly high price? Obama is smart enough to stay out of this, albeit he may be out only for fear of getting caught. It's risky business to pay an armed group that cannot be trusted. What Britain is doing with Hezbollah is what Obama wanted to do with Iran, suggesting that the Obama team could be secretly supporting the British move. After all, we do read that the American administration wants to "closely follow developments between the U.K. and Hezbollah."
The Jerusalem Post has a short update on the ship still docked at Cyprus. It claims that Syrians have been in Cyprus attempting to set the ship free so that it can complete its trip to the Syrian coast. No doubt, the weapons material on board the ship are at the center of the discussions.
One way for Obama to get out of the Afghan mess he finds himself in is NOT by requesting help from Iran. But this is exactly what's taking place:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that President Barrack Obama's government intended to invite Iran to an international conference on Afghanistan planned for this month.
...The conference invitation would be the start of diplomatic initiative to Tehran."
On this invitation, Iran is posing as one who wants to support Afghanistan, though everyone knows that Iran is opposed to the presence of NATO forces there. What sort of support role that Iran can play is therefore illusive. If anything, Iran wishes to see the Taliban whip the NATO fighters. That Hillary is inviting Iran into Afghan talks is merely a save-face move because she and Obama have promised to do the unBush thing with Iran.
Meanwhile, we have yet to see what Hillary will do with Russia's opposition to Bush's missile system. She gave Russian foreign minister a gift yesterday, a reset-button, I kid you not, and he and she pressed it at the start of their talks. She has an incredible hatred for the Bush administration if she must openly advertise it on the diplomatic stage. I sense that this hatred is going to turn on Christians. Ultimately, the Bush missile issue is going to be decided by Obama.
What I know that the Obama people don't want to know is that their insistence on doing the unBush thing is going to lead to humiliation greater than that suffered by Bush. It's inevitable, for they think that by engaging the anti-Christ spirit, and the anti-Christ Arabs, with friendship is the way to solve the world's problems. I know that they will reap what they sow.
How will Obama escape humiliation, since he is willing to create an empty and misguided peace with anti-Israelis? It's misguided because it's only purpose is the staving off an Arab rebellion that threatens a peaceful global order under a satanic spirit. Will God give this movement a free and unpunished pass? The prophets reveal that, even though God uses certain forces to punish Israel, yet God will destroy the forces in the end for their anti-Israeli stance.
It's terribly risky for the Obama team to hold talks with anti-Israelis, in other words, when viewed from God's point of view. The trouble for Obama is that he and his people are NOT viewing things from God's perspective, which is the only perspective that matters. The Obama team is at this early time gloating over it's "new" path of befriending what Bush refused to befriend, but the team does not realize that this gloating is setting up for itself a humiliating fall when eventually the plan proves unworkable. Hillary seems the biggest fool of all so far, so much so that I'm beginning to feel sorry for her.
Obama has lately restrained himself because he is learning quickly from his bumpy road that he is not God after all, yet he's trying his best to get his cart under control, by which I mean to predict that he will come back gloating once again over his "new" path, as soon as he smooths out the bumps. He is the driver behind Hillary's foolishness, you see. Obama is using her to do his dirty work with the befriending scheme because he can't afford threats to his popularity at this time. Popularity is the basis of his power.
The Biblical Cush is in the news again:
"Iran and the Palestinian militant group Hamas showed their support for Sudan's president Friday, sending top officials to the Sudanese capital and denouncing the international warrant for his arrest on charges of war crimes in Darfur."
What should the world do to stave off the coming attack on Israel by the Gogi-Irano-Cushite invasion? It should persuade Israel to honor its God. In order for Israel to honor its God, it must send the Western powers away. Israel must then return its society to Biblical values, meaning that it must rid society of Westernisms. This path is not any part of Obama's agenda, for Obama would feel like a fool to do God's will in this way, and he would become the most-hated man in the Democrat party should he even attempt such a thing. The rest of the West would also hate him. Therefore, Obama is selling his Christian soul to do the will of liberals.
Liberals can be defined as the Biblical great-falling away from Christ. It's hard to imagine a greater falling away than has already taken place over the course of my generation, but Obama promises to produce another falling away that isn't viewed as a falling away. Obama promises to produce a Christian movement that persecutes the Elect, that favors his agenda for world stability, totally blind to the fact that God opposes world stability under the leadership of wolves.
If you're interested in the Hillary-Lavrov meeting, see article below. It doesn't has anything to speak of aside from the announcement by Lavrov that he was pleased with the meeting. It's meaningless, really. The article did have this to say that may develop into the Revelation Beast: "Lavrov said he was 'heard by the American partners' when he explained President Dmitry Medvedev's initiative in the field of Euro-Atlantic Security." I think Russia wants to replace NATO with a Euro-Atlantic Security organization. NATO is an old cold-war instrument to fend off Soviet aggression in Europe.
An Interfax article on the meeting says: "'But, while the previous [Bush] administration was pushing ahead with Ukraine's and Georgia's integration into NATO, the Democrats are treating this problem as one for a more distant future and will handle it more carefully,' [Alexei Makarkin, a deputy director of the Center of Political Technologies] said."
The question of how a Russo-Western alliance might look is foggy. Russia's current disgust for NATO would seem to eliminate a merger, and certainly NATO members would view Russian membership as too ironic. But the Obama administration seems to be seeking drastic over-turns in historic policies so that one never knows where this ball will bounce. Revelation 13:4 does imply that the Beast is military-oriented, as does the text of Revelation a little later when we read of the False Prophet's fire from the sky on behalf of the beast. I define this beast as a short-lived Gogi-European partnership.
I am suggesting today that the humiliation of Obama is written in Revelation 17, where we read that the Euro-Atlantic partnership with Gog ends up in the utter destruction of Europa. It's a picture in which Obama supports Gog's agenda with U.S. missile systems, only to see Gog fire his own missiles into Europe, something that Bush rightly predicted was about to take place. It's a picture of a desperate Obama seeking to pacify Gog with a hand of friendship, then entering into a strong alliance, only to see Gog stab the West in the back. No greater humiliation can there be...for those who gloat over their outstretched hand to a satanic nation such as Russia has been.
The New Testament directive for Christians is NOT to make partnerships with dark powers. Do not touch, not even the clothes, of the wicked party. Obama. Fool.
Am I thus announcing that Obama is the False Prophet? I suppose I am, though I wanted to wait until more evidence was in. The current trending of Obama toward a global economy amid an orchestrated financial decline has convinced me more. But I'll seriously regret it if I am wrong in pegging Obama as the one.
How interesting is it that Obama traces to the bear symbol, the symbol also of modern Russia and ancient Iran? The Varangian Rus may have adopted the Bernician bear symbol when merging with them. I know of no bear symbol among Varangians, however, though I know relatively little of heraldry. The common element between Varangians and Bernicians, though I am not very familiar with it, was the Nebelung element.
If it has seemed to you that God has been indifferent to the liberal wave over the West, I'll admit that it has seemed this way to me as well. But, as we read in the Bible, God strikes his enemies at a moment, long after their punishment is due by our standards. He has prepared a plan, provided certain path-changing events so that liberals and other wolves will, when guided by their sinfulness, build their own trap: to walk themselves into the furnace that they themselves will bring on. I wouldn't exclude Republicans from the term "liberal," for there is such a thing as a liberal Republican.
If you don't yet realize the full measure of the sins of liberals, if they seem to you like nice people, let more time pass, for God will let their hearts hang out fully, and let their tongues speak openly what is on their hearts, that the world of the condemned might choose to side with them only after knowing the reality of liberal philosophy and reasoning.
Obama's fix for the present pessimistic outlook is found in his phrase of yesterday: "discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis." How valiant. But whose opportunity is the current financial crisis? His, for one. He's already got his hundred-thousands of millions for building his agenda, and all he needs to do while spending is to brainwash the people into believing that the spending is being done on their behalf. It's not a terribly difficult job, if one has a seared conscience. He has just announced to over-turn Bush's law to prohibit the use of murdered unborn children for stem-cell research.
I'm sorry that this topic is depressing. I'm trusting that you're resilient, for those who honor God can indeed find great opportunity amid great crisis.
Wanted to share this email:
...Well, I'm 53. I have been hearing about Jesus coming back for most of my life. In fact, I met Hal Lindsey. Now due to the internet, you can search and find out that people have been predicting Jesus coming back for almost 2,000 years, and still no Jesus. Just always wrong.
So, I think all this trib stuff is baloney. But hey, if it works for you, more power to you. I have better things to do with my time than worry about the end of the world...
Jesus said in the bible that the kingdom of heaven is WITHIN, so I'm going with that. But good luck in all you do. I don't think you will have to worry about the end of the world coming from the heavens, but you will have to worry about the hoards of roaming gangs coming from the inner cities. In fact, the reason I found your site was that I just bought a home in the country on 2 acres, a shotgun, and am looking to get a windmill to have water always pumping. I'm waiting the end of the world too, just not from the heavens, but from the inner city and the coming economic collapse which I predict will happen in the next 10 years or less.
Somewhere in Wisconsin
It's not too often that I get to be a "dude," but, hey, I like it. I imagine that there are a lot of Christians like D. They've gambled in the belief of no Return due to a string of many false alarms by preachers who've preached the Return at unjustified times due to lack of the signs. I know about the many false alarms, but it hasn't stopped me from believing in the Return. I have trouble understanding how a person can be a Christian apart from believing in the Return, and perhaps the first step to falling away from Christ is to regard the Return as fantasy. After all, a rapture in the sky, on the clouds...does sound like a fantasy. Yet people believe that it will happen because they trust the apostles. We don't believe that New-Testament writers were making up a fantasy on this matter. I'm hoping that D will come out of this in good shape.
Let's face it, as the Church falls asleep waiting for the Return, many are going to have doubts. But why the difference between those who see the signs and are strengthened in their belief of the Return, and those who don't recognize the signs or disregard them? Is it because many preachers have misinterpreted world events as fulfillments of the signs? In many instances, yes.
Well, then, the pressure is on. What if these updates are just another false alarm? That's why I said from the start that I'm not a prophet, not speaking what I heard from God, not starting a cult. Hey, I'm not even Elijah or Moses. I'm just D., but with a positive, hopeful, attitude. If the apostles were lying to us about the Return, I'll be upset with Jesus for choosing liars as his right-hand men. Or, if we know that didn't happen, the apostles were telling the truth when they said that Jesus would come again.
Can we win the Ds of the world back to their faith when the signs become convincing enough? Would D believe in the Return if the anti-Christ appears doing exactly as scripture says? If he loves Jesus, then, yes, the signs should do the trick. God may have arranged the coming of the evil one in such a way that he won't be recognized by most until it's too late, until after the Mark is received, but on the other hand those who love Jesus will recognize the Mark as the ultimate sign and will therefore reject it.
You know in your heart if you oppose the skincode. You know why you reject it. If it's because you respect Jesus, may He give you all that's needed to make it through.
Should be back tomorrow morning. God Bless.
North Korea is speaking some hideous threats Obama's way:
"North Korea ordered its armed forces on standby and warned Monday it will retaliate against anyone seeking to block its planned satellite launch, a launch many fear will disguise a missile test.
...U.S. and Japanese officials have suggested they could shoot down a North Korean missile if necessary.
'If the enemies recklessly opt for intercepting our satellite, our revolutionary armed forces will launch without hesitation a just retaliatory strike operation not only against all the interceptor means involved but against the strongholds' of the U.S., Japan and South Korea, the general staff of the North's military said in a statement.
'Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war,' said the statement..."
This is tense. What if it's true that it's a war missile? What if U.S. Intelligence knows it as a certainty but isn't letting North Korea know that America knows as a certainty? North Korea, with these steely threats, has placed itself in a position wherein it must go ahead with the launch, or look lame for changing its mind. The West is concerned because it's thought the missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for thousands of miles.
There seems to be a behind-the-scenes strong hand in the new move for Palestinian unity:
"Hamas said on Sunday that it would not join a unity government with Fatah that was headed by outgoing Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad.
Hamas's announcement came in response to reports that the US administration was demanding that Fayad head a new Fatah-Hamas government as a precondition for recognizing such a government and providing the Palestinians with financial aid."
I find it odd that Fayad would suddenly resign, so quickly and without apparent complaints on his behalf. He has said that he is removing himself because he is an impediment to Palestinian unity. Would Obama urge Fayad to step down? Obama certainly has a good motive in scaring the pants off of Netanyahu, and thereby making the new Israeli leader more pliable toward submitting East Jerusalem to a Palestinian state.
I didn't want to mention the Gaza-aid convoy from Britain until it arrived to Gaza's vicinity. It was celebrated in Libya as it passed through in late February:
"The aid-for-Gaza convoy from London led by far-left British lawmaker George Galloway started out on the wrong foot in mid-February. It ended with 24 members of his pro-Palestinian group injured in clashes with 1,000 Egyptian police in the northern Sinai town of Al-Arish [yesterday].
The Egyptians gave the fiercely anti-Israeli British MP and his activists permission to enter Gaza through Rafah but told them to coordinate with Israel the entry of their "Viva Palestina" convoy..."
This promises to strengthen an anti-Israeli movement in Britain, and reinforces animosities toward Egypt. Egypt must now walk a fine wire, not showing its bias toward Fatah, as the two Palestinian enemies meet in Cairo tomorrow:
"The meeting [tomorrow] will be the first substantive talks between President Mahmoud Abbas' secular Fatah movement and its bitter Islamist rival Hamas since the two groups severed ties following Hamas' violent take-over of the Gaza Strip [in 2007]."
Obama, rather than allowing the Palestinians to decide what they want, wants his own form of Palestinian-unity government. Before they even begin, the talks seem dead in the water due to Western demands:
"But U.S. President Barack Obama's administration and the European Union, which has also backed the [Cairo] talks, have made clear that Western support was conditional on what, if any, unity agreement emerges from upcoming negotiations in Cairo.
...Neither outcome appears to be agreeable to Hamas, whose leaders have said they will not accept a technocratic government, let alone one that embraces the three Western conditions, which they reject. "
These high-level talks seem like the sort mentioned in Daniel 11 between the king of the north and king of the south. Egypt has regularly been the choice location for holding talks on this issue, and the prediction is that Egypt will continue to do so until Gog joins them.
Things are finally heating up for the ship at Cyprus:
"Iran and Syria have until next week to explain to a United Nations sanctions committee how they were involved with a ship detained off Cyprus...
'The United Kingdom looks forward to the committee receiving explanations from Iran and Syria as to why the shipment was permitted by Iran as the reported state of origin and as to the involvement of Syria as the reported state of destination,' said British envoy John Sawers."
The article mentions nothing about Obama's position on the matter, except to reiterate that Obama wants to make headway with an unfisted Iran. But Obama also wants to make headway with Syrian talks at this time, which should explain why he doesn't seem to be at the center of these complaints/inquiries.
There is a recent story out on Europe's attempts to befriend Russia and six of it's former satellite nations. The purpose: "'We have a crucial strategic interest in [Eastern Europe's] economy and political stability,' said Ferrero-Waldner on the margins of the EU foreign ministers meeting." I wouldn't be mentioning this "strategic interest" if not for the article's 2013 deadline:
"The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, has proposed granting some 350 million euros ($448 million) in extra aid to 2013 to the EU's six ex-Soviet neighbors -- Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus -- on condition they make significant democratic progress."
Hmm. Why does the pay-off end in, and why do the six nations need to prove themselves worthy of EU directives by, 2013? Is this an effort to bring the six nations smoothly into the skincode system?
I'm having telephone problems, it you're wonderig why I'm not regular lately. Hope to have it fixed soon.