Thread: "Know Our Enemy, George Soros Chief Funding Source For America's Downfall !"

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1 "Know Our Enemy, George Soros Chief Funding Source For America's Downfall !" 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of This Man !"

    "This Man Is a Major Source of Money for Every Progressive Anti-American Cause there is !"
    snip
    In December of 2006, Obama, who by then was contemplating a run for the presidency, met in New York with billionaire financier George Soros, who previously had hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate.
    ..............................
    Soros sat down with reporter Laura Blumenfeld Of Wapo and issued his now-famous call for regime change in the USA. “America under Bush is a danger to the world,” Soros declared in that November 11, 2003 interview. Toppling Bush, he said, “is the central focus of my life… a matter of life and death. And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.” Would Soros spend his entire $7-billion fortune to defeat Bush, Blumenfeld asked? “If someone guaranteed it,” Soros replied.
    ...................................
    One of the most powerful men on earth, Soros is a hedge fund manager who has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $7.2 billion. His management company controls billions more in investor assets. Since 1979, Soros’ foundation network -- whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) -- has dispensed more than $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives can be summarized as follows:
    .................................
    promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
    promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States

    opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
    depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

    promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

    promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

    promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

    defending suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

    financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

    advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

    opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

    promoting socialized medicine in the United States

    promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”

    bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

    promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike.

    snip

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?indid=1511
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    The Shadow Party (Part I, Soros and Evil)

    Part 1: Origins

    "My family is more important to me than my party," declared Senator Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat, as he spoke from the podium of the Republican National Convention on September 1. "There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush." [1]

    Many Democrats howled in outrage at Miller's "betrayal" - former President Jimmy Carter in particular. In an angry personal letter to the Georgia senator, Carter accused Miller of "unprecedented disloyalty" and declared, "You have betrayed our trust. [I]t's quite possible that your rabid speech damaged our party..." [2]

    But nothing Miller said could possibly have damaged the Democratic Party more than its own leaders had done in making the war in Iraq a partisan issue and embracing the anti-war cause. In his anger, Carter had mistaken the symptom for the disease. Long before Zell Miller's démarche, Ronald Reagan -- a Roosevelt Democrat who re-registered as a Republican in 1962 -- followed a similar course, explaining, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me."[3]

    The leftward drift of the Democratic Party accelerated through the Vietnam years, spurred by the anti-war candidacies of Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. When the congressional Democrats pulled the plug on aid to our allies in southeast Asia in the 1970s, a contingent of anti-Communist "Scoop" Jackson Democrats crossed the aisle in protest and became Republicans - an act for which they were labeled "neo-conservatives." Rank-and-file Democrats staged a silent but even more devastating walk-out after four years of Jimmy Carter's "blame America" Administration, casting their ballots by the millions for the Gipper.

    The Democrats' current presidential aspirant John Kerry has ambitiously modeled his political career after John F. Kennedy’s. Yet their politics bear little resemblance. If Kennedy were alive today, Democrats would condemn his sweeping capital gains tax cuts as a sop to the rich. His militant anti-Communism would evoke charges of right-wing "paranoia." And the vow he made in his inaugural address to confront tyranny anywhere in the world would win him the label of "neo-conservative" imperialist among today’s Democrats. Instead of calling on Americans to "support any friend" and "oppose any foe" -- as Kennedy did in his famous address - many Democrats are busy sabotaging our war effort in Iraq, with speeches as strident as any that emanated from the New Left during the Vietnam era.

    The devolution of the Democrats from the Cold War party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy to the progressive party of Edward Kennedy and John F. Kerry has long been in progress, and is not quite complete. But the Democrats' final transformation into a party of the left in the European mode may not be far off. Barely noticed by political observers, an activist juggernaut has seized control of the party’s national electoral apparatus, organized, financed and directed by the left.

    This party within the party has no official name, but some journalists and commentators have begun referring to it as the Shadow Party, a term that we will use as well. It denotes a network of non-profit groups presently raising hundreds of millions of dollars for deployment on the campaign battlefield. This money pays for advertising, get-out-the-vote-drives, opposition research, dirty tricks and virtually every aspect of a modern electoral campaign. But it does so through independent groups with no formal connection to the Democratic Party.

    Follow the Money

    The Shadow Party emerged from the dense thicket of campaign finance reforms engineered by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. Thanks to the soft-money ban enacted by the McCain-Feingold Act of March 27, 2002, the Democratic Party entered the current election cycle hard pressed to raise enough money legally to undertake a winning campaign. This created an imperative that found its inevitable loophole (as critics of McCain-Feingold always warned it would). Consequently, the driving force in the political war against George Bush is now a group of billionaires and millionaires operating through the veiled structures of the Shadow Party.

    Under McCain-Feingold, political parties and candidates can only accept “hard money” contributions – that is, contributions given to a specific political party for a specific political campaign. Such contributions must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, and are limited to a $2,000 maximum per donor for each candidate, or $5,000 per donor if they are paid to a federally registered political action committee (PAC). Historically, Republicans have enjoyed a 2-1 advantage over Democrats in raising hard-money contributions from individual donors. Democrats have relied much more heavily on soft-money contributions from large institutions such as unions.

    Soft money refers to political contributions, which for one reason or another have been exempted from the limits imposed by the FEC. Before McCain-Feingold outlawed such contributions, soft money donors could give as much money to political parties as they wished. Their contributions often numbered in the millions of dollars. McCain-Feingold deprived the Democrats of their soft money, but the Shadow Party has provided an alternate channel for collecting unlimited contributions. For example, government unions used to lavish multi-million-dollar contributions on the Democratic Party – money which the unions drew from their members, through mandatory dues. The unions still collect their membership dues, but, under McCain-Feingold, they may no longer pass that money along to the Democratic Party, at least not directly. The solution? They give it to the Shadow Party instead.

    The Shadow Party uses various expedients to evade McCain-Feingold’s limits. First, it works through independent non-profit groups that ostensibly have no connection to the Democratic Party, either structurally or through informal coordination. The Shadow Party contains many types of non-profit groups, but most of its big fundraisers are “527 committees” – named after Section 527 of the IRS code – sometimes called “stealth PACS” because, unlike ordinary PACS (political action committees), they are not required to register with the Federal Election Commission nor to divulge their finances to the FEC (except in special circumstances).

    Another expedient used by the Shadow Party is to claim that it is not engaged in electioneering at all. Most Shadow Party groups say they are soliciting funds not to defeat a particular candidate, but to promote “issues” and non-partisan get-out-the-vote drives. Of course their issue promotions have, in most cases, turned out to be savage attacks on the opposing candidates and their get-out-the-vote drives have used sophisticated demographic marketing techniques to target exclusively Democratic constituencies. All of this casts doubt on the Shadow Party’s claim to be aloof from the electoral struggle and therefore exempt from FEC regulation. However, a pliant Federal Elections Commission has conveniently declined to rule on the Shadow Party’s legality until after the election, when it will no longer matter.

    Needless to say, McCain-Feingold also bars the Republican Party from raising soft money. However, Republicans never had a problem raising individual contributions for their candidates and never made a habit of raiding union treasuries for “soft money.” Thus Republicans have felt less urgency than Democrats to seek alternative fundraising methods, and they have proved slower in pursuing the 527 escape route from McCain-Feingold. Republicans have built no network of independent, non-profit groups comparable in numbers or scale to the Democrat Shadow Party.

    No one knows who first coined the term “shadow party.” The term has become popular among journalists, but likely originated among the freelance fundraisers themselves. In the November 5, 2002 Washington Post, writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote of “shadow organizations” springing up on both sides of the political fence to circumvent McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban.[4] Lorraine Woellert of Business Week appears to have been the first journalist to apply the term “shadow party” specifically to the Democrat network of 527 groups, in a September 15, 2003 article titled, “The Evolution of Campaign Finance?”[5] Other journalists followed her example.

    The Soros Factor

    According to conventional wisdom the Shadow Party began taking form shortly after March 27, 2002 – the date President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, popularly known as McCain-Feingold. However, the Shadow Party’s earliest origins predate the Reform Act by many years. The principal mover behind the Shadow Party is Wall Street billionaire and leftwinger George Soros. A New York hedge fund manager, global investment banker and currency trader, Soros has a personal net worth in the $7 billion range. Under his aegis, the Shadow Party has created a new power base for the left, independent of the mainstream party apparatus – a leverage point from which to tilt the party in an ever-more-radical direction.

    snip] ......read the rest...........snip

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...2-5304F950EB41
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    An “Extremely Evil Person”,Soros, convicted of insider trading in France,

    Wheat said he still considered Soros to be the number one danger to conservative values in the U.S. at this time.

    Speaking at a Washington symposium on the continuing threat posed by illegal drugs to American society, Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation declared billionaire George Soros to be an "extremely evil person" who wants to legalize dangerous mind-altering drugs. Sounding a battle cry as critical November elections approach, Fay told the assembled conservative activists that Soros, an atheist who is a major funder of the Democratic Party and liberal-left causes, is "our common enemy" and that he is determined to subvert traditional values and undermine America's families.

    Soros, convicted of insider trading in France, is a financial speculator and hedge fund operator who manipulates the currencies of the nations of the world in order to make himself rich. Some of his fortune, estimated at $7 billion, has been put into causes such as abortion rights, gay rights, drug legalization, voting rights for felons, euthanasia, and rights for immigrants and prostitutes. His Open Society Institute even helped underwrite attorney Lynne Stewart, subsequently convicted of helping terrorists. In 2004, he spent more than $20 million in an unsuccessful effort to defeat President Bush for re-election.

    In an appearance at the same anti-drug event, Marc Wheat, staff director and chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, described Soros as someone who seems to have no sense of guilt or responsibility for his actions. He noted that, during a December 20, 1998, interview with 60 Minutes, Soros acknowledged that as a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Hungary, his identity was protected and that he actually assisted in confiscating property from Jews as they were being shipped off to death camps. Asked by interviewer Steve Kroft if he had any sense of guilt over what he did, Soros replied, "no."

    In the interview, Soros went on to compare his predicament at the time to the operation of economic markets, saying, "…if I weren't there, of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would-would-would be taking it away anyhow." Soros then insisted he was only a "spectator" and had "no role in taking away that property." That is why, he said, "I had no sense of guilt."

    Wheat said it is his belief that Soros has found America to be "a hard nut to crack" in terms of weakening America's traditional cultural values and institutions, and that the billionaire would be spending more time and money on activities in Europe, in an effort to fan anti-Americanism there.

    Nevertheless, Wheat said he still considered Soros to be the number one danger to conservative values in the U.S. at this time.

    Earlier this year, Wheat's boss, Rep. Mark Souder, became aware through an article by AIM that Soros-funded pro-drug groups had infiltrated the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington and were even being featured as speakers by CPAC organizers. He put a statement in the Congressional Record expressing alarm and asking, "What on earth were the CPAC organizers thinking?" He accused Soros of trying to manipulate conservatives, in the same way that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had done.

    http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/an-...y-evil-person/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Know The Man :George Soros, a Jew By Birth, Helped Nazis During Holocaust

    "George Soros A Brief Biography Of An Extremely Evil Man !"
    Jakarta Pest- Time to Move On?

    Know The Man :George Soros Helped Nazis During Holocaust

    He changed the family name from The Jewish Schwartz to Soros, the Esperanto for "will soar".

    Here is a partial transcript from an interview done by Steve Kroft for CBS' 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/g...-the-holocaust

    George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes

    When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up.

    He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.


    Last Tuesday the Jakarta Post granted a large area of its centre spread to George Soros, the plutocrat whose wealth has lately been devoted to the advance of cultural marxism in America and, ipso facto, throughout the world.

    His diatribe went after all the usual boogie-men and boogie-institutions hated by left-liberals, e.g. President Bush, V-P Cheney, the ‘ex-Trotskyite’ David Horowitz and of course Fox News. The latter’s sin, in Soros’ book, is apparently to describe itself as ‘fair and balanced.’

    Mr. Horowitz got included in the spray of animosity, presumably, because he wrote a book called ‘The Shadow Party,’ about Soros and his pet project, MoveOn.org (well worth a read - sample quote.

    leftist Eli Pariser referring to the Democratic Party,"Now it’s our party! We bought it, we own it!"

    MoveOn.org leader leftist Eli Pariser referring to the Democratic Party, following the 2004 elections, when billionaires- chief among them Soros, contributed more than $300 million to liberal candidates and groups)

    I can also offer an alternative perspective on Soros from an article in Accuracy In Media An “Extremely Evil Person” by Cliff Kincaid, October 3, 2006. [1]

    Speaking at a Washington symposium on the continuing threat posed by illegal drugs to American society, Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation declared billionaire George Soros to be an “extremely evil person” who wants to legalize dangerous mind-altering drugs. ,,. an atheist who is a major funder of the Democratic Party and liberal-left causes, is “our common enemy” and that he is determined to subvert traditional values and undermine America’s families.

    Soros, convicted of insider trading in France, is a financial speculator and hedge fund operator who manipulates the currencies of the nations of the world in order to make himself rich. Some of his fortune, estimated at $7 billion, has been put into causes such as abortion rights, gay rights, drug legalization, voting rights for felons, euthanasia, and rights for immigrants and prostitutes. His Open Society Institute even helped underwrite attorney Lynne Stewart, subsequently convicted of helping terrorists. In 2004, he spent more than $20 million in an unsuccessful effort to defeat President Bush for re-election.

    In an appearance at the same anti-drug event, Marc Wheat, staff director and chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, described Soros as someone who seems to have no sense of guilt or responsibility for his actions.

    He noted that, during a December 20, 1998, interview with 60 Minutes, Soros acknowledged that as a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Hungary , his identity was protected and that he actually assisted in confiscating property from Jews as they were being shipped off to death camps. Asked by interviewer Steve Kroft if he had any sense of guilt over what he did, Soros replied, “No.”

    In the interview, Soros went on to compare his predicament at the time to the operation of economic markets, saying, “”¦if I weren’t there, of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would-would-would be taking it away anyhow.” Soros then insisted he was only a “spectator” and had “no role in taking away that property.” That is why, he said, “I had no sense of guilt.”

    No uncritical admirer of either the incumbent American President or his deputy, ( I’m not American, by the way) I certainly give them more respect than a character like Soros.

    http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1483...me-to-move-on/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •