A generous excerpt:
Source Article: The American Spectator
Let's move ahead. Past the 2004 election in which Soros gave over $23 million dollars to a variety of 527 committees to influence the 2004 election.
* Dot: September 2007. The New York Times gives a special discount rate ($64,575) not available to others (who are charged $142,083) to the Soros-funded Move On.org for a full page ad attacking General David Petraeus.
* Dot: September- October 2007. Media Matters, described by National Review's Jonah Goldberg in the New York Post as "part of the complex of liberal activist groups linked to George Soros" targets Bill O'Reilly with a false charge of racism and Rush Limbaugh with a phony charge of being anti-military. Both stories dominate the news cycle for days.
* Dot: October 2007. Now we find out from our colleague The Prowler here at The American Spectator that Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee "has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'" A Democratic House leadership aide says flatly that "Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio."
LET'S STAND BACK and take a look at the pattern formed by all these individual dots. What has George Soros' money been used to pay for?
Commentary
Billionaire George Soros is attempting nothing less than a takeover and remolding of America after his own image, and the destruction of everything of a Judeo-Christian nature in our society. We should be shining a light on him, his associates, and his organizations; and should that fail, resist him with every tool at our disposal. Should his people gain the White House, America will reap the whirlwind.
There will be much more information forthcoming about this man and his evil one world vision during the upcoming election cycle.
More background info:
He got his first chance when he was finally admitted to the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics in 1949. He had been a little down, but he wasn't out. Still empowered by his narrow escapes from the Nazis and the Soviets, he was perfectly poised at the threshold of revelation, and he indeed got one. Not from God, but from another atheist, Karl Popper. Writing for the Atlantic Monthly in "The Capitalist Threat," Soros says that Popper's analysis of the "Open Society" "struck me with the force of revelation."Writing for the Atlantic Monthly in 1997, Soros explained his "visionary" Open Society and its values:Moreover, the open society as a universal concept transcends all boundaries. Societies derive their cohesion from shared values. These values are rooted in culture, religion, history and tradition. When a society does not have boundaries, where are the shared values to be found? I believe there is only one possible source: the concept of the open society itself. (Emphasis mine)And there you have it. Since there will be no external immutable source such as God from which to derive morality and values, those one-world, anything-goes people are going to need something to hold them together, something upon which to focus. But they have nothing but circular logic. Which means there are no limits at all.
There are some compelling similarities between Tivadar's pseudo-religion, Esperanto, and George's new religion, the Open Society.Both are ideologies that espouse man as supreme, especially over God. Both depend upon internationalism over the nation-state concept. Both require the destruction of individual cultures and traditions. Both demand a tyrannical tolerance for every idea being treated in absolute equal fashion.In other words, George Soros did not really find a new religion; he just found essentially the same one as his father, minus the vehicle of language. A sort of Kingdom of Babel with qualities of Sodom and Gomorrah thrown into the mix. No wonder he has found such a warm home with the aging hippie class; they all adhere to the same creed. If it feels good do it.
Source Article: The American Thinker
Posts
5 comments :
Here is George Soros home organization. Called Open Democracy, it's been working for years to help nations around the world become fully operating democracies. I don't know why you find this evil. It sounds like exactly the kind of thing you'd be promoting if you hadn't been told to hate Soros.
Radical Right Wingers always need a bogeyman, whether it's Soros or Pelosi or Dean. It seems that it's just too complicated to attack big social, economic, or security problems without oversimpifying it into a single bad guy who must be destroyed in order to save the world.
You're a real nut, TP. I dig that about you.
"openDemocracy is committed to human rights and democracy. We aim to ensure that marginalised views and voices are heard. We believe facilitating argument and understanding across geographical boundaries is vital to preventing injustice."
Also, regarding the bogus Waxman story -
From Waxman's office: "On October 8, 2007, the American Spectator printed a fictitious story alleging that Congressman Waxman and the House Oversight Committee were investigating conservative and Republican talk show radio programs.
The American Spectator report is completely false and was written without any documentation or attribution. There is not now nor has there ever been any investigation of this subject. […]
The American Spectator should immediately retract its report and apologize for the confusion its fictitious report has caused."
If you ever see any of those people actually get investigated, then call Waxman a liar, but until then you have absolutely zero evidence of what you're pushing.
Propagandist.
I'm guessing your reading comprehension is as bad as Marsha's.
It is as simple as right and wrong, and George Soros is so very wrong. BTW, I have read most of his books, and am currently working my way through a pile of his articles and financial contributions personally, and through his front organizations.
You guys might be able to shut down talk radio...but to get the blogosphere, the Internet or Darknets, where networks are preparing for the coming conflict.
Denying it don't make it so:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We've got a little news here, ladies and gentlemen.
"Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Wednesday denied that he is conducting or ever planned to conduct a congressional investigation of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin and called on a conservative magazine to retract its report that he asked investigators to compile information on the popular conservative talk radio hosts. 'The American Spectator report about a congressional investigation into talk radio is completely false,' Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement to Cybercast News Service. 'There is no investigation.' Waxman was referring to a report Monday that he 'has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows' to build a case for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. When asked if there had been ideas or plans to compile reports on the talk radio hosts, a spokesman for Waxman said, 'No, there were not.' In his statement, Waxman called on the Spectator to 'immediately retract the item and apologize for the confusion its fictitious report has caused.'"
I think we need to investigate this. There's obviously differing opinions here. The American Spectator claims, and they stand by their source, and Waxman is denying it. We need an investigation of this. We need to investigate this investigation, or this alleged investigation. I think what Congressman Waxman should do is go to the House floor with a resolution condemning the American Spectator and get as many Democrats to sign, let Dingy Harry get on board as well. So Congressman Waxman says there never was any investigation, never was any thought of any investigation. The Spectator has quotes from these Democrat staffers identified not by name, but the congressional staffers are saying much more than that. The Spectator report said that, (paraphrasing) "Yeah, yeah, these guys, we can't keep up with them. We need something to distract them; keep them uncomfortable." Maybe some of Waxman's staff said they're going to investigate and Waxman didn't know it for plausible deniability. Who knows. We need to get to the bottom of this.
As I say, there needs to be an investigation. I think in this case, folks, we need to look at this the way the Democrats look at such allegations and charges, and that is the nature of the evidence is really not material. It's the seriousness of the charge. That's how they looked at Anita Hill versus Clarence Thomas. Remember, the charge that Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor, made in his book: George Bush flew to France prior to the '80 election to convince the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the election. Tom Foley, speaker of the House, "We have absolutely no indication that that happened, but the seriousness of the charge requires us to investigate." Well, it's a pretty serious charge that the chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee is going to compile reports and conduct investigations of private citizens who work on the radio. That's a pretty serious charge that somebody has made. And the seriousness of the charge here needs to be what is looked at. Anybody can deny anything and demand a retraction.
END TRANSCRIPT
You're using Rush Limbaugh as your source? Really?
I'm sticking with Waxman. The paranoia surrounding the Right wing's frothy hysteria about a "threat" that doesn't exist is laughably transparent. Need people to stop noticing what a lousy state the Republican Party is in? Just keep repeating "Fairness Doctrine" and "George Soros" over and over, and everyone will just let the mountains of Republican incompetence and corruption float by without saying a peep.
Post a Comment