The Mind-Changing Process or the 'Hegelian Dialectic Method' has become the cornerstone not only of the global education system, but of 'Total Quality' management [TQM] in all kinds of governmental, corporate and private organizations around the world. Meanwhile, the training programs, assessment technology and data tracking systems that complement and monitor this psycho-social process are growing increasingly sophisticated and intrusive!!
Today’s America shows the effects of that revolutionary ideology. So it should not surprise us that a fifth-grade teacher in the state of Washington would use intimidation to twist a student's absolute truth into a personal opinion. She had told her class to complete the sentence, "If I could wish for three things, I would wish for..." A Christian student wrote "infinitely more wishes, to meet God, and for all my friends to be Christians." Since each student's wishes would be posted on a wall for "open house," they had to be just right. The Christian student didn't pass. The teacher told him that his last wish could hurt people who didn't share his beliefs. Since the student didn't want to hurt anyone, he agreed to add "if they want to be."
The student had to complete another sentence which began, "If I could meet anyone, I would like to meet..." the student wrote: "God because he is the one who made us!" The teacher told him to add "in my opinion. "When the student's parents visited the school, they noticed the corrections. "Why did you add this?" his mother asked. "The teacher didn't want me to hurt other people's feelings." "But these are just your wishes...." "I thought so." The student looked confused. Later, the teacher explained to parents that she wanted "diversity" in her class and was looking out for her other students. But why couldn't he share his views? "I try to instill God's truths in my son," said the father, "but it seems like the school wants to remove them."
The father is right both absolute truth and contrary facts clash with the mind-set needed for the global management systems. The planned 'oneness' demands "new thinking, new strategies, new behavior, and new beliefs" that turn society and God's Word and values upside-down. Facilitated group discussion is key to the transformation, and UNESCO's plan for "lifelong learning" calls for universal participation. Young and old everywhere must be trained to think and work collectively. That is the basis for Marxism and the way for the theory to be successful, otherwise without a plan for retraining there would not be a transformation. Remember that "Captain Zero" wants to transform America with 'Hope & Change' so that all are serfs with the same 'oneness' with a few select elites in charge.
Professor Benjamin Bloom, called the "Father of Outcome-based Education," summarized it well: "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." "....a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." This by itself is probably good teaching, however, today some teachers have gone far beyond this point and are really teaching the dialectal process!
Since the student's last comment exposed his "fixed beliefs," the teacher challenged it. Absolute truths such as "God made us" can't be modified or synthesized to please the group. Those who take a firm position on truth or facts will resist compromise and offend the group. Christians must begin to develop courage and profess their faith whenever and wherever they are challenged!
This mind-changing (Hegelian dialectic) process required students in Communist nations to "confess" their thoughts and feelings in their respective groups. Trained facilitator-teachers would then guide the group dialogue toward a pre-planned consensus. The original thesis and antithesis --opposing views such as Christianity versus Marxism -- would be merged or synthesized into ever-evolving higher "truths." As Julian Huxley suggested back in 1947, "the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda" must be "deliberately" used "as Lenin envisaged - to 'overcome the resistance of millions' to desirable change."
Today, a more sophisticated version of this brainwashing process drives the social transformation. ...it helps root out individualism and the "intolerant" attitudes that could bring conflict and division. When bonded to the group and trained in the new relational rules, few dare offend the majority by taking a contrary stand. This gives all a new perspective on the "Hope & Change' slogan used by 'Captain Zero'.
"We have moved into a new era,"said Dr. Shirley McCune, keynote speaker at the 1989 Governor's Conference on Education. "What we are facing is total restructuring of society. We no longer are teaching facts to children." The masses must learn to feel that traditional values are an intolerable threat to peace, and Christians must be willing to trade their God-given absolutes for Huxley's view of evolving truths and collective thinking. But God says, “do not be conformed to this world.” Therefore, we make it our aim to “obey God rather than men.” Though the world demands consensus, we take our stand on the unchanging, eternal Word of God. [Romans 12:2; Acts 5:29]
However, the new method of "pooling your ideas" refers to the process of synthesis, which means the group must come to some kind of consensus. ... For example, when a boy saw a friend steal a book, should he be honest and tell the truth, or should he be loyal to his friend and tell a lie? The students reach consensus together. Thesis: a child's belief in the Great Spirit + Antithesis: another child's belief in God = Synthesis: new joint belief in many gods
Here is how the process might work: if one person believes in God (thesis 1), another in Buddha (thesis 2), and another in the Great Spirit (thesis 3), they may agree that "there are many gods" or that "every path leads to the same ultimate reality." This new thesis, of course, would not be considered absolute or final truth. It would merely be a higher step in the ongoing evolution toward ever greater understanding and perfection.
As you may expect, Christian children often feel anything but free to "express" their beliefs and ideas in this kind of group. That's part of the plan. Parents, therefore, must teach their children every day in every way that courage will be needed to interact with their peers and still maintain their faith.
'Transforming the World by Subverting the Church' ...to "control the remaining 90 per cent" who act and think on an individual basis, former Communist leaders assigned all their subjects -- workers, managers, prisoners and students -- to local "soviets" (groups or councils) where they had to "Share" thoughts and notions. [Now cheered as "authenticity"] "Confess" contrary attitudes. [Brainwashing and "Education Reform"] Write "self-criticisms" for group evaluation. "Celebrate" Communist ideals and heroes "Commit" themselves to follow the group consensus. Practice what the group (led by the facilitator) decides.
The 19th century socialist Antonio Labriola called Marxism the Philosophy of praxis. Marx himself also alluded to this concept in his Theses on Feuerbach when he stated that "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Simply put, Marx felt that philosophy's validity was in how it informed action.
Georg Lukács held that the task of political organization is to establish professional discipline over everyday political praxis, consciously designing the form of mediation best suited to clear interactions between theory and practice. This process was described in an article "Small Groups and the Dialectic Process," which summarizes the strategies taught in Leading Congregational Change (LCC). "This is a book you ought to read before you change anything," wrote Rick Warren in his hearty endorsement on the back cover.... If you want to guard your child's mind, look at this checklist. The complete chart includes a column with corresponding Scriptures. Know biblical truth--the only source of genuine wisdom (Proverbs 2:6) Learn the facts needed to defend what they know and believe. Recognize the difference between logic and speculation. Ground personal plans in reality, not fantasy. Trust genuine science based on facts and logic, not pseudo-science or social philosophy. Learn the lessons found in a factual study of history. Base actions in objective thinking, not subjective feelings.
God said, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." (Proverbs 6:22) There are other Biblical verses that instruct parents on ways to raise their children that are true and effective. If you would like a copy of these methods please send me an e-mail and I will contact you with a pricelist for these booklets. All the booklets are based on my Parent Education Workshops that I have presented to many churches and schools.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Dialectic Process and transformational Marxism - Part 2
Like Karl Marx, today's radical progressive globalist leaders seek ways to undermine Biblical truth and set up a type of society that can not resist their evil line of thought. They know that the main obstacle to global solidarity, is God's uncompromising Word and the conservative views. They cannot build "a single world culture" without first undermining absolute Truth. After all, that's why Christians were persecuted in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries! That is why christians in the middle east are daily tortured or killed!
ASCD (the curriculum arm of the NEA), published a 1970 book with a chapter by Dr. Raymond Houghton, who envisions a world managed through the subtle but manipulative collective "dialogue." His warning should be a wake-up call for all who love truth and factual truthfulness; "...absolute behavior control is the end result. The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will never self-consciously know that it has happened." However, if people look and seek the truth they will understand what is really taking place.
UNESCO published a 1995 book titled Our Creative Diversity. It tells us that-- "The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living." Marc Tucker, the master-mind behind today's global school-to-work system. "Our objective will require a change in the prevailing culture -- the attitudes, values, norms and accepted ways of doing things." In other words, the old Christian ways and values are out and the new, subjective postmodern ways are in. Some teachers in some schools have been quietly teaching in this fashion for several years!
Already trained to follow feelings rather than facts (and peer culture rather than parental counsel) today's youth are marching happily toward an amoral, permissive (at least for the moment) collective society. Many have already internalized the ground rules for the dialectic process: Seek "common ground" in the midst of today's diversity. Show respect, tolerance and appreciation for all beliefs and values (unless they reflect Biblical truth). Train everyone to share their feelings, listen empathetically, and identify with opposing views, then blissfully flow with the group consensus. It works! This process transforms individual thinkers into group thinkers. Since the sense of belonging feels good, the threat of group disapproval inhibits members from voicing "offensive" views. The current version of this collective society thinking is the requirement that everyone must be politically correct when dealing with other members of the gulag.
Webster's dictionary defines the word dialectic as "Hegelian philosophy" a logical subjective development in thought, from a THESIS through an ANTITHESIS to a SYNTHESIS, or ... a continuous unification of opposites. "In the dialectic process, there must be two or more sides to everything. Nothing is absolute; everything is changing in a preplanned direction. As Ismail Serageldin, former vice president of The World Bank, said at the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul (Habitat II), "Let's just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction." Apparently the correct meaning of that statement is change coming from the left, which is where it is coming from today in America.
"Would the American people allow government control and collectivism to replace freedom and individualism? Not without a fight and so would the rest of the world. However, this social transformation is well under way, and the American masses unknowingly simply flow with the change. Planned over a century ago, the framework for managing and monitoring this worldwide revolution was in place by 1945. The process seems simple and not really intrusive but once you look critically at how it works you begin to understand how dangerous it is. Remember the 2008 slogan of "Captain Zero" Obama, "We will change and transform America", what do you think that slogan meant?
Dr. Chisholm, Margaret Mead and other social scientists from ten countries wrote its founding document, "Mental Health and World Citizenship." Notice their attitude toward traditional values: "Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early.... It is the men and women in whom these patterns of attitude and behavior have been incorporated who present the immediate resistance to social, economic and political changes. Thus, prejudice, hostility or excessive nationalism may become deeply embedded in the developing personality... often at great human cost.... "...change will be strongly resisted unless an attitude of acceptance has first been engendered." Their motto then became keep it simple.
Today, more than half a century later, that "attitude of acceptance" has been built. Nations around the world are fast conforming to the pattern set in the 1940s. The global network of "mental health" partners is working to prevent anything that would hinder "positive" collective thinking in the rising global village....Mass immigration (planned back in the 1940s) and multicultural conflicts have added to the urgency, and the intentional crisis has helped promote pre-planned solutions. Today, strategies for social change such as group thinking, conflict resolution, consensus building and continual compromise are becoming the norm. All are based on the dialectic process used in the former Soviet Union to conform minds to Soviet ideology...
Islam may not match the UN model for a global spirituality, but its spreading influence makes it a useful tool in the hands of change agents. Remember the Hegelian dialectic (consensus) process. The class discusses a provocative story or experience. The students share their thoughts, feelings and ideas in the group. Everyone must seek "common ground" and empathize with contrary ideas. Factual rebuttals that might offend a group member are forbidden. Throughout the dialogue, a trained facilitator guides the group back on track if it deviates from its course toward the prescribed consensus or group conclusion. When feel-good Islamic suggestions become part of this mix, they help shift the consensus a little further away from any Christian position. How many 7th graders are strong enough in their faith to disagree with a group conclusion that Allah and God are the same? Who dares to express the uniqueness of Christ, when even Prince Charles, first in line to the British throne, says, "We share as Muslims and Christians a powerful core of spiritual belief - in one divine God"?
This tactic -- used years ago to indoctrinate Soviet children with Communist ideology -- now pressures children from Christian homes to "open their minds" to new religious blends. Islam becomes a stepping stone, not an end. It broadens the options. As part of a classroom program, it subjects a child's personal faith to a psycho-social group process that pressures students to compromise: to trade personal convictions for a pre-planned "common ground." And that is the key. We live in a world where -- as educators, politicians and business managers like to remind us -- "the only constant is change." The main objective is to disconnect children from their old spiritual anchors so that their minds can flow with today's managed change and group solutions.
Key to social transformation is "praxis", a vital part of Soviet brainwashing. It meant that dialectic groups must continually apply new information about Communist theory and socialist values. As today's educators tell us, "learning" must be practical and experiential: no need to memorize unnecessary facts about history or science that might conflict with the new vision. Continual practice makes the new way of thinking as natural as walking. Turning a deaf ear to "enemies" who resist this process becomes as habitual as locking your door. Look at what "Captain Zero" and his henchmen are doing and you will begin to realize that the gulag is not far off!
From UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy by Julian Huxley, first Director-General of UNESCO: "The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available.... And it is necessary, for at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East....
"You may categorize the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism; or as the American versus the Russian way of life, or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis?" Huxley then stated " I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen.... "In pursuing this aim, we must eschew [shun] dogma - whether it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma.... East and West will not agree on a basis of the future if they merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past. For that is what dogma's are -- the crystallizations of some dominant system of thought of a particular epoch. A dogma may of course crystallize tried and valid experience; but if it be dogma, it does so in a way which is rigid, uncompromising and intolerant.... If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystalize our dogmas."
Then Huxley stated that; "Groups or teams must be trained to disapprove if any member fails to demonstrate respect, appreciation and tolerance for all beliefs and positions that clash with his own. In other words, intolerance must be used to intimidate dissenters into compliance with the ground rules. There is no freedom to share 'divisive' facts or truth. Instead, each person must listen with empathy, seek to identify with diverse feelings, and join the quest for 'common ground.'
"The issues may change from week to week, but with each group meeting, this dialectic process becomes increasingly habitual and 'normal.' If a person has a particular belief (thesis) concerning a current issue, he listens and identifies with an opposite or conflicting notion (antithesis). Led by a trained facilitator, the dialogue moves toward a new synthesis, a blend of the two opposites. Week after week, the former synthesis becomes the new thesis. It, in turn, blends with other new views (antithesis) and a new synthesis is found. This process goes on and on.... Change becomes the norm and opposites such as black and white come closer and closer to a perfect and mutual gray."
"In their mandatory quest for common ground, students learn that there must be two or more sides to everything. All group members must present their personal views, receive group feedback, and seek an evolving consensus. Thesis + antithesis = synthesis (which becomes the new thesis) + new antithesis = new synthesis.... The main objective is learning dialectic reasoning and group thinking, not the content. Whatever the latter brings could be changed tomorrow. "As a result of migration into every American community, a high school class as well as a team of employee is likely to include members who favor Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, witchcraft and the various versions of 'Christianity.' In this multicultural setting, each person will be challenged to yield his or her certainties and willingly embrace the ever-changing group synthesis." Example: "It reminds me of the little old lady who prayed, 'Lord, forgive me', I do so many things I used to call sin."
Multiculturalism is a direct offshoot of Marxism and has spread throughout the world! Some countries like England and Germany have started to standup against this idea and are starting to take steps to oppose the idea of multiculturalism. In the US we still have a large number of supporters of multiculturalism who feel that it is important to be politically correct and be protective of even our enemies. We must begin to appose this terrible idea before the wolves of freedom start their attack.
Our liberal news media is the worst culprit of this type of political correctness. We see every day one or more articles in the news about the worth of being politically correct at all costs. The advance of the dialectical process is America's most important problem in today's world. If we, as a nation, do not protect our children against this evil growing amongst us then the collective is not far behind. When good christians do nothing then evil wins and I am afraid that we are losing the fight!
ASCD (the curriculum arm of the NEA), published a 1970 book with a chapter by Dr. Raymond Houghton, who envisions a world managed through the subtle but manipulative collective "dialogue." His warning should be a wake-up call for all who love truth and factual truthfulness; "...absolute behavior control is the end result. The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will never self-consciously know that it has happened." However, if people look and seek the truth they will understand what is really taking place.
UNESCO published a 1995 book titled Our Creative Diversity. It tells us that-- "The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living." Marc Tucker, the master-mind behind today's global school-to-work system. "Our objective will require a change in the prevailing culture -- the attitudes, values, norms and accepted ways of doing things." In other words, the old Christian ways and values are out and the new, subjective postmodern ways are in. Some teachers in some schools have been quietly teaching in this fashion for several years!
Already trained to follow feelings rather than facts (and peer culture rather than parental counsel) today's youth are marching happily toward an amoral, permissive (at least for the moment) collective society. Many have already internalized the ground rules for the dialectic process: Seek "common ground" in the midst of today's diversity. Show respect, tolerance and appreciation for all beliefs and values (unless they reflect Biblical truth). Train everyone to share their feelings, listen empathetically, and identify with opposing views, then blissfully flow with the group consensus. It works! This process transforms individual thinkers into group thinkers. Since the sense of belonging feels good, the threat of group disapproval inhibits members from voicing "offensive" views. The current version of this collective society thinking is the requirement that everyone must be politically correct when dealing with other members of the gulag.
Webster's dictionary defines the word dialectic as "Hegelian philosophy" a logical subjective development in thought, from a THESIS through an ANTITHESIS to a SYNTHESIS, or ... a continuous unification of opposites. "In the dialectic process, there must be two or more sides to everything. Nothing is absolute; everything is changing in a preplanned direction. As Ismail Serageldin, former vice president of The World Bank, said at the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul (Habitat II), "Let's just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction." Apparently the correct meaning of that statement is change coming from the left, which is where it is coming from today in America.
"Would the American people allow government control and collectivism to replace freedom and individualism? Not without a fight and so would the rest of the world. However, this social transformation is well under way, and the American masses unknowingly simply flow with the change. Planned over a century ago, the framework for managing and monitoring this worldwide revolution was in place by 1945. The process seems simple and not really intrusive but once you look critically at how it works you begin to understand how dangerous it is. Remember the 2008 slogan of "Captain Zero" Obama, "We will change and transform America", what do you think that slogan meant?
Dr. Chisholm, Margaret Mead and other social scientists from ten countries wrote its founding document, "Mental Health and World Citizenship." Notice their attitude toward traditional values: "Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early.... It is the men and women in whom these patterns of attitude and behavior have been incorporated who present the immediate resistance to social, economic and political changes. Thus, prejudice, hostility or excessive nationalism may become deeply embedded in the developing personality... often at great human cost.... "...change will be strongly resisted unless an attitude of acceptance has first been engendered." Their motto then became keep it simple.
Today, more than half a century later, that "attitude of acceptance" has been built. Nations around the world are fast conforming to the pattern set in the 1940s. The global network of "mental health" partners is working to prevent anything that would hinder "positive" collective thinking in the rising global village....Mass immigration (planned back in the 1940s) and multicultural conflicts have added to the urgency, and the intentional crisis has helped promote pre-planned solutions. Today, strategies for social change such as group thinking, conflict resolution, consensus building and continual compromise are becoming the norm. All are based on the dialectic process used in the former Soviet Union to conform minds to Soviet ideology...
Islam may not match the UN model for a global spirituality, but its spreading influence makes it a useful tool in the hands of change agents. Remember the Hegelian dialectic (consensus) process. The class discusses a provocative story or experience. The students share their thoughts, feelings and ideas in the group. Everyone must seek "common ground" and empathize with contrary ideas. Factual rebuttals that might offend a group member are forbidden. Throughout the dialogue, a trained facilitator guides the group back on track if it deviates from its course toward the prescribed consensus or group conclusion. When feel-good Islamic suggestions become part of this mix, they help shift the consensus a little further away from any Christian position. How many 7th graders are strong enough in their faith to disagree with a group conclusion that Allah and God are the same? Who dares to express the uniqueness of Christ, when even Prince Charles, first in line to the British throne, says, "We share as Muslims and Christians a powerful core of spiritual belief - in one divine God"?
This tactic -- used years ago to indoctrinate Soviet children with Communist ideology -- now pressures children from Christian homes to "open their minds" to new religious blends. Islam becomes a stepping stone, not an end. It broadens the options. As part of a classroom program, it subjects a child's personal faith to a psycho-social group process that pressures students to compromise: to trade personal convictions for a pre-planned "common ground." And that is the key. We live in a world where -- as educators, politicians and business managers like to remind us -- "the only constant is change." The main objective is to disconnect children from their old spiritual anchors so that their minds can flow with today's managed change and group solutions.
Key to social transformation is "praxis", a vital part of Soviet brainwashing. It meant that dialectic groups must continually apply new information about Communist theory and socialist values. As today's educators tell us, "learning" must be practical and experiential: no need to memorize unnecessary facts about history or science that might conflict with the new vision. Continual practice makes the new way of thinking as natural as walking. Turning a deaf ear to "enemies" who resist this process becomes as habitual as locking your door. Look at what "Captain Zero" and his henchmen are doing and you will begin to realize that the gulag is not far off!
From UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy by Julian Huxley, first Director-General of UNESCO: "The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available.... And it is necessary, for at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East....
"You may categorize the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism; or as the American versus the Russian way of life, or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis?" Huxley then stated " I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen.... "In pursuing this aim, we must eschew [shun] dogma - whether it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma.... East and West will not agree on a basis of the future if they merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past. For that is what dogma's are -- the crystallizations of some dominant system of thought of a particular epoch. A dogma may of course crystallize tried and valid experience; but if it be dogma, it does so in a way which is rigid, uncompromising and intolerant.... If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystalize our dogmas."
Then Huxley stated that; "Groups or teams must be trained to disapprove if any member fails to demonstrate respect, appreciation and tolerance for all beliefs and positions that clash with his own. In other words, intolerance must be used to intimidate dissenters into compliance with the ground rules. There is no freedom to share 'divisive' facts or truth. Instead, each person must listen with empathy, seek to identify with diverse feelings, and join the quest for 'common ground.'
"The issues may change from week to week, but with each group meeting, this dialectic process becomes increasingly habitual and 'normal.' If a person has a particular belief (thesis) concerning a current issue, he listens and identifies with an opposite or conflicting notion (antithesis). Led by a trained facilitator, the dialogue moves toward a new synthesis, a blend of the two opposites. Week after week, the former synthesis becomes the new thesis. It, in turn, blends with other new views (antithesis) and a new synthesis is found. This process goes on and on.... Change becomes the norm and opposites such as black and white come closer and closer to a perfect and mutual gray."
"In their mandatory quest for common ground, students learn that there must be two or more sides to everything. All group members must present their personal views, receive group feedback, and seek an evolving consensus. Thesis + antithesis = synthesis (which becomes the new thesis) + new antithesis = new synthesis.... The main objective is learning dialectic reasoning and group thinking, not the content. Whatever the latter brings could be changed tomorrow. "As a result of migration into every American community, a high school class as well as a team of employee is likely to include members who favor Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, witchcraft and the various versions of 'Christianity.' In this multicultural setting, each person will be challenged to yield his or her certainties and willingly embrace the ever-changing group synthesis." Example: "It reminds me of the little old lady who prayed, 'Lord, forgive me', I do so many things I used to call sin."
Multiculturalism is a direct offshoot of Marxism and has spread throughout the world! Some countries like England and Germany have started to standup against this idea and are starting to take steps to oppose the idea of multiculturalism. In the US we still have a large number of supporters of multiculturalism who feel that it is important to be politically correct and be protective of even our enemies. We must begin to appose this terrible idea before the wolves of freedom start their attack.
Our liberal news media is the worst culprit of this type of political correctness. We see every day one or more articles in the news about the worth of being politically correct at all costs. The advance of the dialectical process is America's most important problem in today's world. If we, as a nation, do not protect our children against this evil growing amongst us then the collective is not far behind. When good christians do nothing then evil wins and I am afraid that we are losing the fight!
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Obama grasps what the Conservative Pundits don't!
During a recent interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft how the president sized up the field of Republicans vying to be his opponent in 2012. Obama's answer was candid : "It doesn't really matter who the nominee is gonna be," he said. "The core philosophy that they're expressing is the same. And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and what -- where they say they want to take the country is gonna be stark." Captain Zero was similarly candid before he was elected and no one listened to what he said! Hopefully conservatives and independents will listen this time. Remember the catchy slogan "Hope and Change" and his statement " I am going to... transform America".
The president couldn't be more right in his assessment -- a reality that I think is lost on many of us who are political junkies. Those for whom the world of politics is either their livelihood or at least an obsessive hobby tend to view issues through a different lens and apply a level of detailed inspection to them that average citizens simply do not. The conservative blogosphere is full of expectations of political purity when deciding the future Republican Presidential candidate.
For instance, most people watched only a portion of the recent Republican presidential debates, if at all. They care about their country and the direction it's going, but they are not the least bit interested in following the day-to-day drama of the presidential horse race. They immediately go to the bottom line, which for them is "anyone but Obama".
When the debates were over conservative comments were, "This is going to be hard. Contrary to the media template that has emerged about the "especially weak Republican field," the average conservative voter don't mean it is going to be hard trying to figure out which one of those candidates could possibly compete with Obama. No, when asked to clarify, they always reply, "It's going to be hard to figure out which one of them to support when they all are so much better than what we've got."
Maybe we all need to stop obsessing over the trivial differences in style or the substantive conflicts of specific policy between the candidates, most conservatives are looking at the big picture -- each of those Republican candidates represent a marked departure from the Obama (Captain Zero)regime. And I think that this is much more reflective of the hundreds of millions of eligible voters who will head to the polls next year?
However, to all those conservatives that complain about the baggage that both Romney and Gringrich carry I humbly ask: what principle do you hold that makes throwing Israel under the bus the best option? What principle do you hold that makes continuing to expand the practice of legalized child-killing the proper decision? What principle do you hold that makes the implementation and ingraining of ObamaCare into the fabric of our society a more noble choice? What principle do you hold that justifies allowing jihadists to gain control of the middle east? What principle do you hold that allows marxists to take over our government? What principle do you hold that would justify the denigration of our Christian beliefs? I could list many other things but I am becoming redundant.
Conservatives would be well-advised to make the case for their candidate and make every effort to get their friends and family actively engaged in this primary. Then promote said candidate vigorously, while keeping in perspective what even the president himself understands: that all six of the individuals on the recent Republican debate stage represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from the current occupant of the White House.
Considering that Americans are now facing double the gas prices since Obama took office, almost double the unemployment from what it was the majority of Bush's terms, double the debt, double the deficit, four times as many foreign countries under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, fewer staunch allies who trust us, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, more Americans than ever on food stamps, and the looming threat of a dramatic uptick in job loss as the president's own signature "accomplishment" from his first term (ObamaCare) is fully implemented, that's a reality that every conservative should be shouting from the rooftops.
Hat Tip to: Peter Heck E-mail peter@peterheck.com, visit http://www.peterheck.com/, or like him on Facebook.
The president couldn't be more right in his assessment -- a reality that I think is lost on many of us who are political junkies. Those for whom the world of politics is either their livelihood or at least an obsessive hobby tend to view issues through a different lens and apply a level of detailed inspection to them that average citizens simply do not. The conservative blogosphere is full of expectations of political purity when deciding the future Republican Presidential candidate.
For instance, most people watched only a portion of the recent Republican presidential debates, if at all. They care about their country and the direction it's going, but they are not the least bit interested in following the day-to-day drama of the presidential horse race. They immediately go to the bottom line, which for them is "anyone but Obama".
When the debates were over conservative comments were, "This is going to be hard. Contrary to the media template that has emerged about the "especially weak Republican field," the average conservative voter don't mean it is going to be hard trying to figure out which one of those candidates could possibly compete with Obama. No, when asked to clarify, they always reply, "It's going to be hard to figure out which one of them to support when they all are so much better than what we've got."
Maybe we all need to stop obsessing over the trivial differences in style or the substantive conflicts of specific policy between the candidates, most conservatives are looking at the big picture -- each of those Republican candidates represent a marked departure from the Obama (Captain Zero)regime. And I think that this is much more reflective of the hundreds of millions of eligible voters who will head to the polls next year?
However, to all those conservatives that complain about the baggage that both Romney and Gringrich carry I humbly ask: what principle do you hold that makes throwing Israel under the bus the best option? What principle do you hold that makes continuing to expand the practice of legalized child-killing the proper decision? What principle do you hold that makes the implementation and ingraining of ObamaCare into the fabric of our society a more noble choice? What principle do you hold that justifies allowing jihadists to gain control of the middle east? What principle do you hold that allows marxists to take over our government? What principle do you hold that would justify the denigration of our Christian beliefs? I could list many other things but I am becoming redundant.
Conservatives would be well-advised to make the case for their candidate and make every effort to get their friends and family actively engaged in this primary. Then promote said candidate vigorously, while keeping in perspective what even the president himself understands: that all six of the individuals on the recent Republican debate stage represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from the current occupant of the White House.
Considering that Americans are now facing double the gas prices since Obama took office, almost double the unemployment from what it was the majority of Bush's terms, double the debt, double the deficit, four times as many foreign countries under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, fewer staunch allies who trust us, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, more Americans than ever on food stamps, and the looming threat of a dramatic uptick in job loss as the president's own signature "accomplishment" from his first term (ObamaCare) is fully implemented, that's a reality that every conservative should be shouting from the rooftops.
Hat Tip to: Peter Heck E-mail peter@peterheck.com, visit http://www.peterheck.com/, or like him on Facebook.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Dialectic Process and transformational Marxism Part 1
Why is it important for you to understand the subject of the Hegelian Dialectic process and how it works? Because it is the process, which is accomplishing all change in our society today. More importantly, it is the tool that the radical marxist progressive liberal globalists are utilizing to manipulate the minds of the average American to accept that change, where ordinarily they would refuse it. You must understand what ‘Hope & Change’ really means because that phrase is not a benign statement as indicated by ‘Captain Zero’ and the lying news media. ‘Hope & Change’ is really about the complete transformation of American society to one that is more like a gulag. The 'Hegelian Dialectic Method' that is currently being used in some schools and churches is helping this transition. Remember that "captain zero" told us what he was going to do when he was running for the presidency! " I am going to transform America" apparently very few understood what he meant.
The Hegelian Dialectic is, in short, the critical process by which the ruling progressive elite (proletariat) create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the given crisis, and thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. When the population is properly conditioned, the desired agenda of the ruling elite is presented as the solution. The solution isn't intended to solve the problem, but rather to serve as the basis for a new problem or exacerbate the existing one. When the newly inflamed difficulty reaches the boiling point of a crisis, it becomes the foundation upon which arguments may again be made for change. Hence, the process is repeated, over and over, moving society toward whatever end the planners or "BigGov" have in mind. The radical left is currently trying to create chaos out of the public sector union protests and OWS in order to create a need for change. Remember that the Devil is in the details and the Devil always works his evil best in chaos.
It's also important to understand that as this process is being driven, arguments are created both for and against certain measures of change but all arguments are controlled. The presented solutions — each with varying levels of embellishment — are "debated" publicly by the manipulators or their minions. This is done until a perceived compromise has been reached on the best measure to take in route to solving the crisis. Then, the outcome of the "debate" — which purportedly weighs the concerns of the public with the mandate to do something — is enacted as public policy. Such is a summary of the Hegelian Dialectic. Though few in American society have ever heard of it, still fewer have not been profoundly impacted by its use in the effective neutralization of opposition in the formation of public policy. Public sector unions and OWS are trying to promote their views and their pockets to the detriment of the taxpayers. Unions have been taken over by marxists who are true believers in the Hegelian methodology.
The draft resolution of the 'Revolutionary Communist Party U.S.A.' is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic method in action. In this document, the communists complain about all of the evils of society and they have created a list to blame on capitalism. Their solution to the problem, which like "Captain Zero's", is "Evil" capitalism must give way to the "fair" and "just" form of government — communism. Captain Zero's rhetoric is full of "fair" and "just" along with "hope" and "change" all of which he learned as a community organizer with links to the various marxist groups that formed his circle of friends.
The current batch of Marxists in the leadership of the United States Government is attempting to fashion our country as a Marxist state. Many democrats belong to the Socialist Democrats of America organization and I have posted these members names in previous blogs and their numbers are growing. Therefore, if we allow them to continue their plan then we have ourselves to blame for the damage that these radicals will create.
The plan is to infect our schools, churches, and our country; the goal then becomes to produce a marxist state! This is with "tension, created by diversity, is essential to the dialectic process. It energizes members and, when manipulated by well-trained facilitators produces synergy, which is the extra effectiveness created when people combine efforts. You can't guide people toward synthesis (compromise) unless there are opposing views; both "thesis and antithesis." That's why the consensus process must include all these elements: a diverse group, dialoguing to consensus, over a social issue led by a trained facilitator toward a pre-planned outcome. This method is currently used in various churches, schools, and social groups. We must focus on the fact that these marxists have a plan with a predetermined outcome, which is to transform America into a Marxist state.
The true dialectic group never reaches a final consensus, for "continual change" is an ongoing process: one step today, another tomorrow. To permanently change the way we think and relate to each other, our progressive leader must set the stage for conflict and compromise week after week, year after year. Dialectical thinking and group consensus must become as normal as eating, and Captain Zero developed these skills as a community organizer. Eventually, people learn to discard their old mental anchors and boundaries -- all the facts and certainties that built firm convictions. They become like boats adrift, always ready to shift with the changing winds and currents and allowing the elitists to control everything that is accomplished.
Today's facilitated small groups or teams in some schools and churches are not like the old Bible studies many of us attended years ago. Back then, we discussed the Bible and its wonderful truths; now people dialogue until they reach an emotional form of unity based on "empathy" for diverse views and values. Dr. Robert Klench describes the process: "Total Quality Management [TQM] is based upon the Hegelian dialectic, invented by Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, a transformational Marxist social psychologist. Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis). Do you see the pattern yet?
"When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers... and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of God's Word has been watered down... and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise (synthesis). The new synthesis becomes the starting point (thesis) for the next meeting, and the process of continual change (innovation) continues. "The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God, and such a one usually remains silent (self-editing).
The fear of man (rejection) overrides the fear of God. The end result is a 'paradigm shift' in how one processes factual information." Therefore, we must be aware of what our teachers are teaching and how they are teaching. If they are teaching children the art of compromise through synergy then parents must take corrective action. However, parents must be careful because teaching children the art of compromise is not necessarily a bad thing, it is the 'Hegelian Dialectic Process' that deceives by twisting truth through group consensus and it is wrong!
Background information on this method; Georg Hegel (1770 – 1831), an occultist, laid the foundation for Communist brainwashing. Today, his dialectic philosophy and transformational process are changing churches as well as politics, education, business and communities. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) adapted Hegel's philosophy to his vision of a Communist/socialist world system. (See From Marx to Lenin, Gramsci & Alinsky) Mr. Alinsky gets around and is the hero of 'Captain Zero' who uses Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' as a guidebook in his plan to transform America.
Marx, Lenin and Stalin saw Hegelian dialectic process as an essential tool for managing the masses. Through their hierarchical system of soviets (groups led by trained facilitators who led the group dialogue toward a prescribed and evolving consensus). Everyone had to trade individual thinking for collective thinking and communal values. The vision of "common good" was simply the carrot that justified total and cruel control.
The United Nations (1995) has promoted the dialectic process around the world. Like the mythical Phoenix rising out of its ashes, the UN emerged from the fiery devastation of World War II as a beacon of light to utopian humanists and their hopeful followers. Within two years after Communist leader Alger Hiss presided over its birth, some of its most powerful agencies had been established. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) would be led by Julian Huxley -- brother of Aldous and a Fabian Socialist. He made the dialectic process the heart of UNESCO's global education plan. In his 1947 book, UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy, he wrote: "The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture. ....at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East....
Marxists believe that we may categorize the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism.... or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, can this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? Through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen." "In pursuing this aim, we must shun dogma - whether it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma. East and West will not agree on a basis of the future if they merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past. For that is what dogma's are -- the crystallizations of some dominant system of thought. If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystalize our dogmas." This is the Master Plan of the Radicals, to cause society to become soft and politically correct and as a result come to terms with a Marxist society!!! Do you see the connection to what is going on with our children and what they are being taught in colleges today? The current result of this transformation is being displayed in OWS!
WHO (The World Health Organization) was led by Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm. He summarized his socialist philosophy at a 1946 US conference on mental health. His message was published by the (now prestigious) magazine 'Psychiatry', and by his Communist friend, Alger Hiss in the socialist magazine, 'International Conciliation'. Notice the obstacles to "mental health": "Can we identify the reasons why we fight wars...? Many of them are easy to list -- prejudice, isolationism, the ability to emotionally and uncritically to believe unreasonable things.... "The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong.... For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers...."Individuals who have emotional disabilities of their own -- guilts, fears, inferiorities -- are certain to project their hates on to others... Whatever the cost, we must learn to live in friendliness and peace with... all the people in the world...." This is the current creed of all that believe in the globalist doctrine of oneness with others in the world order of one society or Marxism.
Those "poisonous certainties" include all the unchanging truths and values that can't be compromised. That's why Biblical Christianity was -- and continues to be -- incompatible with the world's standards for "mental health." Many who refuse to conform to the evolving guidelines for tolerance, inclusiveness, group dialogue and adaptability to the UN plan for "continual change" are facing severe consequences. Everyone must understand what is happening today in America and act accordingly because the numbers of our youth who are susceptible to this line of thought is increasing each year. The result of inaction is currently displayed by the members of the OWS demonstrations! If we do nothing then evil wins and the America that we all love will be no more! If you doubt that it can happen here in America then you need to listen to what the OWS demonstrators are screaming!
The Hegelian Dialectic is, in short, the critical process by which the ruling progressive elite (proletariat) create a problem, anticipating in advance the reaction that the population will have to the given crisis, and thus conditioning the people that a change is needed. When the population is properly conditioned, the desired agenda of the ruling elite is presented as the solution. The solution isn't intended to solve the problem, but rather to serve as the basis for a new problem or exacerbate the existing one. When the newly inflamed difficulty reaches the boiling point of a crisis, it becomes the foundation upon which arguments may again be made for change. Hence, the process is repeated, over and over, moving society toward whatever end the planners or "BigGov" have in mind. The radical left is currently trying to create chaos out of the public sector union protests and OWS in order to create a need for change. Remember that the Devil is in the details and the Devil always works his evil best in chaos.
It's also important to understand that as this process is being driven, arguments are created both for and against certain measures of change but all arguments are controlled. The presented solutions — each with varying levels of embellishment — are "debated" publicly by the manipulators or their minions. This is done until a perceived compromise has been reached on the best measure to take in route to solving the crisis. Then, the outcome of the "debate" — which purportedly weighs the concerns of the public with the mandate to do something — is enacted as public policy. Such is a summary of the Hegelian Dialectic. Though few in American society have ever heard of it, still fewer have not been profoundly impacted by its use in the effective neutralization of opposition in the formation of public policy. Public sector unions and OWS are trying to promote their views and their pockets to the detriment of the taxpayers. Unions have been taken over by marxists who are true believers in the Hegelian methodology.
The draft resolution of the 'Revolutionary Communist Party U.S.A.' is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic method in action. In this document, the communists complain about all of the evils of society and they have created a list to blame on capitalism. Their solution to the problem, which like "Captain Zero's", is "Evil" capitalism must give way to the "fair" and "just" form of government — communism. Captain Zero's rhetoric is full of "fair" and "just" along with "hope" and "change" all of which he learned as a community organizer with links to the various marxist groups that formed his circle of friends.
The current batch of Marxists in the leadership of the United States Government is attempting to fashion our country as a Marxist state. Many democrats belong to the Socialist Democrats of America organization and I have posted these members names in previous blogs and their numbers are growing. Therefore, if we allow them to continue their plan then we have ourselves to blame for the damage that these radicals will create.
The plan is to infect our schools, churches, and our country; the goal then becomes to produce a marxist state! This is with "tension, created by diversity, is essential to the dialectic process. It energizes members and, when manipulated by well-trained facilitators produces synergy, which is the extra effectiveness created when people combine efforts. You can't guide people toward synthesis (compromise) unless there are opposing views; both "thesis and antithesis." That's why the consensus process must include all these elements: a diverse group, dialoguing to consensus, over a social issue led by a trained facilitator toward a pre-planned outcome. This method is currently used in various churches, schools, and social groups. We must focus on the fact that these marxists have a plan with a predetermined outcome, which is to transform America into a Marxist state.
The true dialectic group never reaches a final consensus, for "continual change" is an ongoing process: one step today, another tomorrow. To permanently change the way we think and relate to each other, our progressive leader must set the stage for conflict and compromise week after week, year after year. Dialectical thinking and group consensus must become as normal as eating, and Captain Zero developed these skills as a community organizer. Eventually, people learn to discard their old mental anchors and boundaries -- all the facts and certainties that built firm convictions. They become like boats adrift, always ready to shift with the changing winds and currents and allowing the elitists to control everything that is accomplished.
Today's facilitated small groups or teams in some schools and churches are not like the old Bible studies many of us attended years ago. Back then, we discussed the Bible and its wonderful truths; now people dialogue until they reach an emotional form of unity based on "empathy" for diverse views and values. Dr. Robert Klench describes the process: "Total Quality Management [TQM] is based upon the Hegelian dialectic, invented by Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, a transformational Marxist social psychologist. Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis). Do you see the pattern yet?
"When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers... and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of God's Word has been watered down... and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise (synthesis). The new synthesis becomes the starting point (thesis) for the next meeting, and the process of continual change (innovation) continues. "The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God, and such a one usually remains silent (self-editing).
The fear of man (rejection) overrides the fear of God. The end result is a 'paradigm shift' in how one processes factual information." Therefore, we must be aware of what our teachers are teaching and how they are teaching. If they are teaching children the art of compromise through synergy then parents must take corrective action. However, parents must be careful because teaching children the art of compromise is not necessarily a bad thing, it is the 'Hegelian Dialectic Process' that deceives by twisting truth through group consensus and it is wrong!
Background information on this method; Georg Hegel (1770 – 1831), an occultist, laid the foundation for Communist brainwashing. Today, his dialectic philosophy and transformational process are changing churches as well as politics, education, business and communities. Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) adapted Hegel's philosophy to his vision of a Communist/socialist world system. (See From Marx to Lenin, Gramsci & Alinsky) Mr. Alinsky gets around and is the hero of 'Captain Zero' who uses Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' as a guidebook in his plan to transform America.
Marx, Lenin and Stalin saw Hegelian dialectic process as an essential tool for managing the masses. Through their hierarchical system of soviets (groups led by trained facilitators who led the group dialogue toward a prescribed and evolving consensus). Everyone had to trade individual thinking for collective thinking and communal values. The vision of "common good" was simply the carrot that justified total and cruel control.
The United Nations (1995) has promoted the dialectic process around the world. Like the mythical Phoenix rising out of its ashes, the UN emerged from the fiery devastation of World War II as a beacon of light to utopian humanists and their hopeful followers. Within two years after Communist leader Alger Hiss presided over its birth, some of its most powerful agencies had been established. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) would be led by Julian Huxley -- brother of Aldous and a Fabian Socialist. He made the dialectic process the heart of UNESCO's global education plan. In his 1947 book, UNESCO: Its purpose and Its Philosophy, he wrote: "The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture. ....at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East....
Marxists believe that we may categorize the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism.... or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, can this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? Through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen." "In pursuing this aim, we must shun dogma - whether it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma. East and West will not agree on a basis of the future if they merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past. For that is what dogma's are -- the crystallizations of some dominant system of thought. If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystalize our dogmas." This is the Master Plan of the Radicals, to cause society to become soft and politically correct and as a result come to terms with a Marxist society!!! Do you see the connection to what is going on with our children and what they are being taught in colleges today? The current result of this transformation is being displayed in OWS!
WHO (The World Health Organization) was led by Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm. He summarized his socialist philosophy at a 1946 US conference on mental health. His message was published by the (now prestigious) magazine 'Psychiatry', and by his Communist friend, Alger Hiss in the socialist magazine, 'International Conciliation'. Notice the obstacles to "mental health": "Can we identify the reasons why we fight wars...? Many of them are easy to list -- prejudice, isolationism, the ability to emotionally and uncritically to believe unreasonable things.... "The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong.... For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers...."Individuals who have emotional disabilities of their own -- guilts, fears, inferiorities -- are certain to project their hates on to others... Whatever the cost, we must learn to live in friendliness and peace with... all the people in the world...." This is the current creed of all that believe in the globalist doctrine of oneness with others in the world order of one society or Marxism.
Those "poisonous certainties" include all the unchanging truths and values that can't be compromised. That's why Biblical Christianity was -- and continues to be -- incompatible with the world's standards for "mental health." Many who refuse to conform to the evolving guidelines for tolerance, inclusiveness, group dialogue and adaptability to the UN plan for "continual change" are facing severe consequences. Everyone must understand what is happening today in America and act accordingly because the numbers of our youth who are susceptible to this line of thought is increasing each year. The result of inaction is currently displayed by the members of the OWS demonstrations! If we do nothing then evil wins and the America that we all love will be no more! If you doubt that it can happen here in America then you need to listen to what the OWS demonstrators are screaming!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
OWS and the 99%
What is the real message being presented by the OWS? As I often say the devil is in the details because that is where chaos usually resides and that is where the devil can do his mischief! However, if we look deep into the core of OWS we can see the devil is very busy spreading more chaos.
When you separate out the chaos only then can you see that the core is really made up of anarchists, union leaders, progressives, marxists, socialists, communists, users and takers, and a small, small portion of college students without jobs or hope. Which is really ironic since these same students probably voter for HOPE AND CHANGE.
What is the message that America needs to take in? First they need to understand that there is no message other than the total destruction of the 50% of Americans who pay their taxes, earn a living and support the other 49% who do nothing but take whatever they can get. In short the message is that all will become members of the new “Amerika serfdom” ruled by the 1% rich proletariats and protected by “BigGov” and “Captain Zero”.
Why are they targeting the 1%? It makes great media news coverage and hides the real message of power and control over the 99%. If you listen to these Soros minions you will discover that they have no idea what it is all about; but they can follow orders. Where are these orders coming from? Check out the 1% who really is making money in the stock market because of all this chaos! I have seen reports that Soros and his “PARTNERS” are laughing as they take their wall street stock exchange remunerations to the bank! Besides the 1% are not influenced or affected by OWS because they live in a different realm that the OWS can never reach nor attain!
Mr. George Soros has stated repeatedly that he hates America and wants to destroy this great country. I really fail to understand why he is allowed to make money here to be used to set up a serfdom after he destroys us. Soros is behind many of the groups that are promoting OWS and since he owns the democrats they have jumped on the wagon at his request. However, many democrats are now realizing that maybe this will be used against then in their next election and are therefore, setting away from OWS.
The American people are beginning to change their view of the OWS movement. A recent poll shows an eleven point swing and now only 33% support the OWS movement! This change is based upon all the violence that the public is seeing at these OWS action centers in New York and California. The American public still does not understand what is at the core of the OWS movement therefore, it is up to conservative Independents and Republicans to educate them about this violent group!
When you separate out the chaos only then can you see that the core is really made up of anarchists, union leaders, progressives, marxists, socialists, communists, users and takers, and a small, small portion of college students without jobs or hope. Which is really ironic since these same students probably voter for HOPE AND CHANGE.
What is the message that America needs to take in? First they need to understand that there is no message other than the total destruction of the 50% of Americans who pay their taxes, earn a living and support the other 49% who do nothing but take whatever they can get. In short the message is that all will become members of the new “Amerika serfdom” ruled by the 1% rich proletariats and protected by “BigGov” and “Captain Zero”.
Why are they targeting the 1%? It makes great media news coverage and hides the real message of power and control over the 99%. If you listen to these Soros minions you will discover that they have no idea what it is all about; but they can follow orders. Where are these orders coming from? Check out the 1% who really is making money in the stock market because of all this chaos! I have seen reports that Soros and his “PARTNERS” are laughing as they take their wall street stock exchange remunerations to the bank! Besides the 1% are not influenced or affected by OWS because they live in a different realm that the OWS can never reach nor attain!
Mr. George Soros has stated repeatedly that he hates America and wants to destroy this great country. I really fail to understand why he is allowed to make money here to be used to set up a serfdom after he destroys us. Soros is behind many of the groups that are promoting OWS and since he owns the democrats they have jumped on the wagon at his request. However, many democrats are now realizing that maybe this will be used against then in their next election and are therefore, setting away from OWS.
The American people are beginning to change their view of the OWS movement. A recent poll shows an eleven point swing and now only 33% support the OWS movement! This change is based upon all the violence that the public is seeing at these OWS action centers in New York and California. The American public still does not understand what is at the core of the OWS movement therefore, it is up to conservative Independents and Republicans to educate them about this violent group!
Friday, October 28, 2011
Soros' and his NEUTRAL NEWS MEDIA !
When the evil George Soros gave millions to National Public Radio , it became part of the controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. However, that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros has put millions into more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. Soros is the only reason these troubled news media are still in operation because without his funds they would be bankrupt.
Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.” This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.
The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org/. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts. Democrats act as if these facts are only conjecture with little or no basis! As I have stated before I am a former Kool-Aid drinker and I have indicated that democrats have a genetic defect that will not allow them to use any thinking skills.
The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are always left-wing. The site’s proud list of “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.
Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy –a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising. The evil Soros has bought and paid for the Lame Street News and they all do his biding.
One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including: Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times; Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News; Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. All doing what the Soros organization desires in spreading propaganda in their movement towards the destruction of America and establishment of the new American Serfdom.
ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press. The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL and others.
Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including: Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.” Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute. The group's advisory board features: Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former "Good Morning America" executive producer
Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence. ”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.
The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template –important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features: Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle; David Boardman, The Seattle Times; Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP; George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.
Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.
Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by rich business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from? Besides it is becoming well known that most if not all of the "rich elite" are liberals and fill the coffers of the democrats!
Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.
Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.
If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon. When you hear that the news media is neutral you can bet that the person professing this view is a democrat who has only regurgitated the talking points provided by the leadership.
Haptip to Dan Gainor for the information on these Soros projects!
Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.” This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.
The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org/. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts. Democrats act as if these facts are only conjecture with little or no basis! As I have stated before I am a former Kool-Aid drinker and I have indicated that democrats have a genetic defect that will not allow them to use any thinking skills.
The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are always left-wing. The site’s proud list of “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.
Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy –a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising. The evil Soros has bought and paid for the Lame Street News and they all do his biding.
One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including: Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times; Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News; Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. All doing what the Soros organization desires in spreading propaganda in their movement towards the destruction of America and establishment of the new American Serfdom.
ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press. The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL and others.
Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including: Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.” Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute. The group's advisory board features: Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former "Good Morning America" executive producer
Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence. ”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.
The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template –important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features: Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle; David Boardman, The Seattle Times; Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP; George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.
Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.
Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by rich business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from? Besides it is becoming well known that most if not all of the "rich elite" are liberals and fill the coffers of the democrats!
Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.
Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.
If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon. When you hear that the news media is neutral you can bet that the person professing this view is a democrat who has only regurgitated the talking points provided by the leadership.
Haptip to Dan Gainor for the information on these Soros projects!
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
George Soros funded Stealth Party may be in your state!
An article by Ed Lasky at American Thinker states that a case study for the modus operandi of the George Soros funded Democracy Alliance can be found in Minnesota. He wrote about “the underhanded tactics used by Soros and his pals in the 2008 article "The Soros Connection in the Minnesota Senate Race." A network of groups funded by members of the Democracy Alliance raised spurious charges that threw mud at Coleman (charges that went nowhere and vanished after Franken's "victory"). The charges were picked up by the echo chamber that Soros has created in the blogosphere and bubbled up into the mainstream media. Investigations were advocated. It was all smoke with little fire -- but it damaged Coleman.”
Lansky stated “Fred Barnes wrote a very insightful column for the Weekly Standard ("The Colorado Model: The Democrats' Plan for Turning Red States Blue"), which showed how a similar effort by a small core of wealthy liberals turned Colorado from a red state to a blue state. Scathing allegations were raised; the fire was fanned into a conflagration, and it burned a lot of Republicans at the state and federal level. Then the charges all but vanished. Mission accomplished. A superb book, The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care, also opens the pages of the playbook used by this cadre.”
“The plan was a success, and like many successful operations, it was cloned in other states. The franchise spread. At the apex of the operation was a group called the Fund For America, another 527 group funded by Soros and other Democracy Alliance members. This group seeded state level groups throughout America to replicate the type of operations that succeeded in Minnesota and Colorado.”
“One picture says it all -- this one titled "Money and Influence Behind a Liberal Network": http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/liberalnetworkchart Alliance for a Better Minnesota was the so-called grassroots effort by Minnesotans that spread attacks against Norm Coleman. As can be graphically seen, it was an AstroTurf group funded by wealthy donors who may be able to locate the Land of 10,000 Lakes on a map but otherwise have no ties to the state. While the amounts of money (and probably advice) may appear small, Soros and others among his allies can funnel money through other means.” On the right side of the chart notice the Democracy Alliance, which I have written about previously! This is a group of “rich elites” who own the democratic party and are planning the complete remake of America as a socialist serfdom.
“Many states have looser restrictions regarding the amounts individuals, PACs, and other groups may donate to candidates. The monitoring and reporting of donations are much less rigorous than they are at the federal level. A lot of money can flow to candidates, and the citizens may remain completely in the dark regarding the sources and the amounts. In many ways, states are an ideal location for the type of mischief and scheming that Soros and his allies practice.
Of course, what the graphic also illustrates is that similar groups have been funded in various states. The plan has been franchised; tentacles have spread; the puppets are hooked. These marzist groups are primed to take action when opportunities to advance the evil Soros agenda present themselves.
The action taken by MoveOn.Org to influence shale gas development in Pennsylvania is another manifestation of Soros and his allies operating at the state level. Why would a Soros-supported group that used to focus its campaigns against Republicans at the federal level shift course and focus on an individual state? (One clue: it may relate to Soros's energy investments.)
Will we see other Soros-controlled groups engage in steps to influence actions at the state level? The Media: A Force Multiplier These operations might be cloaked in secrecy, but they also depend on the media to magnify their efforts. Therefore, it is intriguing that Soros has recently invested more money in his media operations.
The National Public Radio grant that has been widely broadcast (at least by one network) will put two "journalists" in each state capital in America. Their stated role is to report on state governments and their actions. Do these journalists know who butters their bread? Will that affect their reporting? Does it even matter since NPR is stuffed full of liberals anyway who would likely support the Soros agenda?
Soros looks for emerging opportunities-talented hedge-fund operator that he is. As the media -- particularly newspapers -- have fallen on hard times, they have reduced their coverage of the news and created an opening for Soros (and his allies, Herb and Marion Sandler, who have created their own "investigative group" to deliver news, free of charge, to cash-strapped media outlets -- "news" that seems agenda-driven).
One can envision scenarios where the news coming from state capitols will favor liberal causes and shine a positive light on politicians who would promote a Soros-based agenda. At the same time, those who oppose this agenda will be either ignored or attacked (Media Matters was recently generously funded by George Soros to engage in attacks against Fox News -- and this was before Glenn Beck's series on Soros). Will the Soros-supported media honestly report on the goings-on in state capitols? Will journalists who know the ultimate source of their money promote certain ballot measures?”
George Soros has been promoting and paying for state ballot initiatives to put in place policies he favors. While his marijuana legalization effort in California has now been publicized (and went down in flames), he has been trying to peddle the pro-pot line in states across the country for years. His efforts have "earned" him the sobriquet "Daddy Weedbucks" from the drug culture magazine Heads. He also tried to help drug dealers by pouring money into a Utah initiative that would have restricted the power of states to confiscate the property of busted drug dealers. He and his allies, by the way, have not given up on California -- they are gearing up to retool the proposition and get it passed in 2012.
However, that is just one part of his agenda. He also funded a 2004 effort in California for a proposition that would have softened and repealed some of the provisions of a Three Strikes initiative that imposes higher penalties on criminals who commit three felonies. The effort narrowly failed, but there is a postscript. George Soros finally agreed five years later to pay a fine to California's Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to properly disclose his $500,000 in donations made to promote this proposition.
He also has promoted Ohio's Minimum Wage Initiative (while there is a federal minimum wage law, states are free to pass their own higher wage laws). The “Democracy Alliance” knows what will get liberal support and that’s the direction that they throw their money. It does not matter that a majority of American’s do not support these actions because this group is not concerned about the public; they are all about power and control.
Soros also funded a 2010 California ballot measure that would have put control of redistricting back in the hands of the state legislature (from a non-partisan group now) -- a move that would have obviously benefited Democrats. The effort failed. One may ask why Soros, who does not live in California, felt compelled to weigh in on that state's redistricting. Was it to earn "chits" from Democrats to be cashed in at some future date?”
These are all things that the “Stealth Party” is using to attack America and bring it to its knees. This silent group is formed by a rich elite who are trying to take over control of America and so far have succeeded in purchasing the democratic party and are attempting to gain control of the Republican Party. This “Stealth Party” funds the current OWS demonstrations around the country and their objective is to gain leverage and control of our great nation! When they achieve their goal then they will remake America into a new “Serfdom” with these “rich elites” becoming the “Proletariat”! This “Stealth Party” then plans to set up “Big Gov” that will control and protect the “Serfdom” and guess who will be the serfs?
A special hat tip for Ed Lasky at American Thinker, who has been hot on Soros’s trail.
Lansky stated “Fred Barnes wrote a very insightful column for the Weekly Standard ("The Colorado Model: The Democrats' Plan for Turning Red States Blue"), which showed how a similar effort by a small core of wealthy liberals turned Colorado from a red state to a blue state. Scathing allegations were raised; the fire was fanned into a conflagration, and it burned a lot of Republicans at the state and federal level. Then the charges all but vanished. Mission accomplished. A superb book, The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care, also opens the pages of the playbook used by this cadre.”
“The plan was a success, and like many successful operations, it was cloned in other states. The franchise spread. At the apex of the operation was a group called the Fund For America, another 527 group funded by Soros and other Democracy Alliance members. This group seeded state level groups throughout America to replicate the type of operations that succeeded in Minnesota and Colorado.”
“One picture says it all -- this one titled "Money and Influence Behind a Liberal Network": http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/liberalnetworkchart Alliance for a Better Minnesota was the so-called grassroots effort by Minnesotans that spread attacks against Norm Coleman. As can be graphically seen, it was an AstroTurf group funded by wealthy donors who may be able to locate the Land of 10,000 Lakes on a map but otherwise have no ties to the state. While the amounts of money (and probably advice) may appear small, Soros and others among his allies can funnel money through other means.” On the right side of the chart notice the Democracy Alliance, which I have written about previously! This is a group of “rich elites” who own the democratic party and are planning the complete remake of America as a socialist serfdom.
“Many states have looser restrictions regarding the amounts individuals, PACs, and other groups may donate to candidates. The monitoring and reporting of donations are much less rigorous than they are at the federal level. A lot of money can flow to candidates, and the citizens may remain completely in the dark regarding the sources and the amounts. In many ways, states are an ideal location for the type of mischief and scheming that Soros and his allies practice.
Of course, what the graphic also illustrates is that similar groups have been funded in various states. The plan has been franchised; tentacles have spread; the puppets are hooked. These marzist groups are primed to take action when opportunities to advance the evil Soros agenda present themselves.
The action taken by MoveOn.Org to influence shale gas development in Pennsylvania is another manifestation of Soros and his allies operating at the state level. Why would a Soros-supported group that used to focus its campaigns against Republicans at the federal level shift course and focus on an individual state? (One clue: it may relate to Soros's energy investments.)
Will we see other Soros-controlled groups engage in steps to influence actions at the state level? The Media: A Force Multiplier These operations might be cloaked in secrecy, but they also depend on the media to magnify their efforts. Therefore, it is intriguing that Soros has recently invested more money in his media operations.
The National Public Radio grant that has been widely broadcast (at least by one network) will put two "journalists" in each state capital in America. Their stated role is to report on state governments and their actions. Do these journalists know who butters their bread? Will that affect their reporting? Does it even matter since NPR is stuffed full of liberals anyway who would likely support the Soros agenda?
Soros looks for emerging opportunities-talented hedge-fund operator that he is. As the media -- particularly newspapers -- have fallen on hard times, they have reduced their coverage of the news and created an opening for Soros (and his allies, Herb and Marion Sandler, who have created their own "investigative group" to deliver news, free of charge, to cash-strapped media outlets -- "news" that seems agenda-driven).
One can envision scenarios where the news coming from state capitols will favor liberal causes and shine a positive light on politicians who would promote a Soros-based agenda. At the same time, those who oppose this agenda will be either ignored or attacked (Media Matters was recently generously funded by George Soros to engage in attacks against Fox News -- and this was before Glenn Beck's series on Soros). Will the Soros-supported media honestly report on the goings-on in state capitols? Will journalists who know the ultimate source of their money promote certain ballot measures?”
George Soros has been promoting and paying for state ballot initiatives to put in place policies he favors. While his marijuana legalization effort in California has now been publicized (and went down in flames), he has been trying to peddle the pro-pot line in states across the country for years. His efforts have "earned" him the sobriquet "Daddy Weedbucks" from the drug culture magazine Heads. He also tried to help drug dealers by pouring money into a Utah initiative that would have restricted the power of states to confiscate the property of busted drug dealers. He and his allies, by the way, have not given up on California -- they are gearing up to retool the proposition and get it passed in 2012.
However, that is just one part of his agenda. He also funded a 2004 effort in California for a proposition that would have softened and repealed some of the provisions of a Three Strikes initiative that imposes higher penalties on criminals who commit three felonies. The effort narrowly failed, but there is a postscript. George Soros finally agreed five years later to pay a fine to California's Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to properly disclose his $500,000 in donations made to promote this proposition.
He also has promoted Ohio's Minimum Wage Initiative (while there is a federal minimum wage law, states are free to pass their own higher wage laws). The “Democracy Alliance” knows what will get liberal support and that’s the direction that they throw their money. It does not matter that a majority of American’s do not support these actions because this group is not concerned about the public; they are all about power and control.
Soros also funded a 2010 California ballot measure that would have put control of redistricting back in the hands of the state legislature (from a non-partisan group now) -- a move that would have obviously benefited Democrats. The effort failed. One may ask why Soros, who does not live in California, felt compelled to weigh in on that state's redistricting. Was it to earn "chits" from Democrats to be cashed in at some future date?”
These are all things that the “Stealth Party” is using to attack America and bring it to its knees. This silent group is formed by a rich elite who are trying to take over control of America and so far have succeeded in purchasing the democratic party and are attempting to gain control of the Republican Party. This “Stealth Party” funds the current OWS demonstrations around the country and their objective is to gain leverage and control of our great nation! When they achieve their goal then they will remake America into a new “Serfdom” with these “rich elites” becoming the “Proletariat”! This “Stealth Party” then plans to set up “Big Gov” that will control and protect the “Serfdom” and guess who will be the serfs?
A special hat tip for Ed Lasky at American Thinker, who has been hot on Soros’s trail.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Democrats and the "Big Lie"- Republicans are for the rich Part 2!
The super "rich elites" that have been gathered together under the umbrella of George Soros have formed a Partnership with the Devil! Partners pour cash into their coffers and then ladle it out to approved left-wing groups. There is no publicly available tally of Democracy Alliance-approved grants, but here are some grant recipients and amounts reported in the media; the majority is hiding in the "Shadow Governments" coffers. Please pay attention to the names of these groups because you will hear more about them in the 2012 elections.
*Media Matters for America: This group headed by journalist David Brock, known for his aggressive reporting on the Clintons, claims to expose right-wing news bias. Its self-described mission involves monitoring “conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Brock has generated at least $7 million for Media Matters through the DA. While Brock and Clinton are reportedly not the best of friends, she has helped Media Matters and has close ties to the group. Kelly Craighead, one of Hillary Clinton’s closest friends, was a top paid advisor to Media Matters when it was set up. Craighead is currently the Alliance’s managing director, and in 2007, the group’s website credited her with “aligning more than $60 million in Alliance Partner investments.”
*Center for American Progress: Former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta heads the think tank that has received at least $9 million through the DA. According to Bai, the “vast majority” of the funding came from Soros, Peter Lewis, and the Sandlers. CAP aspires to be a counterpart to the Heritage Foundation, uniting disparate factions on the left. CAP spin-offs include Campus Progress and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)lobby group. Hillary Clinton takes partial credit for creating CAP, and maintains close ties to it. Reporter Robert Dreyfuss wrote that, “It’s not completely wrong to see [CAP] as a shadow
government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile—or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.”
*Democracy: A Journal of Ideas: DA partners have given $25,000 to the start-up publication founded by former White House speechwriters Andrei Cherny and Kenneth Baer. Soros’s Open Society Institute gave the journal $50,000.
*People for the American Way: In 2006 the DA approved a grant to this vocal activist group, founded by Alliance member Norman Lear, but the amount is unknown. Its president emeritus is Ralph Neas. Hollywood actors Alec Baldwin and Kathleen Turner, along with socialite Bianca Jagger, sit on its foundation’s board of directors.
*New Democratic Network (NDN): This activist group, which encompasses the NDN Political Fund, the New Politics Institute, and the Hispanic Strategy Center is headed by Simon Rosenberg. Rosenberg was previously a television news writer and producer, and political strategist for the Dukakis and Clinton presidential campaigns. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*Progressive Majority: This group, created in 2001, focuses on electing left-wingers at the state and local level and developing a “farm team” of progressive candidates. Its founder and president is Gloria A. Totten, formerly political director for NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America. DA grants to this group total at least $5 million.
*Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): This Soros-funded group sees itself as a left-wing version of Judicial Watch, the conservative legal group that filed a barrage of lawsuits against the Clinton administration in the 1990s. CREW executive director Melanie Sloan is a former U.S. Attorney and Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.
*Center for Progressive Leadership: This organization wants to mirror the conservative Leadership Institute. The center’s website describes the group as “a national political training institute dedicated to developing the next generation of progressive political leaders. Through intensive training programs for youth, activists, and future candidates, CPL provides individuals with the skills and resources needed to become effective political leaders.” CPL President Peter Murray acknowledged in July 2006 that donations from Alliance members boosted the group’s budget to $2.3 million, up from $1 million the year before.
*Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN): ACORN is a radical activist group active in housing programs and “living wage” campaigns in inner cities neighborhoods in more than 75 U.S. cities. In recent years it has been implicated in a number of fraudulent voter-registration schemes. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*EMILY’s List: While the political action committee boasts that it is “the nation’s largest grassroots political network,” it is essentially a fundraising vehicle for pro-abortion rights female political candidates. EMILY, according to the group’s website, “is an acronym for ‘Early Money Is Like Yeast’ (it helps the dough rise).” The group’s president is veteran political fundraiser Ellen Malcolm. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*America Votes: Another get-out-the-vote 527 organization, it is headed by Maggie Fox, a former deputy executive director of the Sierra Club. The group received a $6 million funding commitment from Soros.
*Air America: Described by the New York Observer as “a reliable destroyer of the fortunes of wealthy, well-meaning liberals,” the struggling left-wing talk radio network is said to have lost an astounding $41 million since 2004. After it reportedly received a funding commitment of at least $8 million from the Alliance, it filed for bankruptcy protection in October 2006 listing liabilities of more than $20 million and assets of just $4 million. DA member Rob Glaser has invested at least $10 in the network over the years. (The Politico, December 6, 2007) Air America was purchased by the family of Mark Green, a perennial New York office-seeker who founded the New Democracy Project, a left-wing policy institute.
*Sierra Club: The influential environmental organization—#7 on Greenwatch.org’s “Gang Green” list of the worst environmental activist groups—entered into a “strategic alliance” with the United Steelworkers union. (See Labor Watch, October 2006) Led by executive director Carl Pope, the Club successfully targeted property rights champion Representative Richard Pombo(R-California), who was defeated in 2006. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*Center for Community Change: This longtime group dedicated to defending welfare entitlements and leftist anti-poverty programs was founded in 1968. Activist Deepak Bhargava is its executive director.
*USAction: This group works closely with organized labor. It is the successor to Citizen Action, the activist group discredited by its involvement in the money-laundering scandal to re-elect Teamsters president Ron Carey in the late 1990s.
*Catalist: Formerly called Data Warehouse, this group was created by Clinton aide Harold Ickes and Democratic operative Laura Quinn. Ickes is critical of the DNC under chairman Howard Dean and aims to create a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation that rivals the Republican Party’s. Soros put $11 million at Ickes’s disposal because he distrusts Dean, the Washington Post reported. Albert J. Dwoskin, a DA board member and real estate developer in Fairfax, Virginia, is chairman of Catalist.
*Employment Policy Institute: The chairman of this liberal think tank is Gerald W. McEntee, who is also president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees(AFSCME). Other labor figures such as SEIU’s Stern are on the board. Julianne Malveaux, the black economist who condemned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a traitor to fellow African-American, is secretary-treasurer. Of Thomas, Malveaux once said: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease…He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
*Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: This left-leaning think tank is headed by Robert Greenstein, who served in the Carter administration and received a MacArthur Fellowship (the so-called genius award) in the 1990s.
*AmericanForeignPolicy.org: A new startup headed by University of Connecticut law professor Richard Parker claims on its website to have received funding from three DA partners. Parker authored “a major study” for the DA “on investment gaps and needs in promoting a progressive national security and foreign policy,” the site says.
Forests were wiped off the map to produce the mountains of paper needed to print the staggering array of angry leftist books that followed George W. Bush’s election in 2000 and reelection in 2004. However, two tracts published in 2004 have attracted more serious attention from liberals worried about their loss of influence: What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, by Thomas Frank, and Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, by George Lakoff. Frank’s book foreshadows the arrival of the Democracy Alliance. Conservative thinkers “imagine countless conspiracies in which the wealthy, powerful, and well connected – the liberal media, the atheistic scientists, the obnoxious eastern elite— pull the strings and make the puppets dance,” he writes.
Among Thomas Frank’s circle of acquaintances, it is natural to see Democrats as “the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized.” Frank wrote his book because he was astonished to discover that most voters in the Great Plains were fundamentally pro-Bush, even though it was “a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns.” Frank’s book describes Americans as masses too ignorant or confused to recognize their own economic self-interest: “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement…has put the Republicans in charge of all three branches of government; it has elected presidents, senators, governors; it shifts the Democrats to the right and then impeaches Bill Clinton just for fun.” This represents the liberal elitist attitude that pervades the new democratic party!
Frank also resents the stereotyping of liberals as shallow, materialistic, arrogant urban elitists. This “latte libel” is one of conservatives’ “dearest rhetorical maneuvers.” It holds that “liberals are identifiable by their tastes and consumer preferences and that these tastes and preferences reveal the essential arrogance and foreignness of liberalism.” Astonishingly, Frank even dismisses the idea that America has a liberal elite, calling the notion “not intellectually robust.” The idea “has been refuted countless times, and it falls apart under any sort of systematic scrutiny.” However, if one looks into the leadership and membership then you definitely see an elitist attitude.
Frank wants American workers to rediscover Big Government liberalism, however, the rise of the Democracy Alliance gives the reality of Frank’s analysis. If George Soros understands that his self-interest lies with the creation of a progressive infrastructure of think tanks and media groups serving the Democratic Party, then perhaps the people of Kansas are right to suspect that there’s nothing the matter with Kansas. The problem is with political groups that depend on the billionaires in the Democracy Alliance.
George Lakoff’s thoughts on the language of politics have been compared to the ideas of GOP pollster Frank Luntz (author of Words that Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear) who counsels Republicans to speak of “personalizing” Social Security instead of “privatizing” it, and who prefers “exploring for energy” to “drilling for oil.” Similarly, Lakoff argues that Americans view politics through the metaphorical “frame” of a family. GOP-friendly phrases such as “pro-life” and “tax relief” are associated with fathers willing to protect against external threats. By contrast, Democratic rhetoric evokes images of smothering mothers.
Lakoff, a linguistic theorist and former protégé of leftist/marxist icon Noam Chomsky, contends that if Democrats allow Republicans to frame the debate, they will lose. But he cautions: “One of the major mistakes liberals make is that they think they have all the ideas they need. They think that all they lack is media access. Or maybe some magic bullet phrases, like partial-birth abortion. When you think you just lack words, what you really lack are ideas.”
Lakoff believes the power of government should be harnessed to do good, citing the supposed accomplishments of the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt, trust-busting, the establishment of labor standards, the New Deal, and civil rights. His work has garnered praise from the Democratic establishment, which finds consolation in its arguments that all the party needs to do is learn how to “frame the debate.”
Howard Dean, who wrote the book’s foreword, gushed about the book, predicting that Lakoff will be regarded as “one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement when the history of this century is written.” Representative George Miller (D-California) bought copies of the book for all his fellow Democrats in the House, and Nancy Pelosi (D-California), now Speaker of the House, said Lakoff “has taken people here to a place, whether you agree or disagree with his particular frame, where they know there has to be a frame. They all agree without any question that you don’t speak on Republican terms.”
But the public’s low esteem for the Democratic membership in Congress suggests that liberal ideas are not good enough. While the Democracy Alliance invests heavily in infrastructure and marketing or “branding” new policies, it seems clear that its donors have yet to find ideas attractive to the American people.
Democrats have become "The Party of the Rich"! The idea that Democrats are the party of the downtrodden is demonstrably false. “The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new ‘party of the rich,’” according to Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation. Franc crunched Internal Revenue Service income data and found that most of America’s most affluent congressional districts are represented by Democrats. Democrats represent about 58% of the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, and more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in 18 states. Franc also found that despite Democrats’ rhetorical labeling of the GOP as the party of the rich, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts.” Which supports what I have been saying for years as I try to reason with my democrat friends.
Although Republicans used to regularly out-fundraise Democrats, America’s resurgent left is changing the political giving environment. Political contribution figures provided by the Center for Responsive Politics suggest that high-dollar donors increasingly prefer donkeys over elephants. Of donors giving $95,000 or more to candidates, parties, or Leadership PACs in the current election cycle, 69% of the money went to Democrats, compared to the paltry 7% that went to Republicans ($1.6 million to Democrats versus $200,000 to Republicans and $600,000 to PACs). In the $10,000-plus category, 69% went to Democrats while 34% went to Republicans ($97.9 million to Democrats, $54.2 million to Republicans, $13.2 million to PACs). Democrats have an edge in the lower-dollar categories as well. In the $2,300-plus category, 55% went to Democrats while 37% went to Republicans ($267.4 million to Democrats, $180.0 million to Republicans, $49.9 million to PACs). In the $200 to $2,299 category, 43% went to Democrats and 39% went to Republicans ($102.4 million to Democrats, $92.3 million to Republicans, $43.8 million to PACs) (FEC data as of September 24, 2007,
High-dollar donations from individuals in the 2006 election cycle followed the same pattern, according to data provided by the Center. In the $95,000-plus category, Democrats got 56% of the money compared to 38% by Republicans ($28.3 million to Democrats, $19.3 million to Republicans, $5.6 million to PACs) and in the $10,000-plus category, Democrats edged out Republicans 45% to 44% ($251.5 million to Democrats, $246.1 million to Republicans, $96.7 million to PACs)." This is why Obama has raised a huge amount of funds for his reelection bid.
This is a condensed history of how the "Elite Rich" proletariat have taken control of the Democratic Party and molded it into a "progressive/socialist marxist" party lead by the super rich. These elites put Obama into the Whitehouse and will do anything necessary to keep him in power. The useful idiots in the lamestreet news media of course will report whatever is needed to keep these marxists in power as well. Mr. Soros is a "person of interest" in determining what happens to our beloved America.
Voters, democrats and republicans and independents, must begin to become involved and understand what Soros is doing because November, 2012 is rapidly approaching. Please believe me, as a former democrat, when I tell you that the liberals will do anything that will keep this group in power even if it is illegal! As long as democrats are the party bought and paid for by George Soros then you will see that Soros and his "rich elite" proletariat partners will have complete control over this new Marxist party they have purchased!
*Media Matters for America: This group headed by journalist David Brock, known for his aggressive reporting on the Clintons, claims to expose right-wing news bias. Its self-described mission involves monitoring “conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Brock has generated at least $7 million for Media Matters through the DA. While Brock and Clinton are reportedly not the best of friends, she has helped Media Matters and has close ties to the group. Kelly Craighead, one of Hillary Clinton’s closest friends, was a top paid advisor to Media Matters when it was set up. Craighead is currently the Alliance’s managing director, and in 2007, the group’s website credited her with “aligning more than $60 million in Alliance Partner investments.”
*Center for American Progress: Former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta heads the think tank that has received at least $9 million through the DA. According to Bai, the “vast majority” of the funding came from Soros, Peter Lewis, and the Sandlers. CAP aspires to be a counterpart to the Heritage Foundation, uniting disparate factions on the left. CAP spin-offs include Campus Progress and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)lobby group. Hillary Clinton takes partial credit for creating CAP, and maintains close ties to it. Reporter Robert Dreyfuss wrote that, “It’s not completely wrong to see [CAP] as a shadow
government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile—or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.”
*Democracy: A Journal of Ideas: DA partners have given $25,000 to the start-up publication founded by former White House speechwriters Andrei Cherny and Kenneth Baer. Soros’s Open Society Institute gave the journal $50,000.
*People for the American Way: In 2006 the DA approved a grant to this vocal activist group, founded by Alliance member Norman Lear, but the amount is unknown. Its president emeritus is Ralph Neas. Hollywood actors Alec Baldwin and Kathleen Turner, along with socialite Bianca Jagger, sit on its foundation’s board of directors.
*New Democratic Network (NDN): This activist group, which encompasses the NDN Political Fund, the New Politics Institute, and the Hispanic Strategy Center is headed by Simon Rosenberg. Rosenberg was previously a television news writer and producer, and political strategist for the Dukakis and Clinton presidential campaigns. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*Progressive Majority: This group, created in 2001, focuses on electing left-wingers at the state and local level and developing a “farm team” of progressive candidates. Its founder and president is Gloria A. Totten, formerly political director for NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America. DA grants to this group total at least $5 million.
*Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): This Soros-funded group sees itself as a left-wing version of Judicial Watch, the conservative legal group that filed a barrage of lawsuits against the Clinton administration in the 1990s. CREW executive director Melanie Sloan is a former U.S. Attorney and Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.
*Center for Progressive Leadership: This organization wants to mirror the conservative Leadership Institute. The center’s website describes the group as “a national political training institute dedicated to developing the next generation of progressive political leaders. Through intensive training programs for youth, activists, and future candidates, CPL provides individuals with the skills and resources needed to become effective political leaders.” CPL President Peter Murray acknowledged in July 2006 that donations from Alliance members boosted the group’s budget to $2.3 million, up from $1 million the year before.
*Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN): ACORN is a radical activist group active in housing programs and “living wage” campaigns in inner cities neighborhoods in more than 75 U.S. cities. In recent years it has been implicated in a number of fraudulent voter-registration schemes. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*EMILY’s List: While the political action committee boasts that it is “the nation’s largest grassroots political network,” it is essentially a fundraising vehicle for pro-abortion rights female political candidates. EMILY, according to the group’s website, “is an acronym for ‘Early Money Is Like Yeast’ (it helps the dough rise).” The group’s president is veteran political fundraiser Ellen Malcolm. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*America Votes: Another get-out-the-vote 527 organization, it is headed by Maggie Fox, a former deputy executive director of the Sierra Club. The group received a $6 million funding commitment from Soros.
*Air America: Described by the New York Observer as “a reliable destroyer of the fortunes of wealthy, well-meaning liberals,” the struggling left-wing talk radio network is said to have lost an astounding $41 million since 2004. After it reportedly received a funding commitment of at least $8 million from the Alliance, it filed for bankruptcy protection in October 2006 listing liabilities of more than $20 million and assets of just $4 million. DA member Rob Glaser has invested at least $10 in the network over the years. (The Politico, December 6, 2007) Air America was purchased by the family of Mark Green, a perennial New York office-seeker who founded the New Democracy Project, a left-wing policy institute.
*Sierra Club: The influential environmental organization—#7 on Greenwatch.org’s “Gang Green” list of the worst environmental activist groups—entered into a “strategic alliance” with the United Steelworkers union. (See Labor Watch, October 2006) Led by executive director Carl Pope, the Club successfully targeted property rights champion Representative Richard Pombo(R-California), who was defeated in 2006. The DA approved a grant to this group in 2006 but the amount is unknown.
*Center for Community Change: This longtime group dedicated to defending welfare entitlements and leftist anti-poverty programs was founded in 1968. Activist Deepak Bhargava is its executive director.
*USAction: This group works closely with organized labor. It is the successor to Citizen Action, the activist group discredited by its involvement in the money-laundering scandal to re-elect Teamsters president Ron Carey in the late 1990s.
*Catalist: Formerly called Data Warehouse, this group was created by Clinton aide Harold Ickes and Democratic operative Laura Quinn. Ickes is critical of the DNC under chairman Howard Dean and aims to create a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation that rivals the Republican Party’s. Soros put $11 million at Ickes’s disposal because he distrusts Dean, the Washington Post reported. Albert J. Dwoskin, a DA board member and real estate developer in Fairfax, Virginia, is chairman of Catalist.
*Employment Policy Institute: The chairman of this liberal think tank is Gerald W. McEntee, who is also president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees(AFSCME). Other labor figures such as SEIU’s Stern are on the board. Julianne Malveaux, the black economist who condemned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a traitor to fellow African-American, is secretary-treasurer. Of Thomas, Malveaux once said: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease…He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
*Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: This left-leaning think tank is headed by Robert Greenstein, who served in the Carter administration and received a MacArthur Fellowship (the so-called genius award) in the 1990s.
*AmericanForeignPolicy.org: A new startup headed by University of Connecticut law professor Richard Parker claims on its website to have received funding from three DA partners. Parker authored “a major study” for the DA “on investment gaps and needs in promoting a progressive national security and foreign policy,” the site says.
Forests were wiped off the map to produce the mountains of paper needed to print the staggering array of angry leftist books that followed George W. Bush’s election in 2000 and reelection in 2004. However, two tracts published in 2004 have attracted more serious attention from liberals worried about their loss of influence: What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, by Thomas Frank, and Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, by George Lakoff. Frank’s book foreshadows the arrival of the Democracy Alliance. Conservative thinkers “imagine countless conspiracies in which the wealthy, powerful, and well connected – the liberal media, the atheistic scientists, the obnoxious eastern elite— pull the strings and make the puppets dance,” he writes.
Among Thomas Frank’s circle of acquaintances, it is natural to see Democrats as “the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized.” Frank wrote his book because he was astonished to discover that most voters in the Great Plains were fundamentally pro-Bush, even though it was “a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns.” Frank’s book describes Americans as masses too ignorant or confused to recognize their own economic self-interest: “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement…has put the Republicans in charge of all three branches of government; it has elected presidents, senators, governors; it shifts the Democrats to the right and then impeaches Bill Clinton just for fun.” This represents the liberal elitist attitude that pervades the new democratic party!
Frank also resents the stereotyping of liberals as shallow, materialistic, arrogant urban elitists. This “latte libel” is one of conservatives’ “dearest rhetorical maneuvers.” It holds that “liberals are identifiable by their tastes and consumer preferences and that these tastes and preferences reveal the essential arrogance and foreignness of liberalism.” Astonishingly, Frank even dismisses the idea that America has a liberal elite, calling the notion “not intellectually robust.” The idea “has been refuted countless times, and it falls apart under any sort of systematic scrutiny.” However, if one looks into the leadership and membership then you definitely see an elitist attitude.
Frank wants American workers to rediscover Big Government liberalism, however, the rise of the Democracy Alliance gives the reality of Frank’s analysis. If George Soros understands that his self-interest lies with the creation of a progressive infrastructure of think tanks and media groups serving the Democratic Party, then perhaps the people of Kansas are right to suspect that there’s nothing the matter with Kansas. The problem is with political groups that depend on the billionaires in the Democracy Alliance.
George Lakoff’s thoughts on the language of politics have been compared to the ideas of GOP pollster Frank Luntz (author of Words that Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear) who counsels Republicans to speak of “personalizing” Social Security instead of “privatizing” it, and who prefers “exploring for energy” to “drilling for oil.” Similarly, Lakoff argues that Americans view politics through the metaphorical “frame” of a family. GOP-friendly phrases such as “pro-life” and “tax relief” are associated with fathers willing to protect against external threats. By contrast, Democratic rhetoric evokes images of smothering mothers.
Lakoff, a linguistic theorist and former protégé of leftist/marxist icon Noam Chomsky, contends that if Democrats allow Republicans to frame the debate, they will lose. But he cautions: “One of the major mistakes liberals make is that they think they have all the ideas they need. They think that all they lack is media access. Or maybe some magic bullet phrases, like partial-birth abortion. When you think you just lack words, what you really lack are ideas.”
Lakoff believes the power of government should be harnessed to do good, citing the supposed accomplishments of the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt, trust-busting, the establishment of labor standards, the New Deal, and civil rights. His work has garnered praise from the Democratic establishment, which finds consolation in its arguments that all the party needs to do is learn how to “frame the debate.”
Howard Dean, who wrote the book’s foreword, gushed about the book, predicting that Lakoff will be regarded as “one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement when the history of this century is written.” Representative George Miller (D-California) bought copies of the book for all his fellow Democrats in the House, and Nancy Pelosi (D-California), now Speaker of the House, said Lakoff “has taken people here to a place, whether you agree or disagree with his particular frame, where they know there has to be a frame. They all agree without any question that you don’t speak on Republican terms.”
But the public’s low esteem for the Democratic membership in Congress suggests that liberal ideas are not good enough. While the Democracy Alliance invests heavily in infrastructure and marketing or “branding” new policies, it seems clear that its donors have yet to find ideas attractive to the American people.
Democrats have become "The Party of the Rich"! The idea that Democrats are the party of the downtrodden is demonstrably false. “The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new ‘party of the rich,’” according to Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation. Franc crunched Internal Revenue Service income data and found that most of America’s most affluent congressional districts are represented by Democrats. Democrats represent about 58% of the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, and more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in 18 states. Franc also found that despite Democrats’ rhetorical labeling of the GOP as the party of the rich, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts.” Which supports what I have been saying for years as I try to reason with my democrat friends.
Although Republicans used to regularly out-fundraise Democrats, America’s resurgent left is changing the political giving environment. Political contribution figures provided by the Center for Responsive Politics suggest that high-dollar donors increasingly prefer donkeys over elephants. Of donors giving $95,000 or more to candidates, parties, or Leadership PACs in the current election cycle, 69% of the money went to Democrats, compared to the paltry 7% that went to Republicans ($1.6 million to Democrats versus $200,000 to Republicans and $600,000 to PACs). In the $10,000-plus category, 69% went to Democrats while 34% went to Republicans ($97.9 million to Democrats, $54.2 million to Republicans, $13.2 million to PACs). Democrats have an edge in the lower-dollar categories as well. In the $2,300-plus category, 55% went to Democrats while 37% went to Republicans ($267.4 million to Democrats, $180.0 million to Republicans, $49.9 million to PACs). In the $200 to $2,299 category, 43% went to Democrats and 39% went to Republicans ($102.4 million to Democrats, $92.3 million to Republicans, $43.8 million to PACs) (FEC data as of September 24, 2007,
High-dollar donations from individuals in the 2006 election cycle followed the same pattern, according to data provided by the Center. In the $95,000-plus category, Democrats got 56% of the money compared to 38% by Republicans ($28.3 million to Democrats, $19.3 million to Republicans, $5.6 million to PACs) and in the $10,000-plus category, Democrats edged out Republicans 45% to 44% ($251.5 million to Democrats, $246.1 million to Republicans, $96.7 million to PACs)." This is why Obama has raised a huge amount of funds for his reelection bid.
This is a condensed history of how the "Elite Rich" proletariat have taken control of the Democratic Party and molded it into a "progressive/socialist marxist" party lead by the super rich. These elites put Obama into the Whitehouse and will do anything necessary to keep him in power. The useful idiots in the lamestreet news media of course will report whatever is needed to keep these marxists in power as well. Mr. Soros is a "person of interest" in determining what happens to our beloved America.
Voters, democrats and republicans and independents, must begin to become involved and understand what Soros is doing because November, 2012 is rapidly approaching. Please believe me, as a former democrat, when I tell you that the liberals will do anything that will keep this group in power even if it is illegal! As long as democrats are the party bought and paid for by George Soros then you will see that Soros and his "rich elite" proletariat partners will have complete control over this new Marxist party they have purchased!
Democrats and the "Big Lie"- Republicans are for the rich! part 1!
Democrats have for many, many years told everyone that would listen "that they are for the average guy and Republicans are for the rich". When I was young and dumb I was a true believer and repeated this myth with the rest of the useful idiots. Then one day I saw the light and realized that this was nothing more than the democrats version of the "big lie". Since that moment I have tried to inform my liberal friends of this deception but, because most liberals have a genetic defect that will not allow them to reason, think coherently or listen to the facts, I gave up these futile discussions a very long time ago. However, I still give these warnings because I truly believe that something big is going to happen in 2012!
Based upon an article that I read recently by Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger I found some thoughts that I felt supported this opinion. I have presented a summary of what they wrote a few years back because it tells us a lot about the current state of politics in America! I have divided their article into two parts so that the reader can digest all the important facts that Vadum and Dillinger mention. These facts should give every American voter pause so that they can understand what is happening to our country and be better prepared to fight the coming battles with these "rich elites" that want America to become a modern serfdom. Part 2 will be a list of all the organizations that benefit from these "rich elites"
"Just a few years ago in 2005 the Democratic Party was in disarray. Despite record high-dollar donations from affluent supporters, Democrats had failed to reclaim the White House and Congress. Shell-shocked by their defeat, George Soros and many other wealthy liberals formed a loose-knit group to consider how to fund a political comeback. Their answer: Create a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups—a kind of “vast left-wing conspiracy” to compete with the conservative movement. The group they created –called the Democracy Alliance (DA)— is meant to be a financial clearinghouse. The Alliance got off to a rocky start, but by January, 2008 it had brokered more than $100 million in grants to liberal nonprofits. The goal is not merely to elect Democrats, but to permanently realign U.S. politics." They want a definite progressive "marxist" state to be established with the "rich elite" in command of the rest of the serfs!
"The Democracy Alliance (DA) is maturing. After several years of internal strife, management squabbles, a few political purges, and frustrating electoral setbacks, the group whose mission is to tilt American politics leftward has found its footing. The DA is becoming what leftist blogger Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos fame called for in 2005: “A vast, vast Left Wing Conspiracy to rival” the conservative movement. It relies less on traditional Democratic Party “machine” politics, which typically draws upon institutions (the party itself, labor unions), and single-issue advocacy groups (pro-abortion rights groups, the National Education Association and other teacher unions). Although it is officially nonpartisan, the DA has cultivated deep and extensive ties to the progressive socialist Democratic Party establishment."
"Senator Hillary Clinton’s good friend, Kelly Craighead, runs the Alliance’s day-to-day operations. Clinton brags that she has helped create what she calls “a lot of the new progressive" (communist) "infrastructure.” Last August Clinton told the Yearly Kos
convention of left-wing bloggers that she “helped to start and support” Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress (CAP), two recipients of DA grants. Media Matters is headed by conservative turncoat David Brock; CAP is headed John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff."
"After the Republicans won big in the 2010 election Democracy Alliance members started to think that the Democratic Party’s future success requires ideological re-branding. They may question whether the word progressive is a political winner, but they know liberal isn’t. Asked if she would call herself a “liberal,” Hillary Clinton backed away from the label, noting that liberalism “describes big government.” She preferred “progressive,” which has a “real American meaning.” “The liberal brand is tarnished,” said Alliance member Rob Glaser, who heads the online multimedia company RealNetworks." What they are trying to do is pull the wool over the voters eyes with a new term for their marxist agenda and call it progressive, as if we stupid voters can not understand. He stated that he wants to “change the political paradigm” and treat the word “progressive” as a thing “that’s nurtured and managed just like any other brand.” To test his theory, Glaser teamed up with Podesta’s CAP and spent $600,000 on TV ads in the Midwest over a three-week period. He proudly claims liberals in the test areas subsequently rechristened themselves progressives. However, CAP research shows that as much as 40% of the public has no clue what “progressive” means" which really means nothing since about 40% are clueless anyway and only parrot what the marxist elites tell them.
"Democratic Party activists and supporters began to coalesce around an informal coalition they called the Phoenix Group lead by George Soros and many other wealthy liberals, which was later to become the Democracy Alliance. Donors gave millions of dollars to liberal candidates and 527 political committees, but there was no electoral payoff. Despondent, a small group of the wealthiest Democrats met in San Francisco a month after the election for sober reflection on John Kerry’s failure to win the presidency. George Soros, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter B. Lewis, and S&L tycoons Herb and Marion Sandler felt let down, seduced by the siren song of pollsters and the mainstream media who had assured them that Kerry would triumph over an incumbent president in wartime. Around the same time another group of wealthy Democratic donors met in Washington, D.C. feeling the same way."
"Soros and the other major players assembled a large group for a secret planning session. Seventy millionaires and billionaires (there are only 403 billionaires in America) met in Phoenix, Arizona, to discuss how to develop a long-term strategy. The attendees including former Clinton White House aides Mike McCurry, Sidney Blumenthal, and LBJ staffer turned PBS talking head Bill Moyers, listened as officials from all the pro-Democratic Party 527 groups on which they had lavished millions of dollars explained why they failed to deliver the election to Kerry."
"Former Clinton official Rob Stein, a personable attorney whose voice lacks the edge and anger of Howard Dean, urged members to pay closer attention to conservatives who had spent four decades investing in ideas and institutions with staying power. Stein showed his PowerPoint presentation to political operatives and financiers willing to take an oath to keep it confidential. Called “The Conservative Message Machine’s Money Matrix,” Stein showed a series of graphs and charts depicting an intricate network of organizations, funders, and activists that comprised what he said was the conservative movement. “This is perhaps the most potent, independent, institutionalized apparatus (code for the rich elite) ever assembled in a democracy to promote one belief system,” (this belief system being the progressive/socialist marxist view) Stein said.
Thinking about his “Money Matrix” tour, Stein recalled liberals’ anguish: “There was also a deep passion about a set of values and beliefs that weren’t being surfaced, that weren’t being heard, that we couldn’t find language or messages to communicate. There was an unbelievable frustration, particularly among the donor class on the center-left, with trying to set up everything as an unrepeated event – with every single one of them being a single donor and not having the ability to communicate effectively with a network of donors. So those were really the reasons people came together.”
"Stein believed the left could not compete electorally because it was hopelessly outgunned by the right’s political infrastructure. By his tally, the right spent $170 million a year on think tanks, versus the left’s $85 million. The right spent $35 million on legal advocacy organizations, while the left anted up a mere $5 million. The right spent $8 million to train young conservatives at Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute, while the left spent almost nothing. The result, Stein reasoned, was that conservatives not only won elections, but also changed the national political debate. By contrast to well-endowed conservatives, liberal activist groups and think tanks were hard up for cash, competing with each other for the same pool of funds rather than working toward shared objectives. Stein’s curious calculus flattered conservatives and shamed the left by finding a great imbalance in their revenues. But oddly, he did not count the vast liberal support found in academic programs and institutes, grant making by the great foundations, or the resources of the mainstream media as adjuncts of the political left. Apparently this was the plan all along in their attempt to shame this group into action with a little deceit. The great delusion of Democracy Alliance donors is that conservatives comprise a “vast right wing conspiracy.”
"Stein felt Democrats had grown accustomed to thinking of themselves as the natural majority party. As a result, the party had become a top-down organization run by professional politicians who cared little about donors’ (the Rich elite) concerns. He was
convinced that the Democratic Party’s hierarchy had to be turned upside-down: Donors (rich elite) should fund an ideological movement that would dictate policies to the politicians. Activists, who had infused the party with new money and new energy, were fed
up with perceived Democratic dithering and were demanding more say in party affairs. Said Eli Pariser, a young activist in the group MoveOn.org (a George Soros funded group): “Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
Democratic donors aggravated by the GOP’s electoral success latched on to Stein’s vision. “The new breed of rich and frustrated leftists” saw themselves as oppressed both by “a
Republican conspiracy” and “by their own party and its insipid Washington establishment,” writes journalist Matt Bai, author of the new book, The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. “This, more than anything else, was what drew them to Rob Stein’s presentation,” writes Bai.
"Stein’s presentation won converts and in 2005 the Democracy Alliance was born. It was an odd name for a loose collection of super-rich donors committed to building organizations that would propel America to the left. There have been many speed Bumps on the Road to Socialism. In its short time on the political scene, the Democracy Alliance has been shaken by dissent and strife, much of which is newly detailed in Matt Bai’s book." However, the bottom line is the democratic party is now owned by George Soros and his rich elite friends and the rank and file democrats still believe the myth that the leaders are for the common person! There are very few real Democrats left and they can do nothing to fight those that have taken over their party and converted it to a "progressive/socialist marxist" party.
"DA partners booted out Erica Payne, the political consultant who invoked the image of Pearl Harbor to rally the troops in 2004. Payne created bad blood when she led an effort to oust Rob Stein as DA chief. Stein’s successor was Judy Wade, a former McKinsey & Company management consultant and graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. But Wade was considered tactless and was fired from her $400,000-a-year job at a post-2006 election meeting of the Democracy Alliance board. Board members promised to streamline the group’s Byzantine grant-making process and brought Stein back to the group’s inner circle. Hillary Clinton’s friend, Kelly Craighead, who was a senior aide to Clinton when she was First Lady, replaced Wade and all but one member of a “reform” slate of candidates pushed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was elected to the board."
"Meanwhile, Bernard L. Schwartz, former CEO of Loral Space & Communications and one of the largest donors to the Democratic National Committee in the 1990s, quit the DA because he thought it lacked direction. “They were looking for who they should be when they grow up, and whoever had the latest idea, they went off in that direction,” he told Bai just before the 2006 elections. (Schwartz’s wife, Irene, is the president of the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, and both spouses are close friends of the Clintons. The Schwartz Foundation has given $450,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation since 2000, and in 2003 it gave $500,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Schwartz is also a big supporter of the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank that seems to steer clear of the more political calculations of the Democracy Alliance.) Schwartz is also active in the Horizon Project, a self-described group of “policy innovators.” Its February 2007 report urged Congress to implement “a Marshall-type Plan for America” that would force all Americans to carry health insurance and that would eliminate federal income taxes for K-12 teachers, a key Democratic Party constituency."
'Campaign donations now favor Democrats, big Time, political observers may well wonder whether the Democratic Party needs the pushy billionaires of the Democracy Alliance. No matter how the data are sliced and diced, in the current election cycle Democrats are clobbering Republicans in fundraising. Corporate America now leans left. A few years ago, six of the ten top-giving industries gave more to the GOP, but the watchdog Center for Responsive Politics finds that all are now giving more to Democrats. Democrat-friendly donors have dominated the list of the top 21 donors to 527s, the issue-driven tax-exempt groups not regulated by the FEC. They seem likely to do so again. The Service Employees International Union, an institutional member of the DA, topped the 2006 list with almost $33 million. Other top 527 donors associated with the Alliance include Soros Fund Management ($3,445,000), America Votes ($2,345,000), Peter B. Lewis/Progressive Corp. ($1,624,375), and the Gill Foundation ($1,181,355). Corporations and labor unions, which cannot give directly to political parties or candidates to federal office, may make unlimited contributions to 527s. The only restriction: the law forbids political parties and 527s from “coordinating” their activities but there no enforcement regulations. (Data from the IRS is October 3, 2007, based on disclosure reports).
"As federal regulators clamp down on 527 political organizations, wealthy donors are giving heavily to politically active 501(c) lobby organizations. Contributions to 501(c) lobby groups are not tax-deductible, unlike gifts to 501(c) charities. However, unlike 527s, 501(c) groups are not required to disclose the names of their donors. Still, 527s are useful, DA chairman Rob McKay and his lieutenants, SEIU’s Anna Burger and CAP’s John Podesta registered a new 527 group called The Fund for America. The new entity could pump “perhaps $100 million or more into media buys and voter outreach in the run-up to the 2008 elections,” Roll Call reported. A “well-placed” but unidentified source said, “They intend to raise money and spend money on [unregulated] soft money operations, voter contact through existing organizations or new organizations.”
"The Democracy Alliance (DA) filed its corporate registration in the District of Columbia in January 2005. Little money passes through Alliance bank accounts because it is a middle man that puts donors together with causes deemed worthy of support. In the early years only two grants to the DA showed up in the Foundation Search philanthropy database, and both went to the Democracy Alliance “Innovation Fund,” which Stein told a Hudson Institute panel is “a very small thing…that makes very small grants” to 501(c) groups. The fund took in a $50,000 grant in 2006 by the Enfranchisement Foundation, and a $50,000 grant the year before by the Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation.'
"Rob Stein explained the group’s legal structure to the Hudson panel: “It is a taxable nonprofit. Think of it as a corporation that does not make a profit and doesn’t aspire to make a profit. We’re an association of individuals. We have a board of directors – 13 people elected by the partners (rich elite) and we file corporate papers regularly and comply with all disclosure requirements.”
"In other words, the DA has no interest in asking the IRS to register it as tax-exempt or to allow contributions to it to be tax-deductible. Were the DA to request tax-exemption as a 501(c) lobby group or as a 527 political group, it would have to abide by a dizzying array of legal constraints. Members of the Democracy Alliance proletariat may want to impose Big Government bureaucracy and red tape on Americans, but the friends of George Soros are too rich to be bothered. The democrats will still convey to all that will listen the myth that the Republicans are only for the rich and democrats are for the poor!"
"The DA’s board is a microcosm of the modern left. In the top rungs are a limousine liberal, a labor activist, and a peacenik from the 1960s. DA chairman Rob McKay is also president of the McKay Family Foundation, a director of Vanguard Public Foundation, co-chairman of Mother Jones magazine, board member of the Ms. Foundation for Women, and a
blogger on the Huffington Post website. He was born in conservative Orange County, California and his parents were Republicans. The DA vice chairman is Anna Burger, sometimes known as the “Queen of Labor.” She is secretary-treasurer of the militant SEIU and chairman of Change to Win, the labor federation formed after SEIU joined other unions in breaking away from the AFL-CIO. Gannett News Service called Burger arguably “the most influential woman in the U.S. labor movement.” Drummond Pike, founder of the ultra-liberal Tides Foundation (another Soros funded marxist group), is the DA’s treasurer.'
"The Democracy Alliance does not endorse candidates for public office. Stein describes it as a “gathering place,” “learning environment,” “debating society,” and “investment club.” The DA is “a big tent, a convener for the full spectrum of center-left thought and perspective". In my opinion if you believe all of this then you really have a mental problem and should seek medical help.
"This emerging vanguard of the proletariat is hardly open to the common rabble serfs because its members must satisfy one requirement: They must be rich and the standard is several million per year not the $250,000 per year that Obama places in the rich category for tax purposes. Members, who are called “partners (rich elite/comrades),” pay an initial $25,000 fee and $30,000 in yearly dues. They also must pledge to give at least $200,000 annually to groups that the Alliance endorses. Partners (comrades) meet two times a year in committees to decide on grants, which focus on four areas: media, ideas, leadership, and civic engagement. Recommendations are then made to the DA board, which passes them on to all DA partners. The Alliance discourages partners from discussing DA affairs with the media, and it requires its grant recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements."
"While the Alliance’s structure makes it hard to find precise figures for its grant making, Matt Bai wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that DA members have “thus far poured more than $100 million into building what they call a "progressive" (communist) "infrastructure”. Before she was shown the door, Judy Wade had voiced the hope that the Alliance would eventually help members give out $500 million in grants annually. The next meeting, held in Austin, Texas in May 2006, signaled that the Democracy Alliance was perhaps becoming less a gathering of very rich donors and more a meeting of the usual suspects, the interest groups, however, the super rich were still the fat cats making huge donations."
"SEIU president Andrew Stern spoke and money-hungry grant-seekers were allowed to network with DA partners. SEIU pledged $5 million to DA-approved groups. Stern also tried unsuccessfully to get DA partners to fund labor’s public relations campaign against Wal-Mart. He told attendees that liberals needed to be flexible in their policy prescriptions and resist the temptation to reflexively defend existing government programs. Stern said he wanted national health care, child care and better public schools but was open to dismantling some entitlement programs, trying out school choice or revamping the tax code. Even trade, normally a hot-button issue for the labor movement, is on the table. “You can’t stop globalization. You can’t stop trade. That debate is over,” he said. Following Stern’s appearance at the Austin meeting, the rival AFL-CIO thought it wise to purchase membership in the DA.
It’s understandable that ultra-successful business people in the Alliance have little but disdain for the Democratic Party’s high-priced political consultants and conventional politicking: they think the party should be run more like a business. DA partners have divided their giving into what Rob Stein calls the “four buckets”: ideas, media, leadership training, and civic engagement. It is through these various groups that the "rich elites" have set up an organization that will allow them to be successful in their attempt to gain control over the Serfdom.
George Soros and his partners form the basis of this "proletariat" that has gained control of the democratic party by using their vast sums of money. It appears that they are on track in their plan to gain control of America. When good men do nothing then evil will always win. This new "proletariat" will gain control with the help of their useful idiots, the news media which is owned and operated by other radical liberals, and keeping those that do not pay taxes happy and voting as democrats. Apparently these people don't understand who is going to be the serfs and who is going to be the "proletariat".
Based upon an article that I read recently by Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger I found some thoughts that I felt supported this opinion. I have presented a summary of what they wrote a few years back because it tells us a lot about the current state of politics in America! I have divided their article into two parts so that the reader can digest all the important facts that Vadum and Dillinger mention. These facts should give every American voter pause so that they can understand what is happening to our country and be better prepared to fight the coming battles with these "rich elites" that want America to become a modern serfdom. Part 2 will be a list of all the organizations that benefit from these "rich elites"
"Just a few years ago in 2005 the Democratic Party was in disarray. Despite record high-dollar donations from affluent supporters, Democrats had failed to reclaim the White House and Congress. Shell-shocked by their defeat, George Soros and many other wealthy liberals formed a loose-knit group to consider how to fund a political comeback. Their answer: Create a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups—a kind of “vast left-wing conspiracy” to compete with the conservative movement. The group they created –called the Democracy Alliance (DA)— is meant to be a financial clearinghouse. The Alliance got off to a rocky start, but by January, 2008 it had brokered more than $100 million in grants to liberal nonprofits. The goal is not merely to elect Democrats, but to permanently realign U.S. politics." They want a definite progressive "marxist" state to be established with the "rich elite" in command of the rest of the serfs!
"The Democracy Alliance (DA) is maturing. After several years of internal strife, management squabbles, a few political purges, and frustrating electoral setbacks, the group whose mission is to tilt American politics leftward has found its footing. The DA is becoming what leftist blogger Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos fame called for in 2005: “A vast, vast Left Wing Conspiracy to rival” the conservative movement. It relies less on traditional Democratic Party “machine” politics, which typically draws upon institutions (the party itself, labor unions), and single-issue advocacy groups (pro-abortion rights groups, the National Education Association and other teacher unions). Although it is officially nonpartisan, the DA has cultivated deep and extensive ties to the progressive socialist Democratic Party establishment."
"Senator Hillary Clinton’s good friend, Kelly Craighead, runs the Alliance’s day-to-day operations. Clinton brags that she has helped create what she calls “a lot of the new progressive" (communist) "infrastructure.” Last August Clinton told the Yearly Kos
convention of left-wing bloggers that she “helped to start and support” Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress (CAP), two recipients of DA grants. Media Matters is headed by conservative turncoat David Brock; CAP is headed John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff."
"After the Republicans won big in the 2010 election Democracy Alliance members started to think that the Democratic Party’s future success requires ideological re-branding. They may question whether the word progressive is a political winner, but they know liberal isn’t. Asked if she would call herself a “liberal,” Hillary Clinton backed away from the label, noting that liberalism “describes big government.” She preferred “progressive,” which has a “real American meaning.” “The liberal brand is tarnished,” said Alliance member Rob Glaser, who heads the online multimedia company RealNetworks." What they are trying to do is pull the wool over the voters eyes with a new term for their marxist agenda and call it progressive, as if we stupid voters can not understand. He stated that he wants to “change the political paradigm” and treat the word “progressive” as a thing “that’s nurtured and managed just like any other brand.” To test his theory, Glaser teamed up with Podesta’s CAP and spent $600,000 on TV ads in the Midwest over a three-week period. He proudly claims liberals in the test areas subsequently rechristened themselves progressives. However, CAP research shows that as much as 40% of the public has no clue what “progressive” means" which really means nothing since about 40% are clueless anyway and only parrot what the marxist elites tell them.
"Democratic Party activists and supporters began to coalesce around an informal coalition they called the Phoenix Group lead by George Soros and many other wealthy liberals, which was later to become the Democracy Alliance. Donors gave millions of dollars to liberal candidates and 527 political committees, but there was no electoral payoff. Despondent, a small group of the wealthiest Democrats met in San Francisco a month after the election for sober reflection on John Kerry’s failure to win the presidency. George Soros, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter B. Lewis, and S&L tycoons Herb and Marion Sandler felt let down, seduced by the siren song of pollsters and the mainstream media who had assured them that Kerry would triumph over an incumbent president in wartime. Around the same time another group of wealthy Democratic donors met in Washington, D.C. feeling the same way."
"Soros and the other major players assembled a large group for a secret planning session. Seventy millionaires and billionaires (there are only 403 billionaires in America) met in Phoenix, Arizona, to discuss how to develop a long-term strategy. The attendees including former Clinton White House aides Mike McCurry, Sidney Blumenthal, and LBJ staffer turned PBS talking head Bill Moyers, listened as officials from all the pro-Democratic Party 527 groups on which they had lavished millions of dollars explained why they failed to deliver the election to Kerry."
"Former Clinton official Rob Stein, a personable attorney whose voice lacks the edge and anger of Howard Dean, urged members to pay closer attention to conservatives who had spent four decades investing in ideas and institutions with staying power. Stein showed his PowerPoint presentation to political operatives and financiers willing to take an oath to keep it confidential. Called “The Conservative Message Machine’s Money Matrix,” Stein showed a series of graphs and charts depicting an intricate network of organizations, funders, and activists that comprised what he said was the conservative movement. “This is perhaps the most potent, independent, institutionalized apparatus (code for the rich elite) ever assembled in a democracy to promote one belief system,” (this belief system being the progressive/socialist marxist view) Stein said.
Thinking about his “Money Matrix” tour, Stein recalled liberals’ anguish: “There was also a deep passion about a set of values and beliefs that weren’t being surfaced, that weren’t being heard, that we couldn’t find language or messages to communicate. There was an unbelievable frustration, particularly among the donor class on the center-left, with trying to set up everything as an unrepeated event – with every single one of them being a single donor and not having the ability to communicate effectively with a network of donors. So those were really the reasons people came together.”
"Stein believed the left could not compete electorally because it was hopelessly outgunned by the right’s political infrastructure. By his tally, the right spent $170 million a year on think tanks, versus the left’s $85 million. The right spent $35 million on legal advocacy organizations, while the left anted up a mere $5 million. The right spent $8 million to train young conservatives at Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute, while the left spent almost nothing. The result, Stein reasoned, was that conservatives not only won elections, but also changed the national political debate. By contrast to well-endowed conservatives, liberal activist groups and think tanks were hard up for cash, competing with each other for the same pool of funds rather than working toward shared objectives. Stein’s curious calculus flattered conservatives and shamed the left by finding a great imbalance in their revenues. But oddly, he did not count the vast liberal support found in academic programs and institutes, grant making by the great foundations, or the resources of the mainstream media as adjuncts of the political left. Apparently this was the plan all along in their attempt to shame this group into action with a little deceit. The great delusion of Democracy Alliance donors is that conservatives comprise a “vast right wing conspiracy.”
"Stein felt Democrats had grown accustomed to thinking of themselves as the natural majority party. As a result, the party had become a top-down organization run by professional politicians who cared little about donors’ (the Rich elite) concerns. He was
convinced that the Democratic Party’s hierarchy had to be turned upside-down: Donors (rich elite) should fund an ideological movement that would dictate policies to the politicians. Activists, who had infused the party with new money and new energy, were fed
up with perceived Democratic dithering and were demanding more say in party affairs. Said Eli Pariser, a young activist in the group MoveOn.org (a George Soros funded group): “Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
Democratic donors aggravated by the GOP’s electoral success latched on to Stein’s vision. “The new breed of rich and frustrated leftists” saw themselves as oppressed both by “a
Republican conspiracy” and “by their own party and its insipid Washington establishment,” writes journalist Matt Bai, author of the new book, The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. “This, more than anything else, was what drew them to Rob Stein’s presentation,” writes Bai.
"Stein’s presentation won converts and in 2005 the Democracy Alliance was born. It was an odd name for a loose collection of super-rich donors committed to building organizations that would propel America to the left. There have been many speed Bumps on the Road to Socialism. In its short time on the political scene, the Democracy Alliance has been shaken by dissent and strife, much of which is newly detailed in Matt Bai’s book." However, the bottom line is the democratic party is now owned by George Soros and his rich elite friends and the rank and file democrats still believe the myth that the leaders are for the common person! There are very few real Democrats left and they can do nothing to fight those that have taken over their party and converted it to a "progressive/socialist marxist" party.
"DA partners booted out Erica Payne, the political consultant who invoked the image of Pearl Harbor to rally the troops in 2004. Payne created bad blood when she led an effort to oust Rob Stein as DA chief. Stein’s successor was Judy Wade, a former McKinsey & Company management consultant and graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. But Wade was considered tactless and was fired from her $400,000-a-year job at a post-2006 election meeting of the Democracy Alliance board. Board members promised to streamline the group’s Byzantine grant-making process and brought Stein back to the group’s inner circle. Hillary Clinton’s friend, Kelly Craighead, who was a senior aide to Clinton when she was First Lady, replaced Wade and all but one member of a “reform” slate of candidates pushed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was elected to the board."
"Meanwhile, Bernard L. Schwartz, former CEO of Loral Space & Communications and one of the largest donors to the Democratic National Committee in the 1990s, quit the DA because he thought it lacked direction. “They were looking for who they should be when they grow up, and whoever had the latest idea, they went off in that direction,” he told Bai just before the 2006 elections. (Schwartz’s wife, Irene, is the president of the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, and both spouses are close friends of the Clintons. The Schwartz Foundation has given $450,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation since 2000, and in 2003 it gave $500,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Schwartz is also a big supporter of the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank that seems to steer clear of the more political calculations of the Democracy Alliance.) Schwartz is also active in the Horizon Project, a self-described group of “policy innovators.” Its February 2007 report urged Congress to implement “a Marshall-type Plan for America” that would force all Americans to carry health insurance and that would eliminate federal income taxes for K-12 teachers, a key Democratic Party constituency."
'Campaign donations now favor Democrats, big Time, political observers may well wonder whether the Democratic Party needs the pushy billionaires of the Democracy Alliance. No matter how the data are sliced and diced, in the current election cycle Democrats are clobbering Republicans in fundraising. Corporate America now leans left. A few years ago, six of the ten top-giving industries gave more to the GOP, but the watchdog Center for Responsive Politics finds that all are now giving more to Democrats. Democrat-friendly donors have dominated the list of the top 21 donors to 527s, the issue-driven tax-exempt groups not regulated by the FEC. They seem likely to do so again. The Service Employees International Union, an institutional member of the DA, topped the 2006 list with almost $33 million. Other top 527 donors associated with the Alliance include Soros Fund Management ($3,445,000), America Votes ($2,345,000), Peter B. Lewis/Progressive Corp. ($1,624,375), and the Gill Foundation ($1,181,355). Corporations and labor unions, which cannot give directly to political parties or candidates to federal office, may make unlimited contributions to 527s. The only restriction: the law forbids political parties and 527s from “coordinating” their activities but there no enforcement regulations. (Data from the IRS is October 3, 2007, based on disclosure reports).
"As federal regulators clamp down on 527 political organizations, wealthy donors are giving heavily to politically active 501(c) lobby organizations. Contributions to 501(c) lobby groups are not tax-deductible, unlike gifts to 501(c) charities. However, unlike 527s, 501(c) groups are not required to disclose the names of their donors. Still, 527s are useful, DA chairman Rob McKay and his lieutenants, SEIU’s Anna Burger and CAP’s John Podesta registered a new 527 group called The Fund for America. The new entity could pump “perhaps $100 million or more into media buys and voter outreach in the run-up to the 2008 elections,” Roll Call reported. A “well-placed” but unidentified source said, “They intend to raise money and spend money on [unregulated] soft money operations, voter contact through existing organizations or new organizations.”
"The Democracy Alliance (DA) filed its corporate registration in the District of Columbia in January 2005. Little money passes through Alliance bank accounts because it is a middle man that puts donors together with causes deemed worthy of support. In the early years only two grants to the DA showed up in the Foundation Search philanthropy database, and both went to the Democracy Alliance “Innovation Fund,” which Stein told a Hudson Institute panel is “a very small thing…that makes very small grants” to 501(c) groups. The fund took in a $50,000 grant in 2006 by the Enfranchisement Foundation, and a $50,000 grant the year before by the Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation.'
"Rob Stein explained the group’s legal structure to the Hudson panel: “It is a taxable nonprofit. Think of it as a corporation that does not make a profit and doesn’t aspire to make a profit. We’re an association of individuals. We have a board of directors – 13 people elected by the partners (rich elite) and we file corporate papers regularly and comply with all disclosure requirements.”
"In other words, the DA has no interest in asking the IRS to register it as tax-exempt or to allow contributions to it to be tax-deductible. Were the DA to request tax-exemption as a 501(c) lobby group or as a 527 political group, it would have to abide by a dizzying array of legal constraints. Members of the Democracy Alliance proletariat may want to impose Big Government bureaucracy and red tape on Americans, but the friends of George Soros are too rich to be bothered. The democrats will still convey to all that will listen the myth that the Republicans are only for the rich and democrats are for the poor!"
"The DA’s board is a microcosm of the modern left. In the top rungs are a limousine liberal, a labor activist, and a peacenik from the 1960s. DA chairman Rob McKay is also president of the McKay Family Foundation, a director of Vanguard Public Foundation, co-chairman of Mother Jones magazine, board member of the Ms. Foundation for Women, and a
blogger on the Huffington Post website. He was born in conservative Orange County, California and his parents were Republicans. The DA vice chairman is Anna Burger, sometimes known as the “Queen of Labor.” She is secretary-treasurer of the militant SEIU and chairman of Change to Win, the labor federation formed after SEIU joined other unions in breaking away from the AFL-CIO. Gannett News Service called Burger arguably “the most influential woman in the U.S. labor movement.” Drummond Pike, founder of the ultra-liberal Tides Foundation (another Soros funded marxist group), is the DA’s treasurer.'
"The Democracy Alliance does not endorse candidates for public office. Stein describes it as a “gathering place,” “learning environment,” “debating society,” and “investment club.” The DA is “a big tent, a convener for the full spectrum of center-left thought and perspective". In my opinion if you believe all of this then you really have a mental problem and should seek medical help.
"This emerging vanguard of the proletariat is hardly open to the common rabble serfs because its members must satisfy one requirement: They must be rich and the standard is several million per year not the $250,000 per year that Obama places in the rich category for tax purposes. Members, who are called “partners (rich elite/comrades),” pay an initial $25,000 fee and $30,000 in yearly dues. They also must pledge to give at least $200,000 annually to groups that the Alliance endorses. Partners (comrades) meet two times a year in committees to decide on grants, which focus on four areas: media, ideas, leadership, and civic engagement. Recommendations are then made to the DA board, which passes them on to all DA partners. The Alliance discourages partners from discussing DA affairs with the media, and it requires its grant recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements."
"While the Alliance’s structure makes it hard to find precise figures for its grant making, Matt Bai wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that DA members have “thus far poured more than $100 million into building what they call a "progressive" (communist) "infrastructure”. Before she was shown the door, Judy Wade had voiced the hope that the Alliance would eventually help members give out $500 million in grants annually. The next meeting, held in Austin, Texas in May 2006, signaled that the Democracy Alliance was perhaps becoming less a gathering of very rich donors and more a meeting of the usual suspects, the interest groups, however, the super rich were still the fat cats making huge donations."
"SEIU president Andrew Stern spoke and money-hungry grant-seekers were allowed to network with DA partners. SEIU pledged $5 million to DA-approved groups. Stern also tried unsuccessfully to get DA partners to fund labor’s public relations campaign against Wal-Mart. He told attendees that liberals needed to be flexible in their policy prescriptions and resist the temptation to reflexively defend existing government programs. Stern said he wanted national health care, child care and better public schools but was open to dismantling some entitlement programs, trying out school choice or revamping the tax code. Even trade, normally a hot-button issue for the labor movement, is on the table. “You can’t stop globalization. You can’t stop trade. That debate is over,” he said. Following Stern’s appearance at the Austin meeting, the rival AFL-CIO thought it wise to purchase membership in the DA.
It’s understandable that ultra-successful business people in the Alliance have little but disdain for the Democratic Party’s high-priced political consultants and conventional politicking: they think the party should be run more like a business. DA partners have divided their giving into what Rob Stein calls the “four buckets”: ideas, media, leadership training, and civic engagement. It is through these various groups that the "rich elites" have set up an organization that will allow them to be successful in their attempt to gain control over the Serfdom.
George Soros and his partners form the basis of this "proletariat" that has gained control of the democratic party by using their vast sums of money. It appears that they are on track in their plan to gain control of America. When good men do nothing then evil will always win. This new "proletariat" will gain control with the help of their useful idiots, the news media which is owned and operated by other radical liberals, and keeping those that do not pay taxes happy and voting as democrats. Apparently these people don't understand who is going to be the serfs and who is going to be the "proletariat".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)