Tuesday, August 30, 2011

A new Democratic strategy to take over elections?

Earlier this year Bob Unruh with WND wrote a compelling article concerning how the democrats have captured the "rich elite" with the help of Mr. George Soros. This new "rich elite" Democratic force, that is relentlessly destructive, crushing and insensitive to right and wrong, are made of local and regional organizations. These groups blast Republicans and promote Democrats using money donated by hundreds of millionaires and even billionaires was a key to President Barack Obama's win over GOP candidate Sen. John McCain in the last election. Now a recent report warns that the same attack strategy is being implemented in states, targeting especially the offices of secretary of state, where elections are managed. Therefore, we must be alert during this next Presidential campaign, because the same plan is still in place.

"The Democracy Alliance helped Democrats give Republicans a decisive defeat in November 2008. Now it's organizing state-level chapters in at least 19 states, and once-conservative Colorado, which hosts the Democracy Alliance's most successful state affiliate, has turned Democrat blue," the report from Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger of Capital Research Center concludes that this tactic is widespread.

The report from the center, which studies non-profit organizations, titled The Democracy Alliance Does America: The Soros-Founded Plutocrats' Club Forms State Chapters," is accessible online. It concludes the 2008 victory for Obama was a result of the outraged millionaire and billionaire donors to the Democrats who watched their cause fail in 2004 after opening their checkbooks for tens of millions of dollars.

"It was born out the frustration of wealthy liberals who gave generously to liberal candidates and 527 political committees, but received no electoral payoff in 2004," the report said. George Soros and others "were angry and discouraged after contributing to the Media Fund which spent $57 million on TV ads attacking President Bush in swing states and to American Coming Together which spent $78 million on get out the vote efforts," the report said. The result was a victory for President Bush. So in 2005, 70 millionaires and billionaires met in Phoenix "for a secret long-term strategy session." Their principal point of agreement was "the conservative movement was 'a fundamental threat to the American way of life.'" Don't be surprised by the developments in the Obama White House. Read the "The Audacity of Deceit" for an analysis.

The donors studied the success of conservatives, their network of organizations, funders and activists, including think tanks, legal advocacy organizations and leadership schools. The meeting resulted in the birth of the Democracy Alliance, "a loose collection of super-rich donors committed to building organizations that would propel America to the left," the report said. Colorado was one of the first states targeted. Colorado went for Bush by 9 percent in 2000 and by 5 percent in 2004. In 1998, the state had two GOP senators and four of the six members of the House were GOP, as well as the governor and both houses in the state legislature.

As the money began flowing, the results began changing. The report explains the Democrats' effort focuses on seven components: the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, ability to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to combat negative media in the few instances that it occurs, to sue strategically, to train new leaders and maintain a new media presence. The concept depends on wealthy liberals' spending tons of money to "create a vast infrastructure of liberal organizations that produces an anti-Republican, anti- conservative echo chamber in politics and the media." Now, the Capital Research Center warned, the same organizing is going on "in at least 19 states," and a special campaign has been set up to target the offices of secretary of state around the nation.

"As the murderously astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, 'The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything,'" the report said. "Since 2006, Democracy Alliance partners have quietly funded the Secretary of State Project, a below-the-radar non-federal '527' political group. It can accept unlimited contributions that are not immediately publicly disclosed. Its website claims, 'A modest political investment in electing clean candidates to critical Secretary of State offices is an efficient way to protect the election,'" the report said.

"SoS endorses secretary of state candidates who take the position that voter fraud is largely a myth; that vote suppression is widely and solely used by Republicans; that it's a waste of time to remove obviously fraudulent names from voter rolls; and that legal requirements that voters show photo identification discriminate against racial minorities," the report said. Among the project's victories so far is Mark Ritchie in Minnesota in 2006, the official currently presiding over the Senate recount in that state, the report said. Also, in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner "trounced" her opponent. "In October the SoS investment paid off when Brunner defied federal law by refusing to take steps to verify 200,000 questionable voter registrations," the report said.

While the report said group members deliberately are low-profile, among those whose membership has been cited in various reports are Quark creator Tim Gill, RealNetworks chief Rob Glaser, investment banker Steven M. Gluckstern, Hyatt heiress Rachel Peritzker Hunter, former Oracle executive John Luongo, television producer Norman Lear, Taco Bell heir Robert McKay and actor Rob Reiner. The leaders met in Washington, following Obama's victory, the report said. The goal? Apparently power, since the president alone, according to one Democratic official, appoints 5,000 officials to run agencies employing 2 million voters that hire another 10 million outside contractors. "It's safe to say they are planning their next moves," the report said.

Therefore, unless the public is focused on what is going on it is safe to say that the various marxist groups will succeed. These groups developed and funded by George Soros and others who want to see America fall into chaos and allow these "rich elites" to control the serfdom. when I was younger and a former Kool-aide drinker I learned all the tricks and tactics they will use. I try to alert everyone who will listen that America is in danger and if these "rich elites" win they will be in charge of the serfdom and everyone else will become the serfs including democrats and republicans and independents. George Soros and his elites will show no favoritism to anyone that is not a partner in their group! If you really want to do something to prevent this then I urge you to form local groups in every state to become community activists. You can get involved and trained at American Majority’s Training Bomb, September 17th. For more information please check for other dates at www.RedState.com. You can Google for conservative activists and get other training sites. The November 2012 election is up to you and what you do to prevent the "rich elite" from winning control of America.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Shame, Shame, Shame - Are Public Sector Union Thugs Comrades?

Comrade means "friend", "colleague", or "ally". The word comes from the French "camarade". The term has seen use in the military and some fascist organizations, but is most commonly associated with left-wing movements, where "comrade" has often become a stock phrase and form of address. I would definitely consider them a left-wing movement; therefore I guess that qualifies them to use the terminology.

The political usage of the term was inspired by the French Revolution. Upon abolishing the titles of nobility, and the terms monsieur and madame (literally, "my lord" and "my lady"), the revolutionaries employed the term citoyen for men and citoyenne for women (both meaning "citizen") to refer to each other. The deposed King Louis XVI, for instance, was referred to as Citoyen Louis Capet to emphasize his loss of privilege.

When the socialist movement gained momentum in the mid-19th century, socialists began to look for an egalitarian alternative to terms like "Mister", "Miss", or "Missus". They chose "comrade" as their preferred term of address. In German, this practice was started in 1875, with the establishment of the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. In English, the first known use of the word with this meaning was in 1884 in the socialist magazine Justice.

In the early years of Soviet power in Russia, the Bolsheviks used "Comrade" when addressing or referring to people assumed sympathetic to the revolution and to the Soviet state, such as members of the Communist party (and originally of other pro-revolution leftist formations such as the Left SR) and people from the "working masses". The more neutral republican form of address was "Citizen". Accordingly, supporters of the White movement in the Russian Civil War would use "Comrades" mockingly as a derogatory term for their enemies - although at the same time, the various socialist anti-Bolshevik forces such as the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks also used "Comrade" among themselves.

By the mid-1920s, the form of address "Comrade" became so commonplace in Soviet Russia that it was used indiscriminately in essentially the same way as terms like "Mister" and "Sir" are employed in English. That use persisted until the fall of the Soviet Union. Still, the original meaning partly re-surfaced in some contexts: criminals and suspects were only addressed as "Citizens" and not as "Comrades", and expressly refusing to address someone as "Comrade" would generally be perceived as a hostile act or, in Stalinist times, even as an accusation of being "Anti-Soviet". The term is not used often in contemporary Russian society, but it is still the standard form of address in the armed forces and militsiya (civilian police), where officers and soldiers are normally addressed as "Comrade Colonel", "Comrade General", "Comrade Sergeant", or the like.

In the United Kingdom, the term comrade is strongly associated with Communism and the Soviet Union unless it is used in relation to the military; as a result it is avoided by most political parties. However it is still used as a form of address among Labor Party members as well as by many smaller parties of the left. Use of the term is generally restricted to people with whom the speaker agrees politically. The honorific terms "sister" and "brother", also declining in usage, are more politically inclusive, encompassing everyone from the centre-left to the far-left, without necessarily indicating complete political agreement. All three terms are occasionally used in a mocking or patronizing manner by political opponents. The term was also often used amongst British Fascists in the 1930s; the anthem of the British Union of Fascists started with the words "Comrades, the voices of the dead battalions..."

In the United States, the word "comrade" carries a very strong connotation of being associated with Communism and Marxism. Especially during the Cold War, to address someone as "comrade" marked either the speaker, person addressed, or both as suspected communist sympathizers. It is frequently used ironically in that way. Besides that, it is still used in its generic context by some American socialists.

Now that I have provided you with a short history of the term "Comrade" back to the question, 'Are Public Sector Union Thugs Comrades?' The answer depends upon your interpretation of the question and whether you are prone to believe the myth that "liberals are for the common man". Nothing matters but your response to that myth because if you are a "true believer" then nothing that I or others present to you will alter your current delusion. Having been a "true believer" myself, I can understand your position; however, I can not understand your willingness to stay in this state with all the evidence that surrounds us that supports the opposite view. Facts are facts, and no amount of thuggish behavior such as bullying, threatening physical harm, yelling, screaming, cursing or death threats will change reality for you and the rest of your ilk!

As a former educator I am appalled by the teacher union members behavior that I have witnessed on the television recently. If this is what our current teachers look and act like; then we are indeed in more trouble than I had thought. God help us because we are doomed, as a great nation, since we have all become takers instead of producers. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!