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!
Friday, September 30, 2011
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)