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".
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.
"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!
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!
Monday, April 4, 2011
Alinsky's Rules For Radicals And How They Can Work For Us. (Tea Party Patriots)
I recently read a blog by patriotgreg and I have read this blog over and over many times because I felt that he has hit the nail on the head. Now I am passing his blog on in tact and hopefully it strikes a nerve with you. Please pay attention to his suggestions about ways conservatives can reframe these rules for radicals. Tea Party true believers could not go wrong by using some of these rules. Good reading! This is an old blog so the dates shown are for 2010 and are not 2011, but it is still a current theme for us as we approach the national budget crisis!
"These are the “Rules for Radicals” developed by Saul Alinsky with the purpose of establishing strategies to fight against the democratically elected governments and the free market corporations. These rules are very effective. But, ironically, the same rules can be used today by conservative patriots to fight against a socialist/communist government that is creeping into America. See how you can identify and use these rules for our cause:
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." The Tea Parties have given a hint to the government of who we are, and what we stand for. But we know we have something that they don’t, we have something that they don’t think or believe we have, and that is: resolve. We cannot afford to lose this battle because if we do, two or more generations after us will suffer dire consequences. We have no excuse to be idle and do nothing or do not enough. Can you imagine your children and your children’s children staring at you and pointing a finger at you saying “you could have done something about it and you didn’t”. Do we have what it takes to fight for us, for our children, for our country, for our Constitution? We must show and display that we are fighting a
battle we cannot afford to lose. Or everything is lost. Here lies our strength and our motivation. Does the government know the power we have? I am not sure it does, otherwise, it would either listen to what w have to say or take drastic measures to counterbalance our numbers and powers. On the other hand, do we know what power the government has? We have seen so far mainly executive and legislative power. But is it this all the government rely upon to balance our position or they have powers that we are still unaware of? Where do the military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies stand. These and other questions must be answered if we are to have a real and convincing idea who and what we stand against.
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." Fortunately, ours is not a small organization or group. There are millions of Americans willing to engage in this battle for the return or our nation on the path laid out by our Forefathers. There is plenty of talent and expertise, plenty of knowledge and information. If we sum it all up, we have a superior advantage upon our adversaries. And because of all this, we can concentrate our efforts on many fronts at once with the advantage on our side. But we must make sure that talent, expertise and experience is properly and effectively motivated to join our ranks and become actively involved.
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Our adversaries may be experts in their fields. But they are not experts in all fields. That is where we must concentrate our efforts: identify and exploit their weaknesses. And there are plenty of them. After all, they are humans too, and they can also feel insecure, anxious, uncertain, disoriented, confused. When we manage to bring them out in the field and play by our rules, we take them away from where they feel comfortable and secure and disrupt their wicked works. It will not be easy to engage the adversaries while they dwell in their comfortable and secure zone. And bringing them out will take ingenuity and smart tactics. But we have the means and talent to do it, and do it effectively.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." The Constitution must and should always be the rule by which we must demand our adversaries to abide by. There is no room for interpretations and diversion from the clear articles and amendments. We must know the rules, we must know the Constitution by heart, we must be relentless in bringing up the rules and make
them live and act accordingly. Refusal to do so will place them in an uncomfortable situation that will make them weaker and weaker. If we manage to make them aware that the rules are there for them to follow and obey, they have one of two options: obey them or be removed. There are constitutional means by which we the people can hold our representatives and senators accountable for not honoring the oath of office they took when they were sworn in. And, based on
the relentless and irresponsible manner in which our Constitution has been manipulated and distorted, even ignored thus far, we must take clear and concise action to stop them from doing more damage to our Country that what they have already done. The Law is on our side and we must find the proper way to enforce it.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Every person has his or her weaknesses. Whenever possible, bring them up in the
open, expose them and make them feel embarrassed and guilty. They are hurting us at a personal level through all the policies and measures that takes away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. So, we must take things personally, and return the favor personally. There is no defense against being publicly
ridiculed and embarrassed. It causes the most balanced person to lose control and say or make things that will go against him. An angry person acts impulsively and says and makes mistakes that will hurt him or his position or agenda. A fearful person acts irrationally and is easily pushed into a position of making concessions. Our adversary’s weakness is our strength.
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." The Tea Parties have been to a certain point very enjoyable. People of all races, creeds and ages have gathered together in a manner in which they enjoyed mutual company and enjoyed the goal of their actions. American people are very creative and can make any rally or demonstration an enjoyable while effective activity. And the memories will encourage them to come back for more. There is plenty of talent and expertise to bring into the movement new ways of doing things.
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." We must do whatever in our power to continue the pressure and gain more and more momentum. And we must do it in a manner that will make us enjoy it. There are plenty of ideas and imagination to bring new and more exciting ways to motivate us to continue the fight and do it in a manner that will encourage us to go for more.
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." The April 15 Tea Parties have already become part of American history. But we cannot leave it to the history alone. We must continue to mobilize and keep the pressure on. We have gained momentum and must keep it going forward. There are other national rallies in the works, one on the 4th of July, and another in September. But in the meantime, we must organize smaller, more localized rallies and demonstrations, with focused and concentrated messages and demands. City Halls, Sheriffs Departments, Police Departments, Boards of Educations, are all valid places where we must gather in front of, and make a stand. I have suggested that every weekend from now on should be used for constant and continuous gatherings and
rallies. Many people who have no idea what is going on will approach, and if we have a clear message, they will join and become new allies.
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Our adversaries know what our goal is. But they cannot ascertain our resolve in going after it. They believe that they have the power and the means to demoralize us and disband any rally or demonstration. They may, here and there, but they cannot be everywhere at the same time. So, we have the advantage of being a decentralized and well spread movement that can make it very difficult to control. One large gathering in one place can easily be disbanded. But hundreds or thousands of smaller activities are hard to impossible to subdue.
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." We must not fear repercussions. We must stand firm and not give up. Any attempts by the authorities to deprive us from our constitutional right to peacefully assemble, will gain sympathy to our cause and ad numbers to our flanks. We must be consistent and firm while peaceful and orderly. We must not fear infiltrations from our adversaries with the purpose to cause disorder and chaos, because if it happens, will bring more attention to our just cause. And that is something that our adversaries will try to avoid as much as possible.
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Contingency plans and alternative gatherings and rallies must be put in place. If one movement is disrupted or disbanded, we must have a predetermined alternative rallying point. We cannot lose momentum because we neglected to take into consideration the possibility of a failed or disbanded effort. All participants must be informed of alternative places of gathering and instructions must be followed. Churches or places of worship can become effective and active centers for organizing and directing the masses. Christians of all denominations must be encouraged to get involved and become active. After all, it this is also a battle for our freedom of worship, and if we fail, we all fail, including Christians. Church leaders must be willing to sacrifice their tax exempt status that keeps or prevents them from becoming politically active. If we are to accept the statistics, over 80% of the American population confesses to be Christian. That would project a number of approximately 240 million Americans. This is a force to really be reckoned with if we manage to convince them that America belongs to them too, and if we lose our battle, they will lose too by their inaction. Forget about organized religion in America which is an instrument in the hands of our adversaries. The Church as an organized body has prostituted itself with the government in exchange of money and tax exemptions. We must approach and get the local churches involved.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Our efforts must be focused and concentrated on specific demands and protests. Our adversaries must know well what we stand for and what we demand. Posters and signs must be consistent with the purpose of the gathering. The size, colors and styles used can vary and bring variety, but the message must be clear and concise. Nothing can hurt us more than hundreds of signs and posters each saying or demanding something different. Organizers must produce fliers describing our situation and our struggle. These fliers then must be posted on line and every person having a computer, a printer and an internet connection can then download the flier and make as many prints as they can afford. These fliers, in turn, must be distributed as widely as possible, everywhere. We have the potential of printing millions and millions of fliers and distribute them in our neighborhoods, on the street corners, in parks and other public places. We can flood the country with patriotic messages and calls to become active in saving our Nation from the clutches of the Globalist agenda which is aiming at imposing in America a system of government that is totally anti American and anti Constitutional.
We have been pushed by our government beyond the point of no return, because we have nothing to return to other than total domination by a socialist/communist/fascist system of government that will affect several generations of Americans. This system has failed in every place or instance where it was instituted, and will fail again. But we can stop it now before it grabs all of our freedoms, or let the burden to our children and children’s children. History will judge America not for what her enemies did to her, but for what we the people failed to do when America called us into action. America belongs to Americans, and as long as there is even one man left standing to fight, America will survive. This great country was given to us by God Himself, and only God will take it away from us. Not men."
"These are the “Rules for Radicals” developed by Saul Alinsky with the purpose of establishing strategies to fight against the democratically elected governments and the free market corporations. These rules are very effective. But, ironically, the same rules can be used today by conservative patriots to fight against a socialist/communist government that is creeping into America. See how you can identify and use these rules for our cause:
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." The Tea Parties have given a hint to the government of who we are, and what we stand for. But we know we have something that they don’t, we have something that they don’t think or believe we have, and that is: resolve. We cannot afford to lose this battle because if we do, two or more generations after us will suffer dire consequences. We have no excuse to be idle and do nothing or do not enough. Can you imagine your children and your children’s children staring at you and pointing a finger at you saying “you could have done something about it and you didn’t”. Do we have what it takes to fight for us, for our children, for our country, for our Constitution? We must show and display that we are fighting a
battle we cannot afford to lose. Or everything is lost. Here lies our strength and our motivation. Does the government know the power we have? I am not sure it does, otherwise, it would either listen to what w have to say or take drastic measures to counterbalance our numbers and powers. On the other hand, do we know what power the government has? We have seen so far mainly executive and legislative power. But is it this all the government rely upon to balance our position or they have powers that we are still unaware of? Where do the military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies stand. These and other questions must be answered if we are to have a real and convincing idea who and what we stand against.
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." Fortunately, ours is not a small organization or group. There are millions of Americans willing to engage in this battle for the return or our nation on the path laid out by our Forefathers. There is plenty of talent and expertise, plenty of knowledge and information. If we sum it all up, we have a superior advantage upon our adversaries. And because of all this, we can concentrate our efforts on many fronts at once with the advantage on our side. But we must make sure that talent, expertise and experience is properly and effectively motivated to join our ranks and become actively involved.
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Our adversaries may be experts in their fields. But they are not experts in all fields. That is where we must concentrate our efforts: identify and exploit their weaknesses. And there are plenty of them. After all, they are humans too, and they can also feel insecure, anxious, uncertain, disoriented, confused. When we manage to bring them out in the field and play by our rules, we take them away from where they feel comfortable and secure and disrupt their wicked works. It will not be easy to engage the adversaries while they dwell in their comfortable and secure zone. And bringing them out will take ingenuity and smart tactics. But we have the means and talent to do it, and do it effectively.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." The Constitution must and should always be the rule by which we must demand our adversaries to abide by. There is no room for interpretations and diversion from the clear articles and amendments. We must know the rules, we must know the Constitution by heart, we must be relentless in bringing up the rules and make
them live and act accordingly. Refusal to do so will place them in an uncomfortable situation that will make them weaker and weaker. If we manage to make them aware that the rules are there for them to follow and obey, they have one of two options: obey them or be removed. There are constitutional means by which we the people can hold our representatives and senators accountable for not honoring the oath of office they took when they were sworn in. And, based on
the relentless and irresponsible manner in which our Constitution has been manipulated and distorted, even ignored thus far, we must take clear and concise action to stop them from doing more damage to our Country that what they have already done. The Law is on our side and we must find the proper way to enforce it.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Every person has his or her weaknesses. Whenever possible, bring them up in the
open, expose them and make them feel embarrassed and guilty. They are hurting us at a personal level through all the policies and measures that takes away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. So, we must take things personally, and return the favor personally. There is no defense against being publicly
ridiculed and embarrassed. It causes the most balanced person to lose control and say or make things that will go against him. An angry person acts impulsively and says and makes mistakes that will hurt him or his position or agenda. A fearful person acts irrationally and is easily pushed into a position of making concessions. Our adversary’s weakness is our strength.
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." The Tea Parties have been to a certain point very enjoyable. People of all races, creeds and ages have gathered together in a manner in which they enjoyed mutual company and enjoyed the goal of their actions. American people are very creative and can make any rally or demonstration an enjoyable while effective activity. And the memories will encourage them to come back for more. There is plenty of talent and expertise to bring into the movement new ways of doing things.
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." We must do whatever in our power to continue the pressure and gain more and more momentum. And we must do it in a manner that will make us enjoy it. There are plenty of ideas and imagination to bring new and more exciting ways to motivate us to continue the fight and do it in a manner that will encourage us to go for more.
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." The April 15 Tea Parties have already become part of American history. But we cannot leave it to the history alone. We must continue to mobilize and keep the pressure on. We have gained momentum and must keep it going forward. There are other national rallies in the works, one on the 4th of July, and another in September. But in the meantime, we must organize smaller, more localized rallies and demonstrations, with focused and concentrated messages and demands. City Halls, Sheriffs Departments, Police Departments, Boards of Educations, are all valid places where we must gather in front of, and make a stand. I have suggested that every weekend from now on should be used for constant and continuous gatherings and
rallies. Many people who have no idea what is going on will approach, and if we have a clear message, they will join and become new allies.
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Our adversaries know what our goal is. But they cannot ascertain our resolve in going after it. They believe that they have the power and the means to demoralize us and disband any rally or demonstration. They may, here and there, but they cannot be everywhere at the same time. So, we have the advantage of being a decentralized and well spread movement that can make it very difficult to control. One large gathering in one place can easily be disbanded. But hundreds or thousands of smaller activities are hard to impossible to subdue.
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." We must not fear repercussions. We must stand firm and not give up. Any attempts by the authorities to deprive us from our constitutional right to peacefully assemble, will gain sympathy to our cause and ad numbers to our flanks. We must be consistent and firm while peaceful and orderly. We must not fear infiltrations from our adversaries with the purpose to cause disorder and chaos, because if it happens, will bring more attention to our just cause. And that is something that our adversaries will try to avoid as much as possible.
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Contingency plans and alternative gatherings and rallies must be put in place. If one movement is disrupted or disbanded, we must have a predetermined alternative rallying point. We cannot lose momentum because we neglected to take into consideration the possibility of a failed or disbanded effort. All participants must be informed of alternative places of gathering and instructions must be followed. Churches or places of worship can become effective and active centers for organizing and directing the masses. Christians of all denominations must be encouraged to get involved and become active. After all, it this is also a battle for our freedom of worship, and if we fail, we all fail, including Christians. Church leaders must be willing to sacrifice their tax exempt status that keeps or prevents them from becoming politically active. If we are to accept the statistics, over 80% of the American population confesses to be Christian. That would project a number of approximately 240 million Americans. This is a force to really be reckoned with if we manage to convince them that America belongs to them too, and if we lose our battle, they will lose too by their inaction. Forget about organized religion in America which is an instrument in the hands of our adversaries. The Church as an organized body has prostituted itself with the government in exchange of money and tax exemptions. We must approach and get the local churches involved.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Our efforts must be focused and concentrated on specific demands and protests. Our adversaries must know well what we stand for and what we demand. Posters and signs must be consistent with the purpose of the gathering. The size, colors and styles used can vary and bring variety, but the message must be clear and concise. Nothing can hurt us more than hundreds of signs and posters each saying or demanding something different. Organizers must produce fliers describing our situation and our struggle. These fliers then must be posted on line and every person having a computer, a printer and an internet connection can then download the flier and make as many prints as they can afford. These fliers, in turn, must be distributed as widely as possible, everywhere. We have the potential of printing millions and millions of fliers and distribute them in our neighborhoods, on the street corners, in parks and other public places. We can flood the country with patriotic messages and calls to become active in saving our Nation from the clutches of the Globalist agenda which is aiming at imposing in America a system of government that is totally anti American and anti Constitutional.
We have been pushed by our government beyond the point of no return, because we have nothing to return to other than total domination by a socialist/communist/fascist system of government that will affect several generations of Americans. This system has failed in every place or instance where it was instituted, and will fail again. But we can stop it now before it grabs all of our freedoms, or let the burden to our children and children’s children. History will judge America not for what her enemies did to her, but for what we the people failed to do when America called us into action. America belongs to Americans, and as long as there is even one man left standing to fight, America will survive. This great country was given to us by God Himself, and only God will take it away from us. Not men."
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tactics of Radical Progressive Marxist Liberals Part 2
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is another tactic used by radicalS. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. A radical marxist individual or group, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about the opposition's views. It is used to increase the general possibility of switching sides among the current electorate; or to maintain leverage over a current political partner who could potentially become a rival.
FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
In response to a growing number of homeowners forgoing the use of real estate agent services during the sale of their homes, national and regional real estate boards have adopted a strategy of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Ads reinforce consumers' anxiety over legal paperwork, and suggest that consumers are weak, intellectually lazy and fearful; that consumers can't possibly learn; and that it would be much safer to leave the process to a real estate agent. I guess that the poor public is just too stupid to do anything according to the elite.
Appeal to fear FUD is now often used in many contexts with the same meaning. For example, in politics one side can accuse the other of using FUD to obscure the issues. For example, critics of George W. Bush accused Bush's supporters, most notably the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of using a FUD-based campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. According to some commentators, examples of political FUD are: "domino theory", "electronic Pearl Harbor", and "weapons of mass destruction". This tactic is widespread and is used often; what works successfully gets picked up and repeated by others.
Astroturfing is a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. In the UK this technique is better known as "rent-a-crowd" after the successful "rent-a-crate" business. US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, believed to have coined the term, was quoted by the Washington Post in 1985 using it to describe a "mountain of cards and letters" sent to his Senate office to promote insurance industry interests, which Bentsen dismissed as "generated mail."
The National Smokers Alliance, an early astroturf group created by Burson-Marsteller on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris, worked to influence Federal legislation in 1995 by organizing mailings and running a phone-bank urging people to call or write to politicians expressing their opposition to laws aimed at discouraging teens from starting to smoke.
In 1998, a combination of television ads and phone-banks were used to simulate "grassroots" opposition to a bill aimed at discouraging teenage smoking. According to The New York Times, "Those smokers who are reached by phone banks sponsored by cigarette makers, or who call the 800 number shown in television ads, are patched through to the senator of their choice."
Apparent "grass-roots" letters favoring Democratic Party policies appearing in local newspapers around the US were denounced as "astroturf" when Google searches revealed that identical letters were printed with different (local) signatures. The signers were electronically submitting pre-written letters from a political website that offered help for sending one of their letters to a local paper. A similar automated email employed by MoveOn.org in 2004 to support Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film resulted in at least 22 form letters appearing in local papers.
Black propaganda is information that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. Most astroturfing is black propaganda in that the identity of the source is falsified. However, the ostensible source of the evidence planted is usually not a grassroots organization. When black propaganda uses the same means as astroturfing, the distinction is less clear, as in the case of forged letters being sent to congressman Tom Perriello by a Washington lobbying firm working against 2009 clean energy legislation.
Journalist Ben Smith of The Politico has observed, "Interest groups across the spectrum have grown expert at locating, enraging and turning out authentic Americans. And the operatives behind the crowds say there's nothing wrong with a practice as old as American politics." Regarding the 2009 health care debate, author and blogger Ryan Sager has argued in a New York Times editorial: "Organizing isn't cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics."
In business, astroturfing is one form of stealth marketing, which can include the manipulation of viral marketing. Several examples are described as "undercover marketing" in the documentary ‘The Corporation’. The term "astroturfing" is also used to describe public relations activities aimed at "falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support by means of an orchestrated and disguised public relations exercise; designed to give the impression of spontaneous support for an idea, product, company, or service." According to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Social Media Guidelines, which cautions members that an astroturfing campaign is "self-evidently likely to contradict the CIPR Code."
It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom e-mail) is so low. Groups may use a boiler room full of telephones and computers where hired activists locate people and groups who create enthusiasm for the specified cause. Also, the use of psychographics allows hired supporters to persuade their targeted audience. The radicals method of operation is “use every means possible to accomplish the objective” no matter what the reaction.
A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by fusion with a stigmatized group. Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging. Radicals use this technique constantly, in fact it is their first mode of attack when confronted with something that they can not answer or explain, for example Govenor Palin.
Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately with intentions of turning genuine information useless. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead a political opponent as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless. Disinformation may include distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Its techniques may also be found in politics and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor.
These are only a small sample of the various dirty tricks that the left has developed and used over and over for decades. These were all used in one form or another when I was young and dumb and believed the liberal propaganda. You would think that the public would catch on but the radicals are very sly and deceptive and it is difficult to catch them with proof. Plus the compliant news media treats everything coming from the radical marxists as fact.
If you watch closely you will see all of these types of deception at play when a radical group attempts to persuade the general public. If you want to learn more about these radical groups go to this website for information http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/. This is the best site on the web for good information concerning many radical groups and explains how they are funded. If you are a liberal, who can think for yourself, then you will be enlightened to the point of joining the ranks of the independent voters as I did!
FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
In response to a growing number of homeowners forgoing the use of real estate agent services during the sale of their homes, national and regional real estate boards have adopted a strategy of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Ads reinforce consumers' anxiety over legal paperwork, and suggest that consumers are weak, intellectually lazy and fearful; that consumers can't possibly learn; and that it would be much safer to leave the process to a real estate agent. I guess that the poor public is just too stupid to do anything according to the elite.
Appeal to fear FUD is now often used in many contexts with the same meaning. For example, in politics one side can accuse the other of using FUD to obscure the issues. For example, critics of George W. Bush accused Bush's supporters, most notably the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of using a FUD-based campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. According to some commentators, examples of political FUD are: "domino theory", "electronic Pearl Harbor", and "weapons of mass destruction". This tactic is widespread and is used often; what works successfully gets picked up and repeated by others.
Astroturfing is a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. In the UK this technique is better known as "rent-a-crowd" after the successful "rent-a-crate" business. US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, believed to have coined the term, was quoted by the Washington Post in 1985 using it to describe a "mountain of cards and letters" sent to his Senate office to promote insurance industry interests, which Bentsen dismissed as "generated mail."
The National Smokers Alliance, an early astroturf group created by Burson-Marsteller on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris, worked to influence Federal legislation in 1995 by organizing mailings and running a phone-bank urging people to call or write to politicians expressing their opposition to laws aimed at discouraging teens from starting to smoke.
In 1998, a combination of television ads and phone-banks were used to simulate "grassroots" opposition to a bill aimed at discouraging teenage smoking. According to The New York Times, "Those smokers who are reached by phone banks sponsored by cigarette makers, or who call the 800 number shown in television ads, are patched through to the senator of their choice."
Apparent "grass-roots" letters favoring Democratic Party policies appearing in local newspapers around the US were denounced as "astroturf" when Google searches revealed that identical letters were printed with different (local) signatures. The signers were electronically submitting pre-written letters from a political website that offered help for sending one of their letters to a local paper. A similar automated email employed by MoveOn.org in 2004 to support Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film resulted in at least 22 form letters appearing in local papers.
Black propaganda is information that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. Most astroturfing is black propaganda in that the identity of the source is falsified. However, the ostensible source of the evidence planted is usually not a grassroots organization. When black propaganda uses the same means as astroturfing, the distinction is less clear, as in the case of forged letters being sent to congressman Tom Perriello by a Washington lobbying firm working against 2009 clean energy legislation.
Journalist Ben Smith of The Politico has observed, "Interest groups across the spectrum have grown expert at locating, enraging and turning out authentic Americans. And the operatives behind the crowds say there's nothing wrong with a practice as old as American politics." Regarding the 2009 health care debate, author and blogger Ryan Sager has argued in a New York Times editorial: "Organizing isn't cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics."
In business, astroturfing is one form of stealth marketing, which can include the manipulation of viral marketing. Several examples are described as "undercover marketing" in the documentary ‘The Corporation’. The term "astroturfing" is also used to describe public relations activities aimed at "falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support by means of an orchestrated and disguised public relations exercise; designed to give the impression of spontaneous support for an idea, product, company, or service." According to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Social Media Guidelines, which cautions members that an astroturfing campaign is "self-evidently likely to contradict the CIPR Code."
It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom e-mail) is so low. Groups may use a boiler room full of telephones and computers where hired activists locate people and groups who create enthusiasm for the specified cause. Also, the use of psychographics allows hired supporters to persuade their targeted audience. The radicals method of operation is “use every means possible to accomplish the objective” no matter what the reaction.
A smear campaign, smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by fusion with a stigmatized group. Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging. Radicals use this technique constantly, in fact it is their first mode of attack when confronted with something that they can not answer or explain, for example Govenor Palin.
Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately with intentions of turning genuine information useless. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead a political opponent as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless. Disinformation may include distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Its techniques may also be found in politics and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor.
These are only a small sample of the various dirty tricks that the left has developed and used over and over for decades. These were all used in one form or another when I was young and dumb and believed the liberal propaganda. You would think that the public would catch on but the radicals are very sly and deceptive and it is difficult to catch them with proof. Plus the compliant news media treats everything coming from the radical marxists as fact.
If you watch closely you will see all of these types of deception at play when a radical group attempts to persuade the general public. If you want to learn more about these radical groups go to this website for information http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/. This is the best site on the web for good information concerning many radical groups and explains how they are funded. If you are a liberal, who can think for yourself, then you will be enlightened to the point of joining the ranks of the independent voters as I did!
Friday, March 18, 2011
Tactics of Radical Progressive Marxist Liberals Part 1
As I have stated before I was at one time a true believer in the liberal tripe that was presented as the democratic platform. I saw all the political tricks that they used to promote themselves as the defender of the common man. Much later I began to understand that democrats could care less about the common man and were more concerned about votes, votes and more votes. Therefore, liberals have developed a vast array of political tactics to influence these votes. The following are a few of these tactics used by liberals.
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which a radical individual or organization (democrat) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.
Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately by radicals to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative to the radicals’ point of view. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.
The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of an issue in order to get voters thinking about that issue.
Many push polls are negative attacks on other candidates. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. They will ask questions such as "If you knew that Candidate Smith was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?" The question doesn't state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it serves to imply that Candidate Smith is corrupt.
One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which Legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls use small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort. True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively affecting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive or negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.
The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for this same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were directly ordered by a campaign/candidate, it would do serious blowback to that campaign.
Push polls are also relatively expensive, having a far higher cost per voter than radio or television commercials. Thus, push polls are most used in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or defeat. The 2008 campaign of the "One" made use of this technique very effectively.
Another tactic are "False flag operations" which are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and are used in peace-time by radical marxists.
While false flag operations originate in government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as political ideologies, campaigns for office, special interest groups, and businesses. In politics, news media and marketing, similar operations are being employed in some public relations campaigns.
Telemarketing firms practice false flag type behavior when they pretend to be a market research firm (referred to as "sugging").
In some rare cases, members of an unsuccessful business will destroy some of their own property to conceal an unrelated crime (e.g. safety violations, embezzlement, etc.) but make it appear as though the destruction was done by a rival company.
Political campaigning has a long history of these tactics in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The "Canuck letter" is an example of one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.
In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire and New Jersey after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.
Political ideologies sometimes will also use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth; the ideology is simply unpopular with society.
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a political conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.
Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.
Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies. The current administration understands these techniques and is very competent with their use.
Name calling is another radical tactic studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. Democrats use this tactic constantly, in fact it is their preferred method of discourse when they can not effectively defend their point of view.
Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. In short the method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem (false argument).
Name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute an attack upon a person or group. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem which is a classic logical fallacy or incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument,or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.
"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.
It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." Which means that the radicals are calling people or groups names because they have nothing else to use as a logical argument? besides they know that the liberals' useful idiots, the lame street news media, will repeat their claims ad nauseam.
There are many more devious types of political tactics that radical progressive marxist liberal democrats use. However, I need to leave those for the second addition which will come at a later time. Watch your local and national news media and be aware of these types of tactics and recognize how often they are used.
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which a radical individual or organization (democrat) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.
Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately by radicals to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative to the radicals’ point of view. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.
The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of an issue in order to get voters thinking about that issue.
Many push polls are negative attacks on other candidates. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact. They will ask questions such as "If you knew that Candidate Smith was being investigated for corruption, would you be more likely to vote for him, or less likely?" The question doesn't state that any investigation has taken place, so it is not a lie, but it serves to imply that Candidate Smith is corrupt.
One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which Legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls use small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort. True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. Any data obtained (if used at all) is secondary in importance to negatively affecting the targeted candidate. Legitimate polls are often used by candidates to test potential messages. They frequently ask about either positive or negative statements about any or all major candidates in an election and always ask demographic information at the end.
The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters towards a predetermined point of view) while avoiding direct responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for this same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were directly ordered by a campaign/candidate, it would do serious blowback to that campaign.
Push polls are also relatively expensive, having a far higher cost per voter than radio or television commercials. Thus, push polls are most used in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or defeat. The 2008 campaign of the "One" made use of this technique very effectively.
Another tactic are "False flag operations" which are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and are used in peace-time by radical marxists.
While false flag operations originate in government, they also can occur in civilian settings among certain factions, such as political ideologies, campaigns for office, special interest groups, and businesses. In politics, news media and marketing, similar operations are being employed in some public relations campaigns.
Telemarketing firms practice false flag type behavior when they pretend to be a market research firm (referred to as "sugging").
In some rare cases, members of an unsuccessful business will destroy some of their own property to conceal an unrelated crime (e.g. safety violations, embezzlement, etc.) but make it appear as though the destruction was done by a rival company.
Political campaigning has a long history of these tactics in various forms, including in person, print media and electronically in recent years. This can involve when supporters of one candidate pose as supporters of another, or act as "straw men" for their preferred candidate to debate against. This can happen with or without the candidate's knowledge. The "Canuck letter" is an example of one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate.
In 2006, individuals practicing false flag behavior were discovered and "outed" in New Hampshire and New Jersey after blog comments claiming to be from supporters of a political candidate were traced to the IP address of paid staffers for that candidate's opponent.
Political ideologies sometimes will also use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth; the ideology is simply unpopular with society.
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a political conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.
Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.
Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies. The current administration understands these techniques and is very competent with their use.
Name calling is another radical tactic studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. Democrats use this tactic constantly, in fact it is their preferred method of discourse when they can not effectively defend their point of view.
Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fear mongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. In short the method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem (false argument).
Name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute an attack upon a person or group. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem which is a classic logical fallacy or incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument,or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.
"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.
It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments." Which means that the radicals are calling people or groups names because they have nothing else to use as a logical argument? besides they know that the liberals' useful idiots, the lame street news media, will repeat their claims ad nauseam.
There are many more devious types of political tactics that radical progressive marxist liberal democrats use. However, I need to leave those for the second addition which will come at a later time. Watch your local and national news media and be aware of these types of tactics and recognize how often they are used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)