The Prophetic Words of Dick Morris

I remember right after the November election that Dick Morris pointed out how difficult it was going to be for the Democratic Congress to govern. The problem, as he saw it, was the many competing factions that make up the Democratic party: The Blue Dogs, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the group allied with Soros and the Nutroots. While all of these groups fall under the Democratic umbrella, they all have competing and varying agendas. As Morris predicted, the Democrats' problem all along has been getting all of them on the same page. This is the underlying story in their continued fumbling of the Iraq issue. The agenda of the Blue Dogs (called Bush Dogs by the Nutroots) is divergent from that of the Soros wing. Without everyone on the same page, the Democratic majority no longer functions like any sort of a majority.

Some if it has come to a head this week as Democrats are pointing fingers at each other for their lack of any coherent agenda.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop a cherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft of high-profile
legislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete.

The real problem from the beginning is that much of the Democratic victory came in Republican districts and with many of the Democrats in those districts moving to the right of their counter parts. Their leadership, on the other hand, is almost exclusively made up of traditional Northeast or West Coast liberals. From Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, to Ted Kennedy, those are the leaders of the party. Their liberal traditional agenda is not something that will get the likes of the Blue Dog Democrats re elected.

On Iraq, this problem is most pronounced. There is a group of almost seventy Congressional Democrats that make up the Out of Iraq Caucus. They are almost exclusively Soros types. Therir goal is the immediate withdrawal of troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. This group willing to cut off funds if necessary, and they are so extreme in their views vis a vis Iraq that many times they are unwilling to support bills with a timeline if it isn't quick enough in their estimation.

On the opposite end of the ideological spectrum for the Democrats lie the Blue Dogs. This is a group of forty plus moderates who's position tends to match that of the Republicans. Here is how their position is described.

With Democrats in charge again, the Blue Dogs have played a key role in halting an emerging plan to place strict conditions on war funding. Their revolt helped beat back that proposal, by Pelosi ally John Murtha, D-Pa. Leaders are now considering a watered-down version.

Without unity from all these groups the Democrat's majority becomes a minority.

The Democrats face the same sort of problems on budget and tax issues. Whether it was Charlie Rangel's so called mother of all tax hikes, or any number of budget proposals from David Obey, the leadership has had difficulty getting the Blue Dogs on board with much of their liberal agenda. Where they have been able to get the Blue Dogs on board, they have then faced the threat of a veto from the President.

The Democrats have given nothing more than a token effort to any social issue besides federal funding of stem cell research. That's because on social issues the leadership's position is no more tennable.

Their ideas about marriage, abortion, and, to an extent, the death penalty, and
Gun Control are sometimes more compatible with the Republican way of thinking. This viewpoint is supported by the Pew Research Center and their study "Beyond Red Vs. Blue"

The Republicans, on the other hand, have become nearly unanimously united. They have almost entirely coalesced behind the surge strategy and have never wavered in their demand for so called clean spending bills.

On the budget, they haven't been quite as united however the President suddenly realized what a tool the veto is. As such, the Democrats haven't been able to get much of any budgetary agenda through. In the most recent battle over the budget, the Democrats have become so frustrated that they are now resorting to threats.

Instead, Obey said, he would rip up the compromise bill and devise a new one using the strict spending ceiling set by Mr. Bush - but would reach it by whacking GOP priorities and stripping the measure of billions of dollars in pet projects for lawmakers in both parties.

Obey's remarks to The Associated Press came two days after White House budget director Jim Nussle promised Mr. Bush would veto Democrats' omnibus spending bill for exceeding Mr. Bush's budget by $18 billion.

Nussle had accused Democrats of "trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending," but Obey said the opposite is true - that the White House was willing to relent just slightly on domestic spending in order to obtain up to $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the Democrats threaten, I am reminded of the last time a President took on Congress on the budget.

These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed...

I suspect another President will also win this particular budget showdown. All in all, those words uttered by Dick Morris are quite prophetic.

Don't Fret Reps...2008 is Our Year

I know what everyone has heard. Our fundraising is down. The base is sour on the Reps over spending, Katrina, illegal immigration, and Iraq. Republican Representatives and Senators are retiring and quitting left and right. The generic Congressional ballot has Dems up about twelve percent. Everyone is down and they need not be. Here is why



1)Iraq...This is the main reason for Republican's being sour and Democrats being energized and I believe by this time next year it will be the exact opposite. While the media refuses to report on the progress, it is there, it is measurable, and even though the MSM refuses to report on the progress the general public notices it more and more everyday.



Here is essentially what happened. About a year ago, the Sunni Sheiks sick of the unbelievably sadistic, evil, and heavy handed manner in which AQI treated their own citizens, turned on AQI and began working with the coalition. It is now commonly referred to as the Anbar Awakening and it has worked fabulously. The city of Ramadi has been completely transformed. It has gone from one of the most violent cities not only in Iraq, but frankly in the world, to one of the safest cities in Iraq. As AQI was defeated in Anbar they tried to regroup in other places like Diyalah. This time the coalition, using their new grassroots methods, followed AQI to Diyalah. As a result, AQI is on defense, and their ability to cause death and destruction is way down. This led directly to troop and civilian deaths being down dramatically in September. They are down even more so far in October. For instance, while there were just over 60 troops killed in Iraq in September and this was down almost 30% from August, the number of troops killed from September 15-October 15 was only 30. In fact, we are on pace for about 25 troop deaths in the month of October.



Now, as AQI, the Sunni militia, was being destroyed, this lead directly to the beginning of the destruction of the Shia militias. The Shia militias used to be the only effective method of protecting the citizenry against Sunni militias. With Sunni militias neutralized, the citizens feel a lot less need for protection. Now, they see the Shia militia members for the evil humans that they are.



So, where are we? We are at the beginning of the end of all the bad guys in Iraq. As I refer to it, this is the classic divide and conquer strategy. Thus, while the Dems continue with their defeatist attitude, the reality on the ground is the exact opposite. There is still plenty of work to do however we are winning, and by this time next year victory will be at hand. Thus, once the reportage catches up, and it will, the defeatism of the Democrats will paint them as the weak on defense party that they are.



2) George Soros. Anyone who has read my work knows that this radical is trying to buy the 2008 elections for the Democrats and then wants to use that victory to change America radically. His minions like Moveon.org and Media Matters have found their way into forefront of major stories recently. As a result, the cover which Soros used to enjoy is now being removed. Soros is a radical individual. He is essentially a Socialist though he refers to his economic philosophy as wanting a "mixed economy". He is a radical seculary progressive. He would like a radical gay agenda, drug legalization, abortion on demand, euthanasia, all removal of religion from the public square, as well as aggressive tolerant education. In fact, one only needs to look at San Francisco, and its own radical social agenda, to see what America would look like if Soros ever realized his vision. On foreign policy, he believes that the war on terror has been used by the Bush administration as a guise to expand its own empire and as an excuse to start wars. In fact, he doesn't even see the GWOT as a war, and believes the proper way to deal with our enemies is to negotiate with them. He thinks that Iran and Syria should both be negotiated with unconditionally.



Whether it is economic, social, or foreign policy, it is nothing short of uncanny how similar the Democrat's agenda is to Soros'. From universal health care, the rejection of even a ban on partial birth abortion, giving homosexuals the same civil rights as blacks, women, and older folks, to the promise of unconditional negotiations with Iran, the two agendas cross all spheres of political debate. This is no accident. Moveon.org and its ideological partner Daily Kos have each accounted for millions in the coffers of Democrats. Groups like Media Matters, Americans Coming Together, and Center for American Progress (all groups in one way or another linked to Soros money) are all run or linked to Democratic heavy weights. For instance, Harold Ickes, former White House staffer in the Clinton White House, runs ACT. John Podesta, another WH staffer under Clinton, runs CAP. Hillary Clinton once bragged this about Media Matters...

putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…”

Wherever you look the link between the Democrats and Soros is everywhere.


3) Hillary Clinton. She is a polarizing figure and the Dems have no idea what they are about to get themselves into when they nominate her. Clinton continues to have unbelievably high unfavorability ratings. They already approach 50% and the Democratic field has treated her with relatively kid gloves. That won't happen in the general election. Rudy Giuliani has already made a pillar of his Republican primary platform to go after Clinton. That will only be ratched up. Furthermore, Clinton is saddled with many scandals that have been glossed over by the MSM. Some are more recent like Norman Hsu. Some are older like Peter Paul. Some are brand new like the scandal involving poor immigrants from China Town. They all, especially with the plethora of scandals she has already been involved in, goes to paint a picture of a corrupt individual who will sell themselves to anyone that will help her gain power and ultimately be beholden to the same individuals if she ever gets into office. Here is what she said vis a vis special interest groups at Yearly Kos,

Because you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do.

She has a quasi socialist economic policy. In fact, she was once famously quoted as saying this,

shared responsibility for shared prosperity

and this,

on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society,"

I firmly believe that once Hillary is exposed for the Socialist that she is most Americans will reject her vision.
Finally, on foreign policy, she has no firm position. She has gone from hawkishly behind the war to dovishly for pulling out and everything in between. She has already flip flopped on Iran. She went from being against unconditional talks to being for unconditional talks in only a matter of months. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, she has no principles and will do or say whatever she thinks the public wants to hear at any given time. While this maybe an effective strategy now, it won't work as well in the general election. As evidence, I want to reference this poll (now normally I hate polls, however given the current up trend this one is quite interesting) Here it is.

A leaked Democratic poll has suggested that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner in the race for the party's presidential nomination, could lose the 2008 election because of her "very polarised image".

The survey by the Democratic pollsters Lake Research indicated that both Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama, second in the Democratic race, trailed Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front runner, in 31 swing congressional districts.

Remember, this poll is taken while all the supposed trends are up for the Dems. I believe that will be much different in six and nine months. Hillary is not built to beat Rudy among moderates. He is socially liberal. He is more experienced, more charismatic, and he stands firm on the issues. While she has her admirers, those come mostly from the liberal end of the sphere. She won't be able to fool moderates into believing she is one of them. She has a thirty year plus record of being consistently way left.


4) My favorite Reagan quote...that is

the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'

This is the response to just about any Democratic economic policy initiative. Imagine in a debate, Hillary Clinton goes through, in detail, her plan for making sure that everyone is covered through some form of Universal Health Care, and her opponent says this,

You know listening to the Senator, I can't help but remember an old quote of Ronald Reagan's that I like, 'the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'. That is what I am thinking right now. The Senator thinks every personal problem can be solved by the government and frankly I get terrified when someone thinks like that.


That would not only be the line of the debate, but frankly put everything she wants, is, and is trying to accomplish in a whole new and very negative light.


5) The only polls that count. That is the election poll. So far, there have been two elections. One was won overwhelmingly by a Republican, and in another, the Republican did much better than anyone expected. In Louisiana, Bobby Jindal not only won, but got more than fifty percent in a multi person field and thus won the election out right even though most times the first election leads to a run off in Louisiana. In Massachusetts, Jim Ogonowski lost on 51-45 to Nikki Tsongas despite Tsongas not only having name recognition but being in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.



For these five reasons, I believe that we need not fret Reps...2008 is our year.

Shooting the Messenger: The Chronicle, The Catholic Church, and Gay Militants

On October 6th, two members of the gay militant group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence entered mass at Most Holy Redeemer Church and took communion. Dressed in drag with full face paint their goal was to no doubt mock the proceedings. They even went so far as to film their deeds. This was not only a sacreligious act but an act of vandalism and trespassing. If this had been done in a mosque or a synagogue, the media attention would have been overwhelming.

Since it was done in a church, the only media attention was from Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly Factor

Another outrage in San Francisco and this one is very hard to believe. As you may know, San Francisco is run by far left secular-progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion. Not everybody in San Francisco feels that way, but certainly the power structure does. Time and again, we have brought you stories of outrageous behavior on the part of militant people living in that city.

Now, things have reached critical mass, no pun intended. Last Sunday, at the Catholic Church of the Most Holy Redeemer, Archbishop George Niederauer was celebrating mass. As part of that ritual, holy communion is given to Catholics by the celebrants. Two gay militants in bizarre dress took communion from the archbishop in an attempt to mock the mass and the man. — The people who did this are members of a militant homosexual group that runs around San Francisco dressed as nuns.

All city officials are aware of the group because in the past they have publicly demeaned Christianity. The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has refused to comment.
The District Attorney, Kamala Harris, says she is waiting for a complaint to be filed.
The Catholic Church says it will do its own investigation and doesn't want the police involved at this point. The archbishop has apologized, saying he's embarrassed and sorry he gave communion to people committing sacrilege.

But it really is not the archbishop's fault. — He is an elderly man who was taken by surprise. The fault here lies with the leadership of San Francisco. Mayor Newsom has consistently avoided criticizing behavior that is harmful.

Anyone that watched any of the reporting by O'Reilly knows there was genuine rage at this act. The rest of the media was in total blackout however. In fact, the local paper, The San Francisco Chronicle, didn't say a word until ten days later (no doubt under the pressure that O'Reilly was creating) when they finally wrote this.

It was a typical Sunday Mass until two men in heavy makeup and nuns' habits received Holy Communion from San Francisco's top Catholic official.

On Oct. 7, Archbishop George Niederauer delivered the Eucharist to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - an activist group whose motto is "go forth and sin some more" - prompting cries of outrage from conservatives across the country and Catholics in San Francisco.

In response to a request for comment, Niederauer released a letter of apology addressed to "Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large" in which he said he did not realize his mistake until after the Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro district.

In fact, the story was largely uncritical of the militants who intruded upon mass in order to mock and ridicule the proceedings. The Chronicle really only had any strong criticism for one person, Bill O'Reilly, as they quoted their mayor, Gavin Newsom.

"This debate really is about San Francisco values. The Bill O'Reillys of the world are threatened by San Francisco because we value diversity, universal health care and civil rights for all. They will exploit any controversy to attack our values."

In fact, San Francisco values are the larger story. In San Francisco, The boy scouts are shunned because of their policy against openly gay scout leaders. They also shun the U.S. navy. They even shun the Junior ROTC. In fact, their school board commissioner once said that we don't need a military.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Should we give up our weaponry? Should we give up
our war, our tools of war?

GERARDO SANDOVAL, SAN FRANCISCO CITY SUPERVISOR:
You know that's a very complicated question, but I would say, if you forced me to answer, I would say, yes, we should...

(CROSSTALK)

ALAN COLMES,
CO-HOST: Let me ask you a question, Gerardo. This is Alan in New York.

SANDOVAL: Hey, Alan.

COLMES: Should we not have a
military?
SANDOVAL: I don't think we should have a military.

At the same time, tax payer money goes to support a gay street fair which used a poster to mock the Last Supper. Their homeless problem is out of control. Medical marijuana is available to anyone with any imagination. Now, we have gay militants mocking the Catholic Church. The media refuses to cover it, and the mayor attacks the one messenger that is covering it.

Damn right, Mayor Newsom, this is about San Francisco values, however to most of us, with sense, that is not meant as a positive.

In fact, folks anyone that wants to know what George Soros social vision would look like need only go look at San Francisco for direction.

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.

Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political
opponents."

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.

George Soros and the 2nd Amendment

In a previous post of mine, I received this comment

Soros' definition of a "terrorist" rarely strays beyond considering the word semantically equivalent to "American citizen who owns a firearm". His abject hatred and rejection of Americans' freedom to keep and bear arms has been the bedrock of his political "philosophy" since he first came on the scene some twenty years ago.

Now, I myself didn't know until then that Soros is in fact strongly anti 2nd amendment. In fact, he is and it fits right in with the rest of his ideology. If you have read any of my previous work on the manyou will find many of the usual suspects

Soros has worked to combine with other wealthy activists and foundations to provide funding for numerous anti-gun projects. Soros and the Irene Diamond Foundation made equal $5 million contributions to form the Funders` Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention. This organization has provided funding to the anti-gun Harvard Injury Control Center and has helped bankroll reckless lawsuits designed to cripple the firearms industry. OSI and the Funders` Collaborative (using money largely supplied by Soros) was the primary funding source for the plaintiffs in Hamilton v. Accu-tek and in NAACP v. ACUSPORT Inc. OSI provided $300,000 to the plaintiffs` lawyers in the Hamilton case and provided a grant identified as between $100,000 and $499,000 in the NAACP case.

When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns. Under Peters` direction, OSI soon released "Gun Control in The United States." This strikingly simplistic evaluation of gun laws in the 50 states purposefully ignored federal firearms laws and arbitrarily awarded various point values to each state that has imposed gun control restrictions favored by the group.

So, what is Soros problem with the 2nd Amendment? Well, a clue can be found in another policy that Soros thinks the U.S. should follow, one world government.

Soros additionally finances groups supporting the interests of one-world government. While he has criticized the United Nations occasionally, he favors U.N. dominance in world affairs, sees the European Union as a model for "open society" and has called for a global central bank.

Anyone who doesn't agree with this vision, or who doesn't fit cozily into his multilateral model, gets a visit from Soros-backed groups.

MoveOn.org, for example, led the charge to keep John Bolton out of a permanent seat in the U.N., and Bankwatch piled on to topple Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

In fact, pick any cause that seeks to weaken the U.S. and it's hard not to find Soros' name on its list of financial backers. Most of these causes are financed by relatively small amounts, but that's all that's needed to make trouble.

So, what is the connection between the 2nd Amendment and one world government? Just as the man himself, the connection is murky and mysterious and ultimately dangerous to our way of life. Well, when I say Soros wants one world government, I mean one dictated by the likes of the United Nations. One of the UN's pet projects has been an international gun ban.

The U.N. is after Americans' Second Amendment gun rights – it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S., and it's not going to stop until it gets its way.

That’s the warning from the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, who reveals that "for the first time in the history of the world, a United Nations conference has set its sights on global disarmament – disarming citizens worldwide – including you and me."

At an 11-day meeting beginning July 9 at U.N. headquarters in New York, every extremist anti-gun group in the world will show up at a summit on "small arms," where the delegates will attempt to create a global standard of gun control, banning civilian fire arms ownership worldwide.

Their aim, LaPierre warns, is "to bring the nightmare of England, Australia and Canada into our country and our homes."

In fact, Soros has worked through the UN in order to impose gun bans.

As our Independence Day celebration approaches, the United Nations is holding a global conference in New York, starting on June 26th and lasting through July 7th, whose real agenda is to begin a backdoor process of interference with our constitutionally protected right to individually bear arms. The UN denies this, of course. It says that the only purpose of the conference is to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects that was adopted in 2001. Faced with over 100,000 letters of protest about the review conference from American citizens concerned about holding on to their freedoms, the conference chairman - Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador – said that this year’s review conference will deal only with illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession." The review conference’s website says that “it is not the wish of nations attending the Conference to discuss outlawing the legal manufacture or trade of these weapons, nor their legal ownership.”

...

Predictably, the anti-gun possession fanatic Rebecca Peters, who is Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) - a network of more than 700 non-governmental organizations working in 100 countries against the individual’s right to bear arms – has seized on this opening. IANSA is the official coordinator of non-governmental organizations’ involvement in the UN small arms process. Its sources of funding include the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. IANSA is already guaranteed to have a seat at the table, but it is pressing for a fuller partnership with the member state delegations in the review conference’s deliberations.

As with everything that he does, his own presence in the movement is extremely low key. So, what is the link between banning guns and one world government? It can be found in the purpose of the 2nd Amendment itself. The best explanation of the 2nd amendment was made by Judge Andrew Napolitano in his book Constitutional Chaos. The original intent of the 2nd amendment was not only to protect the citizenry from intruders and other criminals but more importantly from the government itself. As Napolitano explained in Constitutional Chaos, each government take over happened when the citizens were unarmed. Here is another way to look at it.

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

In other words, before the U.S. can bend to the will of the United Nations, our citizens must lose their arms.

Hillary Flips on Iranian Negotiations

To know if this is a true flip flop or just nuance we would need to get into areas where we will once again try and figure out what the definition of is is. I don't really want to do that. That is frankly par for the course for Madame Clinton as Charles Krauthammer points out. Instead, I just want to analyze the sensibilities of her current position vis a vis Iran.
Here is her current position .

[A]sked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.

To me this is just mind boggling. I have a metaphor and let me know if it is appropriate. By Hillary's standards, if I don't know anything about car engines, I should try and fix my car myself before taking it to the mechanic. She says we don't really understand how the Iranian system works and thus she wants to jump in with two feet and begin negotiations. She doesn''t understand the nature of the enemy we are dealing with and she sees absolutely no potential negative ramifications of talking to them directly. I have pointed out before that the ruling government of Iran is a network of sociopaths. Furthermore, I have pointed out that George Soros is trying to buy the next Presidential election and unconditional negotiations with Iran and Syria is one of the pillars of Soros' vision of the GWOT.

None of these points should be taken lightly. Sociopaths are master manipulaters because they spend their entire lives getting what they want without ever thinking about the well being of anyone else. The ruling elites of Iran want to rule the entire Middle East. They already have proxies in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. The control the world's fourth largest oil reserve. They will use whatever unconditional negotiations with her administration to further those goals, because that is what sociopaths do. They manipulate every situation to their advantage.

Finally, it is no wonder that the majority of Democrats running for higher office favor some sort of unconditional negotiations with Iran. Most of their entire agenda: whether domestic, economic, or in this case foreign policy, mirrors that of George Soros. He wields a lot of power in their circles and the Dem candidates would much rather kow tow to him than take him on, in my opinion.

Do you think I am paranoid and turning Soros into the Democratic version of Karl Rove? Maybe? Think about this. More than half the Democrats running for office favor teaching second grader a book about two Princes living together. More than half want to eliminate the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. None of them want to do anything about securing the border. These radical positions mirror the radical positions of George Soros exactly.

George Soros Vision of the GWOT

George Soros is a character with which I am quite familiar with. His name has started to reach the public consciousness in the last several weeks because organizations which he funds have found their way into the news. Whether it is Moveon.org vis a vis the Betray Us ad, or Media Matters vis a vis the trumped up Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh stories, his proxies are finding their way into the news everyday. George Soros wants to buy the next Presidency of the United States and he is using a sophisticated network of websites, PAC's, and advocacy groups to do it. So, let's see what our foreign policy will look like if he does buy the Presidency.

First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.

Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.

Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.

Now, to me, George Soros' vision is very dangerous and I believe firmly anti American. The problem, from where I am sitting, is that he uses the terrorists ingenuity and evil genius against us rather than the terrorists. Furthermore, his vision of the war on terror is completely theoretical with absolutely no practical application. Elitist circles have fallen in love with the term political solution, however none of them explain how to apply that. Last time, I checked Al Qaeda has a series of goals, including the destruction of all infidels, and none of those goals are negotiable. Soros is right. Terrorists have no country and they blend in with society, and for that Soros thinks, we shouldn't go after them. In fact, that is why they blend into society.

Furthermore, Soros claims that while AQ, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. use the same tactics, they have different goals. That may be true to a point, however they all share a common goal of eliminating those that they disagree with, meaning the U.S. Soros seems to think that some of these groups could be reasoned with. Again, he simply doesn't understand the sociopathic nature of the enemy we deal with. Furthermore, he is convinced that negotiation with Syria and Iran are the proper course to take with each of those groups. To me, this is a dangerously naive view of the world simply doesn't recognize the nature of the enemy we are dealing with.

He also advances the elitist view that GWOT is all about finding UBL and Zawahiri. There is no doubt that it is shameful and embarrassing that they haven't been found, however the GWOT won't end when they are and any vision that places this much emphasis on it, is a vision that has nothing to offer the day after they are found.

Now, let's go beyond the four points he made and look at the larger picture. He doesn't consider the GWOT a war, and thus, AQ, and other terrorist, are not enemy combatants but rather criminals. As such, in the world of George Soros they would receive the rights of any other criminal. This of course is crazy. First, a terrorist act is not a crime but an act of war and should be treated as such. Second, it is one thing to investigate a crime that already happened and quite another to investigate a terrorist act that is still about to happen. The two types of individuals will deserve completely different sets of rights.

Second, if a terrorist is a criminal, then Soros would want that criminal prosecuted in criminal courts not in military tribunals. This is just as crazy for its own set of reasons. First, one only needs to look at the spectacle of Zac Moussaoui to see what a nightmare it would be if terrorists were prosecuted in criminal courts on a wholesale level. On that note, the terrorists would get access to all of the government's evidence, be able to depose witnesses, and witnesses would have to testify in open court against them. Now, since a good portion of the evidence will come from fellow terrorists ratting them out, what are the chances that we will be able to get any of them to testify in open court?

Third, Soros would want to close down Gitmo and move those prisoners to places unknown though potentially to maximum security prisons in the United States. The main problem with anyone that claims that Gitmo needs to be shut down is that frankly there is no better alternative that I can think of. Most of these people originate in countries where their civil rights will be violated significantly more than anything that happens in Gitmo. Second, most of these countries don't want them. Does Soros understand the bureaucratic and economic nighmare of trying to house and protect these terrorists if they wound up in federal lock up?

Finally, since, again, he considers them criminals not enemy combatants, all of the tough interrogation techniques: water boarding, loud music, changing temperatures, etc would no longer be in play. It is all nice and well to be a beacon of civil rights even to the worst of the worst in theory, however these techniques work and they save lives. Bill O'Reilly interviewed both Michael Sheuer and George Tenet and they each swore by the techniques and said that using them has saved lives. Thus, while protecting the civil rights of terrorists sounds good in theory, in practice it endangers American lives.

I believe that George Soros is a dangerous man for many reasons, but this is how he is dangerous vis a vis the GWOT.

The Origins of Media Matters

Hat Tip to Hot Air for this one. As Bryan Preston over there explains, this comes from audio from Rush's show. It seems that back when Hillary was at the Yearly Kos right here in Chicago, she was bragging about leading the way in creating Media Matters...

putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…”

Media Matters has denied this

On the July 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush
Limbaugh again falsely accused Media Matters for America of being part of a
network of "Hillary [Clinton] fundraising groups, or front groups." Limbaugh was
arguing that recent news reports regarding Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL)
fundraising success did not take into account "so many institutions -- Media
Matters for America and all these other little organizations -- that are just
extensions of the Clinton that don't count when you start raising money. But how
much are they worth when all this free publicity and attacks that they dole out
on any opponent of Hillary Clinton? So, yeah, if you just look at the money, in
one sense, you would conclude that Barack's, you know, doing very well and
Hillary isn't. But he doesn't have near the organization that she does." In
fact, as Media Matters has previously noted in response to
Limbaugh's claims, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political party or
candidate.

Of course, as Newsbusters notes this denial is not really much of a denial.

In yet another instance of Media Matters making false claims, the left-wing
group has issued several denials that it is tied to Hillary and Bill
Clinton.

But in true Clintonian fashion, these denials are hardly that at all. Here
is the phrase that the
group keeps falling back on:

"Media Matters for America is a 'progressive research and information
center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting
conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.' The Center for American Progress
identifies itself on its website as 'a progressive think-tank dedicated to
improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action.'"

Of course this means nothing whatsoever as far as Hillary Clinton goes. And
yet in typical disreputable MM fashion, the far left group has repeatedly referenced it in
subsequent articles as a denial of a Clinton connection.

Apparently Media Matters can't even quote itself in context!

We can't help but wonder how the group tries to spin and distort this
flat-out statement of involvement from Clinton.

What no one will deny is that Media Matters operates with a plethora of money that originates with George Soros, but first goes through at least three hands in the political version of laundering the money. John Gotti was successful when he stayed under the radar and the same is true of George Soros, but now, he has found the spotlight all too comfortable and the facade is about to pulled over him.

He is an Anti American radical who is looking to buy the next election and then control the Democrats through his power and money. If America doesn't figure out who he is and what he is up to, he may even succeed. Here, again, is O'Reilly's TPM tracing Soros, his money, and his agenda...

“The Factor” has been investigating far left billionaire George Soros, a man who wants
to impose a radical left agenda on America. And under the radar, he is making
great progress.
Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed
to do two things: buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people
with whom he disagrees.

Now here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy radicals who help
him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with me on this. Most
of Soros' political money flows through his Open Society
Institute. You see it there on the left, which is almost unlimited
funding.

Since 2001, according to federal documents, the Open Society Institute has
given nearly $20 million to the Tides Foundation right
below that. An astounding amount.

Now Tides, in turn, funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men
who are all well paid. For example, Tides has donated millions to the vile
propaganda outfit Media Matters, which specializes in distorting comments made
by politicians, pundits, and media people. Media Matters is an Internet site, but
directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people including elements
at NBC News, columnist Frank Rich and Paul Krugman at The New York Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at PBS. — In fact,
as president of the Shoeman Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at least a
$500,000 transfer of money to Media Matters. — We'll have more on that
tomorrow.

Now George Soros is also pouring money into the Center for American
Progress, run by former Clinton aide John Podesta, and the Democracy Alliance
Group, both of which fund Media Matters as well. So you can see the enormous
amount of money this Media Matters has control of.

Finally, George Soros has given the radical left organization Move On many,
many millions of dollars. — This group actively supports liberal politicians
like Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting
left-wing causes.

So you can see how powerful this guy Soros has become. He can smear anyone
he wants in a variety of ways. His organizations can raise millions for
politicians, who will do his bidding. Thus, he can demand that politicians
running for office do what he tells them to do.

If the liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be
denied funding and brutally attacked. — Just ask Senator Joseph
Lieberman about what Move On and Media Matters did to him.

Now "Talking Points" has reason to believe John Edwards is taking orders
from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as
well.

The goal of George Soros, Peter Lewis, Suzy Thompkins Buell and other
radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. —By that I mean find and
fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.

In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is
the likes of George Soros — an extremist who wants open borders, a one world
foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia and on and on.

My book "Culture Warrior"
documents Soros' policy and his tax evading businesses located in Curacao and
Bermuda.

The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have
never even heard of George Soros. his is off the chart dangerous, but completely
legal under the McCain-Feingold Act.

Dems Get Deeper into Bed with Soros

As I pointed out last week, the important part of the Betray Us ad story is who is fronting the money for the group, Moveon.org. That person is George Soros. Well, another of his attack dog groups, Media Matters, stirred another pot with another adversary, Rush Limbaugh, later in the week. Here is how it went

So, word is that the Democrats will introduce a House resolutionMonday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his remarks about phony soldiers. Brian Maloney points out that ABC News aired a report on phony soldiers and Operation Stolen Valor two days before Rush made his remarks. Asks Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”

Here is what this phony fiasco is really all about: It’s about the MoveOn.org Democrats trying to save face in the aftermath of the disastrous “General Betray Us” smear. They want their own moment of righteous (or rather, lefteous) indignation, their own empty proof that they really, really, really do support the troops. They want to shift attention away from MoveOn.org, its bully tactics, and its thug brethren at Media Matters. They are making a pathetic attempt to equate the “Betray Us” attack–which was deliberately timed for publication and maximum p.r. damage to our military command when the world was watching our top general in Iraq testifying in Congress–with a radio talk show host’s ruminations about anti-war
soldiers who have faked their military records/history.

Here is a transcript of the important portion

BREWER: Some leading Democrats are attacking radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh because he called soldiers who opposed the Iraq war "phony." Limbaugh was criticizing the anti-war movement generally and made the comment to a caller.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

BREWER: Democratic Senator John Kerry is demanding an apology from Limbaugh, whose comments he calls "disgusting and an embarrassment."

RUSH: That's really rich. John Kerry, whose own soldiers, his own personnel, fellow soldiers in those Swift Boats, at least many of them who said he was lying about his supposed heroics, this is the same John Kerry who went out and insulted the intelligence of the troops, thereby torpedoing his own 2008 presidential candidacy. His statement includes these words: "This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the chicken hawk wing of the far right is an insult to American troops." I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I'm going to play for you. It's Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had the transcript. But they selectively choose what they want to make their point. It runs about three minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're
proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice
and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

RUSH: It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the
minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.
Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers.
This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities
and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say
in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the
anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with
post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made
Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view,
off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the
abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians,
hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into
Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth
describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their
bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day
in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three
years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his
Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks,
briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't
an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the
Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to
have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you
haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in
the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't
look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the
anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's
lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves
their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find
any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words,
for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the
truth.

RUSH: That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one
phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose,
which is exactly the way the website, Media Matters, generated this story,
fiction, out of context, did so knowingly. What is amazing is that after all of
the examples of how this organization is simply a Democrat Party Hillary Clinton
front group; how they constantly do this; how they take things out of context
and embarrass themselves and get things wrong; they still have credible
so-called journalists and others, members of Congress, Democrat Party, who treat
what they say as gospel. Not one member of the media, not one congressman,
nobody has called our office to ask, "Did you really say this? And what did you
mean by it?" The reason this does not work, ladies and gentlemen, is that I have
a 19-and-a-half-year record on this program of being one of the most devoted
supporters of US military personnel in uniform that there is.

Now, Rush is referring to the plethora of supposed soldiers and even real soldiers that have doctored up incidents to put a negative spin on the war effort. These soldiers include, Jesse MacBeth, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Amorita Randall, and also Josh Lansdale just to name a few. Rush was not speaking of soldiers that then go on to protest the war. Maybe he wasn't clear, and maybe he was, however he made his intent very clear soon enough. Still, that wasn't enough and the Soros cohorts at MSNBC had a field day with this story. It turned into an absolute orgy

TAMRON HALL: Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh never served
in the armed forces, so when he made the following comments about Iraq War
veterans who return home to oppose the war, it set off a firestorm of outrage.
Take a listen.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not, and what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

HALL: MSNBC wanted to hear Mr. Limbaugh's side of the story, but he declined our invitation. Instead, he offered this on the show today. Here's a quote: "If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology. They owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology -- and are they owed massive defeat in 2008! They are irresponsible, they are dishonest, they are incompetent, and they pose a great threat to this country -- as evidenced by this small little episode."

HALL: To talk more about that episode, U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, who's an MSNBC military analyst, is here with us to talk about this. So, Colonel Jacobs, it's interesting, of course, MoveOn.Org, heavy criticism, even taken up issue on the Congress floor about their "General Betray Us" ad. Is it different when you criticize a general as MoveOn.Org did as when you compare to Rush Limbaugh's comments about soldiers?

Retired Colonel JACK JACOBS, MSNBC military analyst:

Well, stupid talk is stupid talk no matter who it comes from and who it's talking about. You know, when I was in Vietnam, we looked back at the states and saw all the turmoil in the streets, the yelling and screaming in Congress, complaints and moaning and groaning on television, and we didn't pay any attention to any of that stuff. We had lots more important things to do like taking care of each other and completing the mission. Whether you're for the war or against the war, it's really quite irrelevant.

HALL: So it does not affect the morale of troops because you often hear people say, oh, they can hear what's going on here, and it affects the way they feel out there.

JACOBS: Well, they do hear what's going on, you know. With technology being the way it is, with all the information that's going out to the battlefield and coming back from the battlefield, there's a huge, so they can hear, everybody out there can hear everything that goes on back in the United States, including stuff like this and MoveOn.Org and so on. But they're not paying any attention to it.

HALL: How are troops who come out and, lately have come out against the war, how are they treated and perceived by other personnel in the military?

JACOBS: Well, it's interesting. You know, it's a free country. You can say anything you want to anytime you want to. And that includes soldiers, as well, but it's an interesting thing about war. Emotions that are forged in the crucible of combat are extremely tough indeed. And most of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, they like to think about their comrades, about taking care of their comrades, and it's going to be very, very difficult to get them to say anything bad about their comrades and what they do. They can oppose the war and think that we've done a bad job, we didn't use enough resources, we should have gone in with more troops, should never have gone in in the first place. They can think and say all those things, but at the end of the day, they're going to keep faith with the troops who are back there fighting.

HALL: But without some of their insight, we would not be able to know the other side. Of course, my father was in the Army for 35 years. He follows the line, I know. He's master sergeant. But without insight from the troops, you have all of these people on the outside who have never served chiming in giving their opinion.

JACOBS: Well, you raise a very significant question. It's really a good thing that we, we ought to pay as much attention as we possibly can to people who have the experience, including the generals who have come out and said, look, we did this all wrong, and we the generals should have paid more attention to it and said more at the time, and pay no attention to people, for example, like Rush Limbaugh and the people at MoveOn.Org who have no military experience at all.

HALL: So from the people who have the military experience, are you thinking that they want MoveOn.Org, Rush Limbaugh, both sides just to shut up at some point?

JACOBS: Yeah, I think if you were to distill it down to its irreducible minimum, I think soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines would like people who don't know what they're talking about to just shut up.

HALL: All right, thank you very much, Colonel Jacobs. Always good to talk to you. Love that frank talk that you give me.

It continued on Countdown...

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I never said what you think I said

OLBERMANN: Not only did he, now he said something similar about the Congressman and Vietnam vet Jack Murtha.

OLBERMANN SOON CONTENDED: Limbaugh now trying to claim that his tirade
referred to just one phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq war. That re-write might have a better chance of passing the smell test had Mr. Limbaugh's original 'phony soldiers' comment -- still plural at that point -- not come nearly two minutes before he ever mentioned MacBeth on yesterday's radio show. Limbaugh making things worse for himself today by adding Congressman John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet, to his list of 'phony soldiers' -- now back to being plural.

AUDIO OF LIMBAUGH: How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?

I have already pointed out the sophisticated and complicated yet cozy relationship between the Democrats and George Soros. Now, the Democrats have joined the fun. Harry Reid is demanding an apology and Congressman Udall, also running for Senate, has even taken up a motion for a non binding resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh. Now, clearly, they are hoping to strike back at Conservatives and minimize the damage from the Betray Us ad, however this is going to back fire. What they have actually done is further brought out into the open their own cozy relationship with George Soros. Remember, everyone that Media Matters is the attack dog funded by Soros through his Tides foundation (which of course gets their money from OSI and yes it is supposed to be this complicated). Now that the Democrats of our legislature are treating the words of Media Matters as gospel, there is nowhere else to run. Their relationship with Soros and his attack dogs is there for everyone to see.

Soros Story Finds a New Tentacle

Hat tip to Sweetness & Light

Why is Mr. George Soros’s famously well-heeled Open Society Institute getting donations from from agencies of the US federal government, as well as the United Palestinian Appeal — which is a relief charity.

The answer is not readily known and that is probably just the way that Soros likes it. Most likely he has gotten into bed with someone to funnel money from a government agency into his own group. His group is not much of a charity and mostly just funnels money to smear merchants. Stay tuned because this party of the story has just begun.

George Soros Update

The new tidbits come from Michelle Malkin's web site Hot Air...

both of these involve the Clinton's. The first involves yet another fundraising scandal for Hillary...

Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record
campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s presidential campaign, documents show.

At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT)
fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined
$775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with
consulting firms hired by it.

In addition, the group’s former president, longtime Clinton aide Harold
Ickes, has been identified as a volunteer adviser to the Clinton campaign. In
FEC filings, the campaign listed a debt to Mr. Ickes of more than $2,000 for
travel-related costs.

ACT is one of the many attack groups that Soros funds in order to do his dirty work and Ickes is the former White House staffer in the Bill Clinton White House.

The second one involves Bill Clinton getting hot when talk of the Betray Us ad popped up. He takes the new nuanced position that has become the modis operandi to explain away the Betray Us ad without condemning it specifically. He tries to equate a personal attack on the commanding general in the battlefield with your standard issue attacks on political opponents. When this ad came up, he compared it to the attacks on Clelland and Kerry. Now, if Dems think that these are equivalent I look forward to all of them making that part of their platform. If they think the public will be fooled, well, then we will see...

George Soros= The Political Keyser Soze

Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I
believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.

That is one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies, The Usual Suspects. I believe in God as well, and the only person that politically scares me more than Hillary Clinton is George Soros. Once anyone studies the way he operates they should all realize that does to politics what Soze did to crime. Here is how Bill O'Reilly described his network

Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two
things: buy influence among some liberal politicians, and smear people with whom
he disagrees.
Now here's a chart of how Soros and a few other wealthy
radicals who help him are funneling money into the political process. Stay with
me on this. Most of Soros' political money flows through his Open
Society Institute. You see it there on the left, which is almost unlimited
funding.

Since 2001, according to federal documents, the Open Society Institute has
given nearly $20 million to the Tides
Foundation right below that. An astounding amount.
Now Tides, in turn,
funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men who are all well paid. For
example, Tides has donated millions to the vile propaganda outfit Media Matters,
which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits, and media
people. Media
Matters is an Internet site, but directly feeds its propaganda to some
mainstream media people including elements at NBC News, columnist Frank Rich and
Paul Krugman at The New York
Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at
PBS. — In fact, as president of the Shoeman Center Foundation, Moyers oversaw at
least a $500,000 transfer of money to Media Matters.

...

Now George Soros is also pouring money into the Center for American
Progress, run by former Clinton aide John Podesta,
and the Democracy Alliance Group, both of which fund Media Matters
as well. So you can see the enormous amount of money this Media Matters has
control of.

Finally, George Soros has given the radical left organization Move On many,
many millions of dollars. — This group actively supports liberal politicians
like Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting
left-wing causes.

So you can see how powerful this guy Soros has become. He can smear anyone
he wants in a variety of ways. His organizations can raise millions for
politicians, who will do his bidding. Thus, he can demand that politicians
running for office do what he tells them to do.

If the liberal politician doesn't toe the Soros line, he or she will be
denied funding and brutally attacked. — Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman about what Move On and Media
Matters did to him.

Now "Talking Points" has reason to believe John Edwards
is taking orders from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic
politicians may be as well.

The goal of George Soros, Peter Lewis, Suzy Thompkins Buell and other
radical financiers is to buy a presidential election. —By that I mean find and
fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do.

In the past, big business has been accused of doing just that. Now it is
the likes of George Soros — an extremist who wants open borders, a one world
foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia and on and on.

This is a shrewd, dangerous and devious individual. The network he has set up creates up to three degrees of separation from him and the attack dogs that he funds. One would only set up such a loose network if they never wanted to be found, a la Keyser Soze. So far he has stayed relatively under the radar. He may have over played his hand though. It just so happens that several of these Soros related groups are making the news all at once. We all now know about the vicious attack placed General Petraeus on the NY Times. O'Reilly has found himself in the cross hairs of a Soros proxy attack again. This is not the first time one of his proxies have attacked him. By his count, Media Matters has attacked him 109 times this year alone. Soros was also behind the infamous whistleblower James Hansen. The mainstream media fawned over him.

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to
stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt
reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA
headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures,
papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from
journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is
to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space
agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we
operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with
the facts."

He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics
and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were
free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left
to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

He was portrayed as the little guy exposing the evil administration hiding their incompetence in dealing with an on the horizon epidemic. Unfortunately, either through outright lack of will or just incompetence, the media never got the whole story on Hansen. He was an opportunist being funded and propped up by yet another Soros proxy

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The
issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It
warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA’s official press policy, which
requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being
“silenced,” despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including
15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press
policy, Hansen states he had a “constitutional right” to grant interviews.
Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture
halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him. A report revealed just this week, shows the ‘Open Society Institute’ funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to “shape public policy,” is funded by billionaire
George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry’s 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros,
who once declared that “removing Bush from office was the ”central focus" of his
life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other
political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious — it’s a clear conflict of interest.

So, who is George Soros. Well, he is a multi billionaire, around 8.5 billion at last count. He is Jewish son of Holocaust survivors from Hungary. He first became famous all over the world by nearly bankrupting by short selling the British pound in 1992. He is currently wanted on insider trading charges in France. One could say he is the real life Gordon Gekko. What does Soros want to accomplish? He wants to drastically change the way America operates. Among his list of priorities is: one world government, open borders, drug legalization, abortion on demand, closing down Gitmo, ending enhanced interrogations and warrantless wiretapping, giving terrorists civil rights of a criminal, a strong central government that borders on socialism, and euthanasia (that is all I can think of but hopefully you get the idea).

He has become a power player in the Democratic Party however, through his vast network of attack groups, he has been able to limit his profile up until now. He may have over played his hand though because now several of his groups are in the spotlight at the same time, and the blogosphere has begun to notice. Still, I believe Soros will live to regret the day that he decided to take on O'Reilly, and while the blogosphere will help drive this story, in the end, I believe it will end up being O'Reilly himself that will finally expose Soros to America.

Here is his latest TPM on Soros

The real story behind the MoveOn smear attack on General Petraeus is
far
left financier George Soros. He has given millions to MoveOn and other
Internet
sites that smear conservatives and traditionalists.

If you
want to know the full extent of Soros' intrusion into the political
process,
read Investors Business Daily's editorial today. Go to their Web site.
It is
downright frightening.

Now the far left billionaire has bought
politicians, journalists, an
Internet character assassins. He wields
tremendous power in this country. So
much power that 24 Democratic senators
were afraid to condemn MoveOn for its
outrageous attack on General Petraeus.
Those senators
include Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and
Harry Reid.
Again, those senators would not vote to condemn the MoveOn ad.

...

Well, when an irresponsible far left outfit succeeds in
frightening a
quarter of the Senate, you know there's big trouble in this
country. Not only
that, some loons are even supporting the attack on
Petraeus.

Elements at NBC News, for example, who parrot far left
propaganda
incessantly, insist the ad is a legitimate form of dissent.

The New York Times is happy to discount the ad more than 60 percent for
MoveOn, as we've reported. And if you read the far left blogs, they're
thrilled
that General Petraeus was smeared.
All those people, of course,
are
disgraceful. Even if you disagree with the Iraq war, a general decorated
for
valor fighting on a vicious battle field does not deserve to be smeared
by
anyone.

The Democratic talking points say that the MoveOn
situation is an attempt
by people to divert attention away from Iraq. Well,
that's false. Most Americans
do not support the war. And that's fine, but
they do support the troops in the
field. That is called loyalty.

George Soros and his far left puppets are anti-military. They believe
our
forces are oppressors, corporate tools, instruments of evil. You heard
NBC News
commentator William Arkin say that. And it is implied in the pages
of liberal
newspapers every single day.

All of this makes George
Soros very happy. He is the real Wizard of Oz —
the man behind the curtain.
He has succeeded in terrorizing much of the
Democratic party.
George
Soros is trying to buy the presidential election of
2008. And he just might
do it.