posted August 29, 2006 02:56 PM            

A new book by David Horowitz and Richard Poe has enraged the Left and alarmed many conservatives. It exposes the machinations of a radical clique working at the highest levels of government and finance to undermine American power. That book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. It hit the New York Times bestseller list in its first week in print.

Here to tell us about The Shadow Party is co-author Richard Poe, our esteemed colleague at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, where he serves as director of research. Mr. Poe has written a number of bestselling books. His last two releases were Hillary's Secret War and The Seven Myths of Gun Control.

FP: Richard Poe, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Poe: Thank you, Jamie.

FP: So what exactly is the Shadow Party?

Poe: The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive.

The leader of these radicals is multibillionaire George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control.

FP: How does it work?

Poe: It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit.

In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates.

The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat pursestrings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him.

During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, “Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it…”

FP: Everyone knows that Soros has poured money into MoveOn. Can you name some other Shadow Party groups?

Poe: The Shadow Party is always changing. New groups form and old ones dissolve. For instance, America Coming Together -- which raised $135 million for Democrat get-out-the-vote drives in 2004 – has been mothballed, at least for now. The most active Shadow Party groups today are probably the Center for American Progress, America Votes, Democracy Alliance, the New Democrat Network, the New Politics Institute, ACORN and, of course, MoveOn.org.

FP: How does Soros use his influence over the Party?

Poe: He uses it to push the Party leftward. He is systematically purging the Party of moderates and packing it with radicals. For instance, the Shadow Party ousted Senator Joseph Lieberman in favor of Ned Lamont, because Lieberman refused to support a “cut-and-run” policy in Iraq.

FP: Isn’t that just politics as usual, though – wealthy fat cats funding their favorite candidates?

Poe: Funding ordinary candidates, be they Democrats or Republicans, would be politics as usual. Funding radical candidates who seek America’s destruction is not. Money is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. The Shadow Party is using it for evil.

FP: Does the Shadow Party really seek to destroy America?

Judge for yourself. In his new book The Age of Fallibility, Soros writes, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.” He announced in 2003 that it is necessary to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.” Soros is working systematically to achieve that goal.

On the economic front, he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation. At the same time, Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass immigration into the United States, and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants. These measures alone have the potential to bankrupt the nation. However, if they fail, Soros has another program that will certainly finish the job. A long-time Soros operative named Jeffrey Sachs has been placed in charge of the United Nations Millennium Project – a global war on poverty designed to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones. Sachs is currently demanding that American taxpayers turn over $140 billion per year to his global welfare bureaucracy.

On the political front, Soros has poured massive funding into such groups as the ACLU, which uses lawsuits to hamstring the War on Terror. Soros also funds Amnesty International, whose US executive director has called for the arrest of President Bush as a war criminal. Another Soros-funded group, The Center for Constitutional Rights, has drawn up detailed articles of impeachment against the President.

FP: Why don’t more Americans know that Soros is pushing these destructive policies?

Poe: The Shadow Party operates through deception. It uses the Democratic Party as camouflage. By posing as ordinary Democrats, Shadow Party candidates trick mainstream voters into supporting them. Their true agenda remains concealed. As Soros writes in The Age of Fallibility, “[T]he Democratic Party does not stand for the policies that I advocate; indeed, if it did, it could not be elected.”

The fact is, Soros aspires to establish a neo-socialist order in America. In the Atlantic Monthly of February 1997, he wrote, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.”

FP: Tell me about Soros’ efforts to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Poe: Mr. Soros advocates deep structural change in our system of government. In April 2005, Yale Law School hosted an event called, “The Constitution in 2020”, whose stated goal was to formulate “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.” Of the event’s five institutional sponsors, one was Soros’ flagship foundation The Open Society Institute, and two others were Soros-funded Shadow Party groups; the Center for American Progress and the American Constitution Society. We nicknamed that event the Shadow Constitutional Convention.

FP: What parts of our Constitution does Soros want to change?

Poe: He appears to have a special animus against the Bill of Rights. Take freedom of worship, for instance. Soros seems to favor some sort of religious apartheid, with fundamentalist Christians banished to a socio-political Bantustan. For example, in a New Yorker interview of October 18, 2004, he said of President Bush, “The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President.”

Then there’s the Second Amendment. Soros has provided massive funding to anti-gun groups and anti-gun litigators. The unprecedented assault on gun rights during the 1990s was largely bankrolled by Soros.

FP: You and David Horowitz have also accused Soros of promoting political censorship in America.

Poe: Most Americans do not realize that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was a Trojan Horse. Its stated purpose was to reform campaign finance law. Its actual effect is to regulate political speech. McCain-Feingold Act was a Shadow Party initiative. Soros and a group of leftwing foundations spent over $140 million to get it passed.

Here’s how it works. McCain-Feingold authorizes federal election officials to decide who may or may not run political advertisements during election season, and what sorts of ads they may run. In September 2004, a federal judge expanded McCain-Feingold’s reach by ordering the FEC to begin censoring the Internet. Blogger outrage forced the FEC to back down, but McCain-Feingold remains on the books. Sooner or later, it will be enforced, to the full extent its creators envisioned. We can thank Mr. Soros for these developments.

FP: Of course, we can also thank Republican Senator John McCain, who co-sponsored the bill.

Poe: Yes, but McCain has a long history of collusion with the Shadow Party.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Soros sponsored two so-called “Shadow Conventions,” held at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in Philadelphia and Los Angeles respectively. Their purpose was to promote campaign finance reform. John McCain gave the keynote speech at the Philadelphia “Soros Convention” (as columnist Robert Novak dubbed it), while Russ Feingold did so at the LA event.

McCain’s service to the Shadow Party brought him financial benefits. In 2001, McCain founded the Reform Institute for Campaign and Election Issues. The Institute’s major funders were mostly leftwing foundations. Prominent among them was George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

FP: It seems ironic that Soros spent ten years lobbying for campaign finance reform, only to emerge as one of the biggest influence buyers in Washington.

Poe: As I said, the McCain-Feingold Act was a Trojan Horse. It made the Shadow Party possible. Among other things, it forced the Democratic Party into a financial crisis, enabling Soros to swoop in and buy up the Party at a bargain-basement price.

Democrats have traditionally relied on large, soft-money donations from unions, while Republicans relied more on small, “hard-money” donations from mom-and-pop donors. When McCain-Feingold outlawed soft-money donations to the parties, Republicans were not unduly hampered, but Democrats flew into a panic. They faced the real possibility of bankruptcy.

Enter George Soros. After forcing the Democrats into a fiscal crisis, he then offered to rescue them. He set up a network of non-profit, “issue-advocacy” groups – the Shadow Party – and invited all the big Democrat donors to contribute to his network. Thus they could still contribute to the Democrat cause, but without giving directly to the Party. The Party became dependent on Soros to raise campaign contributions which the law now forbade the Party itself to raise.

FP: You and David Horowitz charge that Hillary Clinton has a secret alliance with Soros.

Poe: That’s right. They have to keep their alliance secret because any political coordination between them would violate federal election law. Soros’s Shadow Party is barred by law from coordinating its activities with official Democratic Party candidates, such as Hillary.

It’s a poorly-kept secret, however. At the annual Take Back America conference on June 3, 2004, Hillary gave Soros a glowing introduction, saying, “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.” More importantly, her right hand man, Harold Ickes – who served the Clinton White House as deputy chief of staff – now serves Soros as de facto CEO of the Shadow Party. Ickes plays a significant role in running Hillary’s political machine and Soros’ Shadow Party simultaneously. This is arguably illegal, but no controlling authority seems willing to intervene.

The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House. Hillary has no official connection to the Center. However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists. One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.” Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.” The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact, Soros’ brainchild.

FP: You and Mr. Horowitz have said that the Shadow Party purged Joseph Lieberman, in retaliation for his pro-war stance. How do you square that with the fact that Hillary supported Lieberman?

Poe: Hillary supported Lieberman only with lip service. She was just hedging her bets. What mattered was her announcement that she would support whomever won, be it Lieberman or Lamont. Please note that, within 24 hours of Lamont's victory over Lieberman, HILLPAC became the first Democrat political action committee to pledge money to Lamont’s campaign. With friends like that, Lieberman doesn’t need enemies.

FP: Some conservatives welcome Soros’ intervention. They say that the farther left he pushes the Democrats, the fewer people will vote Democrat.

Poe: It would certainly be nice if we could just sit back and wait for the Shadow Party to fizzle out of its own accord. Given what is at stake, however, I think a more energetic approach is in order.

In my view, the farther left Soros pushes the Democrats, the more dangerous they grow. The Party is becoming more cult-like and fanatical by the day. History teaches that a fanatical minority can prevail over a moderate majority. The Bolsheviks proved that in 1917. Before our eyes, the Democratic Party is transforming into a totalitarian cult, bent on seizing power by any means necessary. This is a time for vigilance, not complacency.

FP: Are we talking Red Guards in the streets? That’s a little hard to imagine.

Poe: Actually, the Shadow Party funds a number of groups which specialize in street action. Last March, about half a million protesters brought Los Angeles to a standstill, calling for open borders and free immigration. Some burned American flags and fought with police. Similar protests occurred simultaneously in many cities. The whole extravaganza was a Shadow Party operation. Virtually every sponsor was a Soros-funded group – at least eight organizations – including ACORN, La Raza, MALDEF and others. One of the organizers, the Center for Community Change, has received $5.2 million from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

FP: What is their plan? How does the Shadow Party intend to take power in America?

Poe: They appear to be pursuing a three-phase plan. The first two phases are based upon the successful strategy which the left used to force regime change in America during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.

Phase One is to impeach President Bush for allegedly deceiving the nation into war. We call this phase Watergate II.

Phase Two is to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and to cut off aid to the Iraqi Republic, just as Democrats cut off aid to South Vietnam after Nixon resigned. We call this phase Vietnam II.

Phase Three is velvet revolution. This is a term used in Eastern Europe to describe the sort of bloodless coup for which Soros is well-known in that part of the world. He has used these methods to topple regimes in many countries, such as Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia.

Soros’ velvet revolutions always follow the same pattern. The rebels wait for an election, then precipitate a crisis by charging voter fraud.***HELLO

We believe the Shadow Party may attempt something similar in the USA. If they fail to win legitimately in 2008, they will likely cry voter fraud, fomenting an electoral crisis similar to the Bush-Gore deadlock of 2000.

We must expect, however, that the left has learned a few lessons since 2000. It seems doubtful that they will stake their revolution on a decision of John Roberts’ Supreme Court. More likely, they will press for international arbitration this time, possibly under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This group actually monitored our elections in 2004. Its relations with Soros – and with the Democratic Party – are extremely cordial, to say the least.

In normal times, Americans would never accept foreign arbitration of an election, but a destabilized America, demoralized by military defeat, discouraged by the fall of a president, and alarmed by orchestrated unrest in the streets, might just go along with any plan that promised to restore order.

The 2004 election almost seemed like a dress rehearsal for such a maneuver, given the raucous demand by some Congressional Democrats for UN election monitors, and the so-called Boxer Rebellion, in which Senate Democrats challenged Bush’s electoral vote count.

FP: Will Hillary be the Shadow Party candidate?

Poe: That is likely, but not inevitable. Even a “velvet” candidate needs the illusion of mass support. That could prove difficult for Hillary to conjure up. Even so, Hillary can only benefit from these machinations. If the Democrats win, we can rest assured that Soros and Hillary will be pulling the strings behind the scenes, no matter which figurehead they choose to sit on the throne.

FP: How can we fight these kinds of radical tactics?

Poe: In the short time left before 2008, we need to learn everything we can about the Shadow Party and open the eyes of as many Americans as possible to its plans.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24073

posted August 29, 2006 05:06 PM            

Soros understands very well there cannot ever be the little UN one world gulag he wets himself over as long as the United States exists as it exists now.

He is an enemy and everyone associated with Soros is an enemy of the United States...and also the enemy of anyone who values freedom.

It is easy to see how Soros and the radical left have now taken two trial runs at discrediting US presidential elections.

It's also easy to see who here is on the Soros bandwagon and associated with far left radical groups which Soros funds. Their attacks against Bush and the election results are absolutely aligned with the Soros plan to cast doubt of the legitimacy of the elected government of the United States...and US elections in general.

The more people they can convince the elections are rigged, the fewer are those who will vote. But bet your last dollar all of these radical leftists will vote..and hope they have discouraged enough voters who they hope will stay home so they can actually win.

No one should be fooled for a second by the names these groups adopt. Democracy figures prominently in those names but these groups are anti democracy, anti representative government, anti the United States and anti American. A much better term for these radicals is Un-American.

posted August 29, 2006 05:25 PM            

This is a pretty good example of yet another Republican linguistics trick, what with calling it a "shadow" party and all.

posted August 29, 2006 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

NEW YORK -- George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.

---

posted August 29, 2006 05:56 PM            

Two, George Soros himself says...in the book he wrote that the United States must be destroyed as a world power.

Three, there is no question whatsoever that Soros funds the most extreme radical leftist groups..including MoveOn. Soros spreads around a lot of other money to radical leftists through the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation is a money laundering operation whereby rich leftists send money to radical groups...to Tides...which then forwards the money to the radicals...without leaving the prominent leftists fingerprints on the donations.

Four, there is not doubt whatsoever of the connection between Russ Feingold, John McCain and George Soros.

Five, there is no doubt whatsoever that the intent of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law was to shut people up and violate their rights to free speech. Nor is there any doubt this hurt the democrat party and forced them to turn to the very radical groups Soros established to take the party over.

Six, I've been saying here for a long time that about all that's left of the democrat party is the leftist fringe element. Anyone who doubts that can see what's happened to the true liberals in the party...like Joe Leiberman. Liberals are not welcome in the democrat party...at least not liberals who wish to be elected to Congress. Of course, Soros and the rest of the far left radicals in charge of the democrat party will welcome liberals who are conned into voting for them.

Seven, the only things we need to know about Hillary is that she attempted to subvert the US healthcare system and tried to give America a socialist health system. Other things voters need to know about Hillary is that she's a far left radical and always has been who is now posing as a moderate. Hillary also gave us:

Travelgate
Filegate
Recordsgate
Whitewater
CastleGrande
Cattlegate

AND lied through her teeth when she was before Congressional Hearings by answering 250 time...no kidding..."I don't remember.

The only conclusion one could draw about Hillary is that she's a radical leftist with a memory so poor that she isn't up to the job of POTUS.

Eight, Soros is also behind the open borders movement.

Nine, Soros is also behind the drug legalization movement.

Ten, Soros is also behind the euthanasia movement.

When I say behind, I mean the groups associated with these activities are Soros creations which he organized and funds.

Soros and Hillary are everything I've said they are and everything those authors have said they are. Chances are there's a hell of a lot more we don't know about...none of it good for the United States.

posted August 29, 2006 07:00 PM            

quote:

---

Anyone who doubts that can see what's happened to the true liberals in the party...like Joe Leiberman.

---

The guy Ann Coulter just invited to your party on Nick Cavuto's show on FoxNews? I wonder who's donating to his campaign now. Got any ideas?

quote:

---

Now acoustic, you could have gone numerous places on the Internet and found the quotes from Soros about destroying the power of the United States. I'm not in the least surprised to see you defending Soros and Hillary...weak and lacking in substance as that defense was.

---

If it was weak, then you ought to be happy about it. I know you don't like when I present the opposite position, so in order not to offend I only posted links there. As long as your friends remain lazy or uncurious, you're good.

Let's consider your response. You list not a single reference, and assert each of the things on your list as being true. Since when are you an authority? Can you refute the Media Matters corrections to the assertions in the book you're promoting in your first post? The authors can't seem to.

posted August 29, 2006 11:51 PM            

David Brock, President and CEO and I sure remember David Brock. So tell me acoustic, was Brock lying when he wrote for American Spectator or is he lying now?

As for the "accuracy" of what you read at Media Matters, I would have a care if I were you. These are a few of their "corrections" to what they've reported...2 in one day even. But you have to look for them

"Limbaugh: "[O]ne of my staff is Spanish and informs me" that Allen simply called Sidarth a "clown"

Originally, this text linked to video of comments made by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) in June. However, Limbaugh appears to have been referring to a January 2004 speech by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), in which, according to the Associated Press, the senator "introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, 'He ran a gas station down in St. Louis.' " Clinton later apologized for the comment. Media Matters regrets the error.

Posted to the web on Thursday August 17, 2006

Perspectives on Bush's latest "cut and run" Iraq speech: AP said free of "partisan politics," NY Times, took "kinder, gentler approach" than Cheney's*

This item was originally headlined: "AP, NY Times characterized Bush's latest 'cut and run' speech as 'kinder, gentler,' and free of 'partisan politics.' " The original headline suggested, inaccurately, that both the articles in the Associated Press and New York Times referred to President Bush's August 16 speech as "free of 'partisan politics.' " That was in fact only the AP's characterization. By contrast, as Media Matters for America's item made clear, but our headline did not, the Times noted that Bush singled out Democrats for criticism but characterized the speech, in which Bush used his familiar "cut and run" rhetoric to criticize those advocating for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, as a "kinder, gentler approach than the one used by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in recent days." We regret the inaccuracy.

Posted to the web on Thursday August 17, 2006

Hume referred to GOP-led House of Representatives as "we"

Posted to the web on Monday July 24, 2006

Didn't I warn you about trying debate tactics found in Debating for Dummies?

You referenced this piece of crap website which attempts to smear Horowitz and Poe by linking them with Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is nowhere to be found in their book and nowhere to be found in their writings on the subject of George Soros. Yet, these twits at Media Matters attempt to draw LaRouche into the mix because he might at one time have said something they didn't like about Soros too. That won't get off the ground because they are poles apart politically from LaRouche.

The rest of what they had to say about the book by Poe and Horowitz must be dismissed out of hand as straight smear tactics.

George Soros is a convicted inside trader in France and his appeal was denied and the decision is final. Soros benefited by having information..given to him by an insider that he acted on before it was made available to the general public...and he made millions off that information. I hope the French Court fines Soros the entire amount and adds a three fold punitive damages fine on top of that.

George Soros did indeed attempt to bring down the British Pound and had he succeeded, it would have thrown millions out of work in Britain...in addition to sharply raising the prices of every bit of food and everything else imported into Britain....while at the same time sharply reducing the value of all their exports.

George Soros is indeed short the American dollar and attempting to devalue our currency. You see, we're just too rich, live too high and that would raise the cost of every import into the United States. Additionally, it would throw millions out of work who work in export industries...because the value of their works and the products they make would take a sharp decline in value..relative to the dollar.

George Soros is a dedicated leftist who is attempting and said he is attempting to destroy the power of the United States.

posted August 30, 2006 12:32 AM            

Because you jumped in with blather from Media Matters, I decided to do some checking to see who the hell they really are and I'm glad I did.

What we have here acoustic is a spinoff of one of George Soros groups, CAP. In effect, we have a Soros group defending Soros.

I'm sure we're all shocked Media Matters would take the George Soros line.

The Shadow Party: Part II Continued
By David Horowitz and Richard Poe
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 7, 2004

Center for American Progress (CAP)
Launched July 7, 2003

The Center for American Progress (CAP) is widely understood to be what one inside source called, “the official Hillary Clinton think tank” – a platform designed to highlight Hillary’s policies and to enhance her prestige as a potential presidential candidate.[1]

Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: “The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros’ Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders.” [2]

Soros and Halperin then recruited Harold Ickes – chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House – to help organize the Center. It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute, but has operated under the name Center for American Progress (CAP) since September 1, 2003.

The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with something it supposedly lacked – a think tank of its own. Where was the left’s Heritage Foundation, asked Soros and Halperin? Of course, the left had plenty of think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute, the Economic Policy Institute, the Center on Budget and Policy, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Progressive Policy Institute – not to mention the Kennedy School for Government at Harvard and numerous similar academic institutions firmly under leftist control. But Shadow Party leaders seemed to be looking for something different – something that no existing institution on the left offered.

Regarding the alleged need for CAP, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, “We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democratic Party’s values.” [3] Expanding on this theme, Hillary subsequently told The Nation’s Dreyfuss, “We’ve had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The center is a welcome effort to fill that void.”[4]

Soros and Hillary seemed to understand the need for the new Center, even if they did not always succeed in explaining it to others. They found fault with every existing leftwing think tank. Even Bill Clinton’s personal favorite, the Progressive Policy Institute, was too moderate, too middle-of-the-road for their purpose. But what was their purpose?

Hillary Clinton tries to minimize the depth of her involvement with CAP – as indeed she does habitually in all matters concerning the Shadow Party. Beltway insiders are not fooled, however. Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary calls the shots at CAP – not John Podesta. “It’s the official Hillary Clinton think tank,” an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International.[5]

Many ideological purists on the Left dismiss the Center as a platform for Hillary’s presidential ambitions. No doubt, they are right. Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center’s staff, among them Clinton’s national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton’s National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and so on. Dreyfuss writes: “[T]he center’s kickoff conference on national security in October [2003], co-organized with The American Prospect and the Century Foundation, looked like a Clinton reunion, featuring Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary; William Perry, his Defense Secretary; Sandy Berger, his National Security Adviser; Richard Holbrooke and Susan Rice, both Clinton-era Assistant Secretaries of State; Rodney Slater, his Transportation Secretary; and Carol Browner, his EPA administrator, who serves on the center’s board of directors.” Hillary Clinton also attended the event, notes Dreyfuss.

“In looking at Podesta’s center,” Dreyfuss muses, “there’s no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.”[6]

“Rapid Response”

Another of CAP’s missions is to carry out “rapid response” to what it calls conservative “attacks” in the media. CAP’s Web site promises that it will soon be capable of “responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives.” To this end, CAP offers a stable of talking heads – coiffed, credentialed and fully briefed – ready to appear at a moment’s notice on national talk shows to interrupt, side track, browbeat and otherwise prevent conservative commentators from getting their message out. Notable among CAP’s line-up of talking heads are The Nation’s Eric Alterman – who claims expertise on the subjects of media and democracy – and Morton H. Halperin, who offers to speak on national security.

CAP helped launch Media Matters for America, a 501(c)(03) public charity better known for its Web site MediaMatters.org, which opened for business on May 3, 2004. Inasmuch as Media Matters aspires to serve as a media watchdog, monitoring “rightwing” journalists for errors and ethical violations, it is odd, to say the least, that David Brock has been appointed its President and CEO. Brock is a former conservative journalist who defected to the Left amidst an outpouring of dramatic public apologies and confessions that he had built his career on lies, writing political hit pieces filled with flimsy evidence and outright fabrications. Even so, whatever Brock lacks in credibility, he more than makes up for in the quality of his schmoozing. Brock told The New York Times that he conferred with Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle and former Vice President Al Gore before launching his Web site.[7]

The New York Times, which generously provided a 1,041-word feature article to announce Brock’s grand opening, reports that, “Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress…. [CAP president John] Podesta has loaned office space in the past to Mr. Brock and introduced him to potential donors.” Brock received $2 million for the start-up. His donors include friend-of-Hillary Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the fashion company Esprit; former cable TV mogul Leo Hindery Jr.; and San Francisco philanthropist James C. Hormel, an enthusiastic promoter of the “gay lifestyle” whom Clinton appointed ambassador to Luxembourg in the 1990s.[8]

In its short life, Media Matters has already acquired a reputation for zombie-like partisanship and reckless disregard for the truth. Brock and his team seem to sleepwalk through their work, rubberstamping, with mind-numbing monotony, virtually every conservative utterance that finds its way into major media as a “lie,” a “smear,” a “slander,” or a factual “error.”

War on Rush Limbaugh
Among Brock’s high-priority projects is a campaign to pressure Congress and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to ban Rush Limbaugh from American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) – thus depriving our troops in Iraq of one of the few radio programs they are allowed to hear that wholeheartedly supports them and the cause for which they fight. Only one hour of Limbaugh’s three-hour show is broadcast on one of AFRTS’s thirteen radio channels, five days per week – constituting less than one percent of the network’s total weekly programming. [9] Nevertheless, that is one percent too many for the Shadow Party and its operatives.

Shortly after Media Matters began its campaign, Democrat Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa obligingly proposed an amendment to the 2005 Defense Authorization Act mandating “political balance” on AFRTS. The Senate approved Harkin’s amendment unanimously on June 16. It stops short of banning Limbaugh outright, but the amendment effectively requires AFRTS to balance Limbaugh with more leftwing commentary. Given the fact that one of the network’s two news channels currently airs National Public Radio 24 hours per day, seven days per week, it is hard to imagine how AFRTS can broadcast more leftwing commentary than it already does.[10] Even so, Senator Harkin complained in a June 17 Senate speech, “[T]here is no commentary on the service that would even begin to balance the extreme right-wing views that Rush Limbaugh routinely expresses on his program.” [11]

posted August 30, 2006 01:37 AM            

You can only attempt to defame it by proving mediocre inaccuracies? Since they do make it known when they make mistakes, did you happen to find a retraction for their comments on your book?

Have you looked into your own publication FrontPageMag? Are you going to try to tell me that they do a better job reporting the truth than Media Matters does?

posted August 30, 2006 01:53 AM            

As a commentator on any subject relating to leftists, Media Matters has zero credibility.

They are a pure attack group.

I've shown you their associations with Soros, with CAP, with Hillary, with Podesta, with all of the Clintonista radicals...which Media Matter didn't dispute. And those associations were laid out in the Poe/Horowitz book. Since they read the book..looking for ammunition, they must have seen them...and said nothing.

If that's not good enough for you...and I doubt if you heard David Brock say personally that they are there to snipe at and ridicule any bothersome comments about leftists...I doubt even that would be good enough for you.

George Soros and his band of revolutionaries are one of the lowest form of life. They live here and their goal is to destroy the United States as a world power. They don't rise to the level of scum.

You of course, are free to believe whatever you wish about Soros...including the totally unsupported word of Media Matters.

**edit

posted August 30, 2006 12:27 PM            

Brock has admitted being a serial liar who made up stories, twisted facts and plagiarized information for his so called stories when he wrote for American Spectator.

No matter which way you cut it, Brock was either lying then or he's lying now and either way, Media Matters is not a source anyone should look to for the truth...about anything.

On the other hand, we have David Horowitz, a life long radical leftist who was deep inside the radical leftist "I hate America" movement. Horowitz knows the actors on the radical left quite well and the tactics they employee. He has the credibility David Brock and Media Matters is sorely lacking.

Given the fact that Media Matters was set up to be an attack machine for the far radical left and that it's a spinoff of a George Soros radical leftist group, there's no reason whatsoever to believe a word of any defense Media Matters raises for George Soros.

posted August 30, 2006 01:47 PM            

You still haven't found a way to defend either your or your author's stance on George Soros. You still haven't disproved the amount of money he's given to establishing democracies in eastern Europe.

You also never addressed the deep pockets your authors are in.

As such only a cursory defense is needed. Your material is not compelling, and the fact that you've tried to make this conversation about things other than your own topic speaks volumes. It's not like Media Matters is NewsMax; you haven't had occasion to personally disprove them on multiple accounts yourself. Instead you had to go searching for someone else's work in documenting minor inaccuracies.

David Brock is an interesting guy. You say he was a "serial liar." Was this during his time as a Conservative columnist? He came clean on that. That's what happens when you finally get it. He felt guilty doing what he was doing.

quote:

---

In 1992, Brock wrote a long article for The American Spectator portraying Anita Hill, the demure law professor whose testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee had nearly derailed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, as a deranged liar manipulated by scheming feminist harridans. The article became a sensation when Rush Limbaugh read portions of it aloud on his radio program; the Spectator's circulation quickly shot from thirty thousand to well over a hundred thousand.

......

His success with the troopergate story inspired something called the Arkansas Project, financed by two and a half million dollars provided by the Pittsburgh-based billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?020311crbo_books

---

Isn't Scaife the very same one that bankrolls your authors? http://aaupuc.org/horowitz.htm

Yeah, David Brock's an interesting fellow, and he did admit to having lied about Clarence Thomas. He defended Clarence Thomas against claims that he was a frequent porn renter, even though when he looked into the allegations he found that they were true. Kind of disillusioning to find out you're lying for the man.

posted August 30, 2006 02:11 PM            

Attempt to get your opponent to "disprove" a point you've made.

Attempt to get your opponent to "prove" a negative.

Forget it acoustic, I've plowed this field with you before.

On the other hand acoustic, since you wish to adopt the "prove a negative" approach to debate.

"Disprove" what Horowitz and Poe said about Soros.

"Disprove" what Horowitz and Poe have said about Media Matters.

"Prove" that Soros "is not" a radical leftist bent on the destruction of the United States as a world power.

"Prove" that Hillary Clinton and George Soros "are not" in league to take over the democrat party and tilt it to the far radical left or in the alternative, "prove" they "have not" already done so.

"Prove" MoveOn dot org "did not" say..."we own the democrat party, we bought it."

"Prove" MoveOn dot org "did not" buy the democrat party with money from George Soros.

Happy trails acoustic.

posted August 30, 2006 05:07 PM            

So once again, I see that you don't have any interest in actually gathering any facts about George Soros to back up your author's claims. That's cool. I just wanted to help you make that fact public.

quote:

---

"Prove" that Soros "is not" a radical leftist bent on the destruction of the United States as a world power.

---

In order to prove that he's "not," one would have to have some reason to believe that he "is." When I can't find a single source outside of the Republican party making these claims I think I'd have too difficult a job in disproving the mindset Republicans have slapped on him.

What I can do is question people's sources when they make these claims. When they can't come up with any, then it's pretty obvious where the truth lies.

quote:

---

"Prove" that Hillary Clinton and George Soros "are not" in league to take over the democrat party and tilt it to the far radical left or in the alternative, "prove" they "have not" already done so.

---

See answer above.

quote:

---

"Prove" MoveOn dot org "did not" say..."we own the democrat party, we bought it."

---

posted August 30, 2006 05:52 PM            

The issue of what Soros is, what Soros is doing and what Soros has said are found in his own statements and in his book in his own words.

That's really all the proof anyone who objectively looks at Soros needs to see.

The truth is just the truth. It's not the Republican truth or the democrat truth, it's just the plain unvarnished truth out of his own leftist mouth...until someone attempts to spin that truth to cloud the issues. Enter Media Matters which was set up as a spin off Soros group to do exactly that. Spin the truth to confuse and cloud issues.

Now acoustic, if you disagree with any of that, then you should take a bite from your own poisoned apple and "prove" it's "not true".

posted August 30, 2006 06:49 PM            

Here is what has happened:

You posted an anti-Soros/Clinton piece.

I challenged you on it.

You decided not to defend what you've said.

I posted something saying how great George Soros is.

You challenged me on it.

I decided not to defend what I said.

Your argument only makes sense if I, like you, make statements about George Soros' character that I can't back up. I'm not particularly concerned with George Soros myself, but thought it important to challenge assertions made about him when your assertions have already been called into question by an outside group. You frankly haven't done anything to add to the credibility of the authors you quote at the start of this thread. Logically, it follows that either nothing exists to help your case, or you're too lazy to find it.

Either way is ok by me. My point is simply to illustrate that what you've posted doesn't seem to have nearly as much merit as you think it does (at least with Independents and Democrats). As such it would appear to be a propaganda piece on behalf of the Republican party. That's cool with me, too. I just want to let anyone that's interested see it for what it is.

posted August 30, 2006 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

Can you refute the Media Matters corrections to the assertions in the book you're promoting in your first post?

---

No acoustic, you asked me to refute/prove Media Matters is wrong in their unsupported assertions about the Horowitz/Poe book.

Since you like to play the game of proving a negative..which is a fool's errand, I asked you to "disprove" certain things and "prove" other things are not true.

Punt time since you didn't do either.

posted August 30, 2006 07:59 PM            

So Meyerson is a socialist who wants to transform America by using the money of a global capitalist. That's a curious mix of communism and capitalism.

posted August 30, 2006 08:08 PM            

Soros may be the biggest political fat cat of all time.

How many times have we heard or read stories about Vice President Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton, and its alleged influence over the government? A public company with more than 100,000 employees, Halliburton had revenues of $13 billion in 2001. However, George Soros is a human Halliburton who will be in a position if John Kerry is elected president to pull the strings. He is reportedly worth $7.2 billion. But his role in buying the White House for John Kerry has received generally positive coverage. Soros, we're told, is a "philanthropist" committed to "democracy." The Republican Party, by contrast, is supposed to be run by fat cats and Big Business, such as those at Halliburton.

Soros may be the biggest political fat cat of all time. Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests. He is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. His power is such that his statements alone can cause currencies to go up or down. Other people suffer so he can get rich. But journalists don't want to examine the questionable means by which he achieved his wealth because they share his goal of electing Kerry and the Democrats. Curiously, once he made his fortune he became a global socialist, endorsing global taxes on the very means he employed to get rich – international currency speculation and manipulation.

The media consistently ignore the fact that this so-called "philanthropist" has had several brushes with the law as he has laid siege to national economies and currencies. Hard-working U.S. businessmen understand how Soros has made his money. In protesting a Soros appearance hosted by the University of Toledo, Edwin J. Nagle III, president and CEO of the Nagle Companies, highlighted "the immoral and unethical means by which he achieved his wealth." He added, "I certainly didn't see included in his bio the stories on how he collapsed whole country's currencies for his own self interests so that many may suffer."

Here, Soros signed a consent decree in United States District Court, in a Securities and Exchange Commission case involving stock manipulation, and was fined $75,000 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for holding positions "in excess of speculative limits." Stories about Soros rarely, if ever, mention any of his legal problems.

Despite his vision of an "open society," he operates an unregulated "hedge fund," open only to the super-rich, and is currently fighting a proposal from the Bush-appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and monitor these offshore entities. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said on national television that no one really knows where the Soros money comes from.

Soros has categorically denied receiving money from drug cartels or any form of criminal activity. The fact remains, however, that at least some of his financial operations have been based offshore, in banking and financial centers that are widely reported to be considered conducive to money-laundering. The Soros fund is based in the Netherlands Antilles, a self-governing federation of five Caribbean islands. A CIA factbook describes the region as "a transshipment point for South American drugs bound for the US and Europe; money-laundering center."

Soros reportedly purchased a major stake in one of Colombia's biggest banks, at a time when the Drug Enforcement Administration, in its study, "Colombian Economic Reform: The Impact on Drug Money Laundering within the Colombian Economy," was documenting how major drug kingpins were taking advantage of the liberalization of the economy to put illicit drug revenue into legitimate businesses. The report stated: "U.S. and Colombian Government authorities have evidence of drug proceeds being deposited in every major bank in Colombia... A Colombian source indicated that many banks and businesses are owned covertly by principal members of the Cali cartel."

His complex web of financial interests, companies and foundations makes Halliburton look like a Mom & Pop operation.

The charge we read in the press is that Halliburton gets government contracts and makes money from the Iraq war. Far less attention has been paid to the fact that the company has lost 54 employees as a result of that war. Nobody in the press mentions that Soros profits from the Kosovo war, which he supported as a preemptive strike against Yugoslavia, because he runs an investment fund that now does business there. Even though he pays big bucks to advertise his opposition to the Bush policy of democracy-building in Iraq, reporters still describe him as someone with a reputation for building democracy abroad.

However, his position on Iraq may be a diversion from the real reason he wants to get rid of Bush – his longstanding desire to adopt a national "retreat and defeat" approach to the drug problem.

Soros' long-time goal has been to subvert the national anti-drug policy of the U.S. Government, to move away from the use of national and global law enforcement resources against the drug trade. He calls this "harm reduction," meaning that criminal activity associated with the use of drugs will supposedly be reduced if the government takes over the drug trade and provides drugs and drug paraphernalia, including needles, to addicts. But law enforcement would still be required to keep drugs out of the hands of children. If this is not the case, then Soros intends to allow substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin to be distributed to children.

If Soros is able to capture the White House and implement his drug policy nationally, millions more people could be led to experiment with dangerous psychoactive substances and damage themselves, their families, and society. Even marijuana, depicted by the media as a "soft" drug, has extremely negative consequences. In the new book, "Marijuana and Madness," one of the editors, Prof. Robin Murray of Britain's Institute of Psychiatry, cites studies and evidence from around the world, some of it going back 40 years, linking the use of marijuana to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and psychosis.

In a recent article about his growing financial and political clout, the Washington Post sanitized Soros by claiming that he "funded efforts to reform campaign laws, decriminalize marijuana and change [the] criminal justice system." All of that is misleading, if not false. His "reform" of campaign laws left a loophole that will enable him to set a record "for the most money donated by an individual in an election cycle," to quote the Post itself. So where are the investigative stories into Soros and his agenda?

A key part of the Soros agenda -- his proposed surrender in the war on drugs -- has been carefully concealed from the American people during this campaign. The war on Islamic terrorism is front and center, to be sure, but the war on drugs is still of major concern to millions of Americans, especially parents fearful of the influence of Hollywood and the drug culture.

A Soros role in formulating national drug policy is worthy of special press attention because his pro-drug legalization campaign has been considered at odds with the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who share the view that legalization would make the drug problem far worse.

In the current campaign, however, a major transformation has taken place. Soros is said to have "privatized" or replaced the Democratic Party by subsidizing many different liberal-left organizations that comprise its political base and creating new ones, the "527" organizations.

Among the candidates who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, Soros financially supported John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Senator Bob Graham, and Howard Dean. He has been praised by Senator Hillary Clinton and contributed to her Senate campaign and political action committee. He has also contributed to the political campaigns of Democratic Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Corzine, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, Joseph Biden, Patrick Leahy, Paul Sarbanes, Thomas Harkin, and Barbara Boxer. In 2002, Soros funded Al Gore for president and contributed $153,000 in "soft money" to the Democratic National Committee. Soros, who is also very close to Bill Clinton, was described by Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott as a "national treasure."

It is significant that Soros and two of his sons have contributed $2000 each to Brad Carson, the Democratic Senate candidate in Oklahoma. His Republican opponent, Dr. Tom Coburn, was a member of the U.S. House for six years, where he developed a reputation as a leading opponent of efforts to legalize marijuana and fund needle exchange programs that facilitate illicit drug use. Coburn exposed Soros-style "harm reduction" as a backdoor approach to legalization of illicit drugs. Coburn was also a strong supporter of drug testing and even fought to require drug testing of members of Congress. Coburn and his staff voluntarily underwent drug testing. If elected to the Senate, say his supporters, Coburn would be the chamber's leading voice for protecting children from the dangers of drug abuse and a scientific voice of reason against the Soros-supported movement that seeks to legalize drugs. It's no wonder that Soros and his sons have targeted Coburn for defeat.

Soros has also contributed to Barack Obama, running for the Senate as a Democrat from Illinois. CNSNews.com reports that, "Not only did Soros donate to Obama's campaign, but four other family members - Jennifer, sons Jonathan and Robert and wife Susan - did as well. Because of a special provision campaign finance laws, the Soroses were able to give a collective $60,000 to Obama during his primary challenge."

Soros was described by the New Yorker as close to Harold Ickes, a former Clinton deputy chief of staff who runs the Media Fund, one of many Soros-supported "527" groups. Soros described him as a "real pro."

Away from the scrutiny or even the notice of the establishment press, Soros has emerged as a counter-culture hero.

The drug culture magazine, Heads, calls him "Daddy Weedbucks," ran an excerpt from his book, Soros on Soros, and declared that "he drops the bucks exactly where they're needed." The September-October issue of the drug culture magazine High Times recognizes the stakes, noting that there are "ten reasons to get rid of Bush" and that one is that there will be "No legalization of pot" under Bush. The implication of the article was that the situation would change under Kerry.

None of this is being reported, however, by the major media.

His partner, Peter Lewis, whitewashed by the Post as "one of the country's 10 most generous philanthropists," was actually arrested in New Zealand for "importing" drugs, including hashish and marijuana.

The Human Halliburton

The media call him a billionaire "philanthropist" who "promotes democracy" and "democratic institutions" abroad. He has been invited to address the National Press Club on October 28, 2004, just before the election. But admitted marijuana user George Soros, who says he tried marijuana "and enjoyed it," doesn't just "give" money away. He spends money for a purpose because he wants to remake America and the world. He is depicted in a recent lengthy New Yorker article by Jane Mayer as well-intentioned, not that concerned about money, the victim of scurrilous attacks, and someone who simply wants his "ideas" to "be heard." This is typical of the fawning coverage of Soros. Mayer made a brief reference to his collaborator, Peter B. Lewis, and his funding of "efforts to decriminalize marijuana," but she failed to explore how Soros is himself committed to legalizing dangerous drugs. Mayer did disclose that a meeting was held in August, after the Democratic Party convention, of what critics call a "billionaire conspiracy" to defeat Bush. Soros and Lewis were among the participants in the meeting, which was supposed to be kept private.

Soros' strong opposition to President Bush's effort to create democratic institutions in Iraq contradicts his alleged support for democracy. But the media don't point this out because they oppose Bush's Iraq policy. Mayer, who interviewed the billionaire at length, suggests that Soros may be "looking for influence [in a Kerry Administration] to get out of Iraq" but that to pursue such an objective in exchange for his financial support to the candidate might be deemed "not appropriate" by some observers.

It would be unwise for the public to dismiss the idea that he would not demand implementation of his other "ideas," including drug legalization.

Sometimes described as an atheist or agnostic, Soros has announced a vision of a secular "open society." However, his agenda of drug legalization has remained largely hidden from public view during the current campaign.

While Soros may not want to openly talk about what he would expect out of a Kerry Administration, his allies have obviously been giving it much thought.

At the 2004 conference of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance was asked about his association with Soros and the billionaire's attempt to put John Kerry in the White House. The questioner asked, "Are we going to get some Supreme Court justices out this?" Nadelmann modestly answered, "We will see," and cautioned that it may be difficult to deliver "all the goods."

This is critical because the U.S. Supreme Court is already considering the matter of the several U.S. states that have laws on the books permitting some form of "medical marijuana" use, a violation of federal law, and could return to the subject in the future. The Court is expected to rule by June 2005 on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, challenged by the Bush administration, that bars federal agents from interfering with the growing and use of marijuana by two women in California.

Hollywood has already been captured by the illegal drug lobby.

At the 2004 NORML conference, Allen St. Pierre of the NORML Foundation described how various U.S. television programs "have previewed marijuana in a way ultimately positive." He named them as ER, Chicago Hope, the Practice, Sybil, Murphy Brown, Sports Night, Becker, West Wing, Roseanne, Sex in the City, Six Feet Under, Whoopi, Montel, That 70s Show, and the Larry David Show. "These shows are seen by tens of millions of people," he said. "So that's what it's so crucial that we're able to capture—and to demonstrate the change in—culture."

The challenge for the drug culture is now to capture the U.S. Government. Soros is their front man.

Bloomberg.com quoted Strobe Talbott, U.S. deputy secretary of state from 1994 to 2001, as saying, "Whenever George Soros called and asked to meet, I would move heaven and earth to do so. I treated him like the foreign minister of another country because of all that he had done." Even under the Bush Administration, Soros has been considered an important and influential figure. He gave a September 16, 2003, speech at the State Department on "America in the Global Community: Building Long-Term Security."

So think about the clout he would have if he almost single-handedly buys the White House for John Kerry and plays a role in the election of several new Senators.

Rather than investigate the source of the Soros money, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson has praised Soros for engineering the "privatization" of the Democratic Party through funding of the "527" political groups and bypassing what he calls an incompetent Democratic Party apparatus. At the far-left "Take Back America" forum in June, Soros was photographed greeting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who introduced him to the group. She told the crowd that, "we need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts." He stepped up with his money.

However, Meyerson and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have attacked House Speaker Dennis Hastert for raising questions about where Soros gets his money.

A professed believer in democracy, Soros has used the "527" loophole in a campaign finance law that he promoted to restrict the political activities of "special interests." He has set a record "for the most money donated by an individual in an election cycle." Those "special interests" turned out to be other people — not him. He has since poured millions of dollars into anti-Bush groups and voter registration drives, some marked by alleged fraud, for the Democratic Party.

His commitment to democracy is never questioned. Typical of the pro-Soros media coverage was a USA Today story on June 1 that gave Soros credit for freeing millions of people from communism and "supporting democracy." The story ignored his insider trading conviction. While Soros provided some funding to anti-communist groups during the Cold War, his career has been designed to make money and extend his influence over nations and people. Communism was a threat because it was not hospitable to his investments.

An excellent example of how he operates is Kosovo. As indicated earlier, it is relevant to note that, after the Soros-supported war on Kosovo, a province of Yugoslavia, a Soros fund announced in 2000 that it was investing $150 million -- with loan guarantees from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation -- in the Balkans. It was called the "Southeast Europe Equity Fund." By 2002, the OPIC-supported size of the investment had risen to $200 million and OPIC announced that Soros Investment Capital, Ltd. Fund Yugoslavia had acquired a controlling stake in Eksimbanka, a private commercial bank in Serbia, and had financed the start-up of Serbia Broadband Networks, the leading cable television and broadband services company in Serbia.

What's more, his "open society" doesn't extend to himself. He unregulated "hedge funds," open only to the super rich, are beyond public scrutiny or the interest of the press. In a curious chapter of his career, he reportedly invested in an energy company run by George W. Bush, in an unsuccessful attempt to buy influence with the Bush family.

As noted, in another curious development, the global capitalist has become a global socialist advocating a global tax, known as the Tobin Tax, on the means by which he exploited the global capitalist system and became rich – international currency speculation and manipulation. Soros has declared that the Tobin Tax is a "valid suggestion" for raising international revenue and that opposition to implementing the tax can be overcome. What has not been reported is that Thomas Palley, the director of the Globalization Reform Project at Soros' Open Society Institute, was a featured speaker at a January 2003 event in Washington, D.C. to discuss how to implement the tax.

"He made his money the old-fashioned way, on Wall Street," wrote Post columnist Harold Meyerson. In fact, he made his money through investment techniques that are not available to ordinary investors, and his financial interventions can affect nations and their economies.

Soros claims that the "527" organizations he funds "file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators." On the January 9 NOW With Bill Moyers program on PBS, Charles Lewis of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity argued that while Soros was funding 527 groups, Soros was disclosing these contributions and that the money could be tracked.

Again, that begs the question of where he gets his money.

His use of that loophole -- in a law that he promoted to restrict the influence of outside "special interests" on political campaigns -- is suspicious and curious on its face. Equally curious, Soros claims that the Bush Administration's reaction to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq caused him to spend millions of dollars through these "527" organizations to defeat Bush. However, Soros favored the Clinton Administration's preemptive attack on Yugoslavia, in the absence of any threat to the U.S. and without U.S. Congressional authorization.

While Soros runs around the country talking about defeating Bush, mostly because of his Iraq policy, he is using his money to target other candidates who have prosecuted the war on drugs.

The pro-Soros national media have refused to examine the implications of a ruling by New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Malone. He ruled that it was improper for the Soros-backed Working Families Party to get involvement in a Democratic primary for District Attorney and he referred the case to local prosecutors and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for a possible criminal investigation. Thanks to the money provided by Soros, David Soares defeated incumbent District Attorney Paul Clyne in the Democratic primary. At the time of Clyne's defeat, Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance Network said he was proud that his group had "contributed to this race" and that "what happened in Albany" has "national resonance." That suggested to some that Soros, if he is successful in putting John Kerry in the White House, would change the nation's anti-drug policy.

The Criminals Lobby

Soros, who lives in New York, has also contributed $150,000 to a California ballot measure, proposition 66, to overturn the three-strikes law, which mandates prison terms of 25-years-to-life for defendants convicted of a third felony. The ballot measure is opposed by the state's district attorneys and law enforcement agencies.

In other unsavory connections, a Soros grant was given to Linda Evans, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton for her involvement in the Weather Underground terrorist group. The Weather Underground was involved in the 1981 Brinks robbery, in which three murders were committed, and a series of bombings, including the bombing of the U.S. Capitol in November 1983.

The Baltimore, Maryland, branch of the OSI on May 12 hosted Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the Weather Underground who once expressed solidarity with mass murderer Charles Manson, at a forum on criminal justice issues. Speaking to a Weather Underground "war council" in Michigan in 1969, Dohrn gave a three-fingered "fork salute" to Manson. As noted by Ami Naramor of The Claremont Institute, "Calling Manson's victims the 'Tate Eight,' Dohrn gloated over the fact that actress Sharon Tate, who was pregnant at the time, had been stabbed with a fork in her womb. 'Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!'" Dohrn, now an associate professor and director at Northwestern University's Children and Justice Center, was a member of the advisory committee of the "children's rights watch" project of Human Rights Watch, funded by Soros.

Not coincidentally, the drug culture has embraced the Weather Underground. High Times magazine has called David Gilbert, a Weather Underground member now in prison, an "anti-imperialist political prisoner" and has hailed his book, No Surrender. High Times says Gilbert works behind bars for "prisoners' rights" – a favorite cause of Soros.

The latest development is creation of "Cannabis Consumers," a bizarre organization of out-of-the-closet illegal pot smokers, formed to celebrate and glorify the drug. Director Mikki Norris, who says her group received a grant from the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance, says, "we honor George Soros."

The Soros-supported Drug Policy Alliance supports "marijuana clubs" currently dispensing the drug, supposedly on "medical" grounds. The federal government has tried to close down these clubs—a policy that could change if Soros gains access to and influence over the White House. Several states have passed "medical marijuana" initiatives, funded by Soros, attempting to provide the drug under the cover of treating illnesses. But the American people have been kept in the dark about whether the Soros campaign to weaken drug laws would be embraced and implemented on a national basis by a Kerry Administration.

One of the few reporters to question the Soros agenda is John Berlau of Insight magazine, who asked whether Soros would benefit financially from his huge expenditures on political activity. Michael Vachon, the spokesman for Soros Fund Management in New York City, said, "I have no faith in the ability or desire of Insight magazine to portray George Soros' activities in an unbiased manner." Pressed, he said, "There's no relationship between the policy prescriptions George Soros recommends and his own financial holdings. He doesn't make policy recommendations to increase his own personal wealth. That's not what motivates him."

There can be no doubt, however, that if the Soros plan for drug legalization goes forward, there would have to be an official infrastructure in place to finance drug production and distribution and handle the enormous profits that will be made from legalization. Legalization will not eliminate drug profits, it will only transfer some of them to government and "legitimate" industries. Soros could be poised to invest in those industries and companies.

He is laying the groundwork for the creation of a system under which government and corporations would legalize, dispense and advertise hard drugs, much like tobacco or alcohol, and supply addicts with needles and drug paraphernalia. In effect, Soros appears to be financing drug legalization for the purpose of creating a new market for federal payments to underwrite drug purchases for addicts. Soros appears to favor an indoor version of "Needle Park," where addicts come to government offices to inject or smoke their drugs at taxpayer expense.

His position is also reflected in his funding of the ACLU, which itself favors the legalization of all drugs—even heroin and crack cocaine—and opposes virtually all measures taken to curtail drug use. In another example of its extremist approach, the group has rejected funds from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and participation in the Combined Federal Campaign, because acceptance of the money would require adopting measures to make sure it does not employ terrorists or support terrorist activity.

Soros hired Aryeh Neier as president of his Open Society Institute (OSI) in 1993. Neier worked for the ACLU for 15 years, including eight as national director.

Typically, Soros and his cronies present the current "war on drugs" as draconian, a huge waste of money and a threat to civil liberties. Legalization is then presented, usually couched in terms of reducing the harm associated with illegal use and procurement of drugs. The audience is never presented with a third option—eradication of drug crops at home and abroad, an intensified military/intelligence effort against drug lords abroad, tougher sentences for users and dealers, and more drug testing.

In 1995, Soros made a major contribution to the Council on Foreign Relations, which two years later, under the leadership of Mathea Falco, released a comprehensive report on U.S. international drug control strategy, entitled, Rethinking International Drug Control. However, A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times, who participated in the task force that drafted the report, declined to endorse it, saying that it "is so negative in substance and tone about United States efforts to stem drug use, production and distribution that it amounts to an invitation to drop those efforts…"

Soros clearly has his sights set on global policy on drugs. Soros was a signer of a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urging a radical revamping of global anti-drug policies. Another signer was Morton H. Halperin, a former Department of Defense and National Security Council Official.

In a typical laudatory article about Soros, USA Today author Rick Hampson made a brief reference to his belief in "liberalized drug laws." Nothing was said, however, about how Soros has managed to liberalize or weaken those laws across the country, and how he has his sights set on national anti-drug policy. The National District Attorneys Association says that since 1996 "incremental changes in state drug laws have continued at an alarming rate across our nation" and they are designed to "ultimately legalize drugs." Soros was identified in this report as one of the wealthy individuals behind this "very well financed" drug legalization movement that is "highly adept at manipulating the media."

In an October 18 Newsweek story, "Can a Billionaire Beat Bush?" writer Marcus Mabry said that Soros will "be there" even if Bush wins, ready to "build a new left…" Soros and other " wealthy progressives," he says, "will set about assembling the infrastructure," including think tanks, foundations, and civic groups, of this "new left."

But Soros has already done this. The late left-wing writer, Walt Contreras Sheasby, noted that the Soros influence "is one of those hushed secrets inside the left…" and that he has subsidized "many of the activist groups, luminaries and publications of the American left…"

Mabry completely ignored his pro-drug legalization agenda and erroneously claimed that his involvement in this year's presidential campaign is "his first significant involvement in American electoral politics." Mabry ignored Soros's funding of at least 19 initiatives to weaken drug laws.

Journalists carefully conceal their own conflicts of interest. On the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) NOW With Bill Moyers program on January 9 of this year, Moyers interviewed Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity about the big money supporting the presidential candidates. But little time and attention was paid to how Soros was trying to buy the White House and pouring millions of dollars into groups such as MoveOn.org to bring this about. Moyers, former press secretary to President Lyndon Johnson, failed to tell his viewers that he is on the board of Soros' Open Society Institute and that it has funneled $1.7 million into Lewis and his Center for Public Integrity. Moyers had conducted and aired an interview with Soros on September 12, 2003, where he declared, "The Republican Party has been captured by a bunch of extremists…" Soros was presented as an opponent of unchecked capitalism and a supporter of democracy and nation-building abroad.

The power of the Soros-supported media network was demonstrated in mid-October when a controversy emerged over Sinclair Broadcasting airing parts of Stolen Honor, a film raising questions about the detrimental impact of John Kerry's 1971 anti-war testimony on U.S. Vietnam POWs being held by the communists. Kerry had branded U.S. soldiers as war criminals, and POWs interviewed in Stolen Honor said this resulted in more torture to them. The Democratic Party, the Kerry campaign, and various groups denounced Sinclair for planning to air Stolen Honor. MediaChannel.org, Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, Media Access Project, Media for Democracy, and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ held an anti-Sinclair news conference. They denounced Sinclair for allegedly abusing the public airwaves by planning to air "propaganda." All of these organizations -- except for the possible exception of the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ -- are funded by Soros.

Media Matters, a left-wing media watchdog group that was also pressuring Sinclair to abandon plans to air the testimony of the former POWs, was "developed" with help from the Center for American Progress, funded by Soros.

The attack on Sinclair had the effect of diverting attention away from the extensive and controversial media connections of Soros, his foundations, and the organizations they subsidize, and legitimate questions about the Soros-supported candidate John Kerry. These groups – and the many prominent journalists who serve on their boards – make Sinclair look penny ante.

Pro-Soros media coverage dates back many years and continues to the present day, as detailed in this report. In 1996, Dan Rather's CBS Evening News highlighted him as a philanthropist and humanitarian, someone who had made a fortune but was now making a difference. The story by correspondent Anthony Mason ignored his commitment to legalization of drugs.

That same year, Judith Miller of the New York Times wrote that he was "bringing his philanthropy home." While she made a brief reference to his drug legalization agenda, the headline over the piece said he was committed to "social justice." His close adviser, Aryeh Neier, a longtime ACLU official, was described merely as a "human rights advocate."

On the far left, The Nation magazine and its Nation Institute have been supported by OSI. The magazine published a generally flattering piece about the Soros-funded Center for American Progress.

In 1994 Soros received the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award at an International Press Freedom Awards dinner, sponsored by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Five years earlier, OSI gave 4 grants, totaling $220,000, to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Benjamin was senior executive producer at CBS News and served briefly as chair of the Committee to Protect Journalists before his death in 1988.

The Soros media connections include:

An investor in the Times Mirror Company, Soros funded the Project on Media Ownership, headed by Professor Mark Crispin Miller at New York University. Whose purpose was expose "media concentration." A total of $300,000 over several years came from George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI). In 1999, a survey commissioned by the Project on Media Ownership and the Benton Foundation and paid for by OSI found that seventy-nine percent of adults would favor a law requiring commercial broadcasters to pay 5 percent of their revenues into a fund for public broadcasting.

Eric Alterman of The Nation has hailed Soros for spending millions on "education campaigns with America Coming Together, voter mobilization drives with MoveOn.org and research activities with the Center for American Progress (CAP)--where I am a senior fellow…" Alterman says his own magazine, The Nation, is viewed as out of the mainstream in part because of "the continued appearance in its pages of a long-time Stalinist communist, Alexander Cockburn, whose unabashed hatred for both America and Israel ... tarnish the reputation of its otherwise serious contributors." Alterman's mentor, I.F. Stone, was a paid agent of the KGB and a Stalinist.

In the Los Angeles Times Book Review, Orville Schell said that Soros had written a "succinct and well-reasoned book," The Bubble of American Supremacy, which ought "to provide a welcome template for how the candidates might begin to think their way through to a more coherent view of America's place in the world." Soros had spoken on March 3 at the Goldman Forum on the Press and Foreign Affairs, sponsored by UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism. The event was a conversation between Soros and Journalism Dean Orville Schell.

OSI gave $60,000 to the Independent Media Institute , whose executive director, Don Hazen, is a former publisher of Mother Jones. Hazen has called Soros a "progressive philanthropist." A story carried by the Independent Media Institute on its AlterNet project says Soros "believes in democracy, positive international relations and effective strategies to reduce poverty, among other things."

OSI gave a $75,000 grant to the Center for Investigative Reporting. The group's board of advisers includes prominent journalists.

OSI gave $246,528 to the Center for Public Integrity, headed by former CBS News producer Charles Lewis, "to support the continuing expansion of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists." A total of $1 million went for "the Global Access Project." In total, it is estimated that the group has received $1.7 from Soros.

OSI gave $200,000 to the Fund for Investigative Journalism. This group, too, features prominent journalists on its board.

OSI's "Network Media Program" gave $22,157 to Investigative Reporters & Editors.

Soros Foundations have provided $160,000 to MediaChannel.org, a so-called "media issues supersite, featuring criticism, breaking news, and investigative reporting from hundreds of organizations worldwide." The executive editor is Danny Schecter, a former news program producer and investigative reporter at CNN and ABC. It was created by Globalvision News Network, whose board includes "Senior executives from the world's leading media firms."

OSI has contributed $70,000 toward the far-left Independent Media Center, or Indymedia, known as an "independent newsgathering collective," whose servers were seized by a federal law enforcement agency on October 7. The action was apparently related to an investigation into international terrorism, kidnapping or money laundering.

OSI provided $600,000 to the Media Access Project, a so-called telecommunications public interest law firm critical of conservative influence in the major media.

OSI provide $30,000 to the Media Awareness Project, a "worldwide network dedicated to drug policy reform" and promoting "balanced media coverage" of the drug issue.

OSI provided $200,000 to the Association for Progressive Communications, "an international network…working for peace, human rights, development and protection of the environment…"

Considering all of the money that Soros or his organizations have provided to news organizations, it should be no surprise to learn that journalists love him. His web site advises visitors to "read about George Soros from The New York Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, et al.," all of which are reprinted on the site and highly favorable. His new web site features several complimentary statements about Soros from articles in the press and media figures.

posted August 30, 2006 08:12 PM            

The problem is that we are not likely to see an investigation of those people financing the investigative reporters.

James V. Grimaldi is one of several Washington Post reporters who have been engaged in the feeding frenzy over the Jack Abramoff story. On C-SPAN, Grimaldi said that we need more investigative reporting and that he serves on the board of an organization called Investigative Reporters & Editors (IRE) to encourage that. The problem is that we are not likely to see an investigation of those people financing the investigative reporters. And one of those people is convicted inside trader and billionaire George Soros.

We noted the Soros connection to IRE in our report, The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power. The Open Society Institute of George Soros gave $22,157 to IRE. You can find a list of IRE's financial backers here. One notices that most of IRE's backers are news organizations. But the "Open Society Institute Network Media Program" of George Soros stands out like a sore thumb. Soros, who took advantage of a campaign finance loophole to try to defeat President Bush, makes Jack Abramoff look like a poverty-stricken penny-pincher.

These facts don't discredit Grimaldi's work in the case of Abramoff. But they demonstrate that there are some things you are not likely to see investigated by IRE.

I Googled the words "Soros and James V. Grimaldi" and came up with only one hit-a May 16, 2004, article about financial backers of President Bush. Deep inside the article was a brief reference to financial support for John Kerry and the Democrats. It said: "The Democrats are increasingly relying on independent groups known as 527s, after their designation in the tax code. They currently raise unlimited funds for political ads that have been used to attack Bush. Two prominent examples are the Media Fund and Moveon.org. Financier George Soros and Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., have each given more than $7 million to these organizations."

Notice how Soros was merely designated a "financier." By that point, however, Soros had already been convicted of inside trading in France. In March of 2005, his insider trading conviction was upheld.

On C-SPAN, Grimaldi referred viewers to the Open Secrets website for more information about the Abramoff network. It features an article about Abramoff disclosing that, since 1999, political contributions to politicians from Abramoff, his clients or associated companies amount to $4.4 million. Republicans got $2.8 million of that. Democrats got $1.5 million.

Compare that to the amount of money that Soros has put into the political system. As OpenSecrets.org notes, Soros contributed over $20 million to 527s in the 2004 election cycle.