The Soros Web of Deception and Its Actors

American Thinker links Soros to the liberal scam of the century, elect Hillary Clinton in 2008… Just think were we will be if Hillary becomes Soros’ proxy President…

For the past couple of months, I’ve been reading up on the Clinton/Soros connection into the wee hours of every night.  Ever since George Soros slipped through the backdoor to American political power at the tawdry invitation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, he has carpet-bagged his way to the Democrat Party inner circle and has become the “biggest political fat cat of all time.”  With more than $7 billion in his little Hungarian carpetbag, he thinks he can buy the Presidency for Hillary Clinton and get back into the throne-room of worldly hegemony — the Oval Office.


In 1995, George Soros appeared on PBS with Charlie Rose, and said this:

“I like to influence policy.  I was not able to get to George Bush (Senior).  But now I think I have succeeded with my influence…I do now have great access in the (Clinton) administration.  There is no question about this.  We actually work together as a team.” 

(The Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 91)

So, even though Soros is hedging his political bets by donating to more than one candidate, his intimate ties to Hillary and Bill, going back more than a decade now, make it clear that he would prefer a 2nd Clinton administration, where he is already part of the very in in-crowd. 

Not so fast, you two.  We’re onto you.

Senators Reid and Harkin are taking their cues from Media Matters, a Soros-funded front group.  As Hillary Clinton declared at the recent YearlyKos convention (her confirming sound bite played by Rush Limbaugh on the radio), she was the mastermind behind both The Center for American Progress (her think tank) and Media Matters (her media attack machine).  Hillary provides the name and political connections that Soros craves, and Soros provides the money.  Quite a powerful partnership, what some might even call a conspiracy. 

If you want a complete rundown on how all of Hillary’s and Soros’ “non-profit groups” work together in her plan to take over America, get yourself a copy of the book by her mentor, Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.  In it, you’ll find the complete outline for throwing Judeo/Christian principles and honesty to the winds of revolutionary fervor.  Hillary Clinton has been the perfectly patient disciple of Alinsky’s since she wrote her thesis about him her senior year at Wellesley in 1969.  If her admiration of Alinsky had died with her thesis, no one would care.  But it didn’t.  He remained a close confidant until his death (The Shadow Party, p. 56) and his tactical fingerprints are all over her projection of the false “Centrist” image she is manipulating to garner political power.  It’s all in the book.

The First Attack on Rush

Hillary’s media attack machine Media Matters first tried to hush Rush by attempting to have him thrown off the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service in May 2004.  In a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, they demanded Rush be silenced after his “trivialization” of the military misconduct at the Abu Ghraib prison.  The gag on Rush was necessary, they wrote, “to protect our troops from these reckless and dangerous messages.”

Senator Tom Harkin jumped on the Hush-Rush Campaign that time too, just as he is now, demanding “balance” in media.  With the taxpayer-funded, liberal propaganda organ, NPR, being broadcast to the troops 24/7, it’s hard to believe that anyone could feel one hour a day of Rush Limbaugh is a threat to balance.  If anything, that one hour of Rush may be the only balance to the unending, livestream of “The-War-Is-Lost” Harry Reid and his Democrat followers:  Tom Harkin, John Murtha, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

The only reason that Hillary Clinton keeps up the public façade of “moderation,” and doesn’t dare to go on record with her deep disdain for our military is that she is following the Alinsky model, which admonishes revolutionaries to milk their white, middle-class backgrounds and appearances to achieve the political power necessary to carry out the socialist revolution.

According to the Alinsky model of bloodless socialist revolution, Rush Limbaugh represents a Have as opposed to a Have-Not.  Now what does Rush Have that Hillary Clinton and George Soros Have-Not?  [A lot, actually, good ideas being perhaps the first thing that comes to my mind.] But in the current battle, what he definitely has is an established and quite verifiable reputation for unabashed patriotism.  This reputation is so strong that as soon as someone attacks it, then real, living, American Armed Forces and Veterans immediately come to his defense.

George Soros, on the other hand, even has a hard time being recognized as an American citizen.  And Hillary Clinton, even though she voted for the War, has done all she could to squirm out of it — without apologizing — ever since the War became more difficult than bombing an aspirin factory in the middle of the night. 

Rush’s Have Patriotism status, and the Soros/Clinton comparative Have-Not status is the dynamic that makes Rush a prime target of their revolution.

They are using Alinsky’s “basic tactic in warfare against the Haves,” which Alinsky refers to as “political jujitsu.” (Rules for Radicals, p. 152)  This tactic advises the Have-Nots to “club the enemy to death with his own book of rules and regulations.” (p. 152)  Rush is a great patriot, playing by the American patriot rulebook.  But even a true patriot can be caught every now and then using one or two words, that when taken out of context, might be used to choke him on his own “petard” (p. 152).

This works especially well for the revolutionaries in our high-tech age, and some of Soros’ money goes to pay full-time listeners and media-watchers at Media Matters to monitor every word of the Haves.            

In their battle to Hush Rush — preferably before he gets a chance to skewer Hillary in the general election campaign — Hillary and Soros are using their media attack machine, Media Matters, to apply Alinsky Radical tactics #8 and #10.

The eighth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 128): 

Keep the pressure on.
Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event — no matter how trivial – and turn it around to your advantage.  Make a big deal of it.  Keep doing it.  Over and over again.  Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win.  And the bloodless revolution succeeds.

The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The operations of the revolutionaries must be cohesive, organized and constant.  An action causes a reaction, which causes another reaction to the reaction, “ad infinitum.” (p. 129) 

And we see exactly how that happened with Rush.

– MoveOn, another Soros front group, came out with their ad defaming our Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus.

– Because that was a political ad in a major public forum, The New York Times, and because it defamed an American General in wartime during his momentous testimony before Congress, the ad sparked a reaction in the Senate: a resolution denouncing the ad.  Notably, while many Democrat Senators joined in condemning the MoveOn ad, Senator Hillary Clinton did not.

– Media Matters picked up Rush Limbaugh’s denouncing of 2 scurrilous soldiers,  Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp.  They seized the only two words, which appear to catch Rush breaking his own patriotic rule of always supporting the troops.   

And they employed Alinsky’s 13th tactic:  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. (p. 130)

The Soros-funded MoveOn ad provoked a reaction in the Senate.  The Clinton brainchild, and Soros-supported, Media Matters stepped in the battle for Patriotism honors and provided a reaction to the first reaction.  A few other Democrat Senators (including Senator Hillary Clinton) jumped on board with their reactions.  And the battle continues.    

After Air America crashed and burned, Clinton and Soros feel they must hush Rush and push to reinstate the “Fairness” Doctrine in order to completely control the message for Hillary’s run on the White House.

In short, bringing down Rush — or bursting the bubble of Rush supremacy, as George Soros might say — would prove more than a political plum in Hillary’s pudding.  It might actually give her the throne of power in the Oval Office, with George Soros her backer and enabler.

And the only thing that remains to be seen is whether it will be as easy to control the ballot box on Election Day as it apparently has been to control the Democratic Party.


Neo-Communism, the New Face of the Democratic Party

I think American Thinker’s article speaks for itself… It is a long read, but well worth it. I am only going to post a few snippets, you will have to visit American Thinker for the whole article.

There is a compelling factual case to be made that the contemporary radical Left can properly be called “Neocommunist.” The Hard Left is grounded in Marxist vision of creating a “new man” under a system led by a vanguard that knows best what the rest of society needs. And Neocommies behave in patterns with startling parallels to Old Communist tactics.

The Neocommies are not members of a Communist Party, and are part more of a movement than a conspiracy. They are utterly different from traditional liberalism in America and Europe. Traditional liberals were democratic — people like Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman. They fought passionately against the Totalitarian Left, as Ronald Reagan did when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild. Reagan started as a democratic liberal, and became the most famous conservative of the 20th century. As he said so often, he didn’t leave the Democratic Party — it left him.

Over time, the Democrats became more totalitarian in spirit and practice after the first wave of the New Left started its takeover of the Party in the 1970s and 80s. Half a century ago, true liberal Democrats like Harry Truman told Americans the truth about Stalin and the new Cold War  — and were hated for it by the Hard Left. The American Labor movement was dominated by true liberals like George Meaney, who earned their positions by expelling Communist infiltrators, and in some cases throwing out entire Stalinist unions like the Longshoremen’s Union.


The Historical Communist Conspiracy

We now have a great deal of factual evidence about the Communist conspiracies that were part of longest struggle against totalitarianism in the 20th century, much longer than the war against the Nazis. The struggle against Soviet Communism was a seven decade Long War. There was ample time to develop covert networks.

The new evidence comes from Communist archives that were opened after the fall of the Soviet Empire around 1990. It shows that the anti-Communist Right was quite accurate in its diagnosis of the disease. Former Communists like George Orwell, Arthur Koestler and Whittaker Chambers were telling the truth.  


The Academy

Today’s Neocommunists prefer to call themselves Marxists, which has again become a respected word on college campuses. But Marxism is Communist ideology. What else could it be? If you read carefully, Neocommunism is really out there, only slightly disguised. Just as Soviet propaganda insisted America was rotten to the core, so does the Hard Left and the institutions it controls parrot the line. The People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, now a favorite history textbook in the colleges, is proud to “revise” everything we think we know about America, from the true people’s point of view. 


Jew-Hating: Seems like old times

A new Stalin-Nazi alliance is alive in Europe and parts of the US, as Leftists openly ally themselves with Islamic Fascists. Islamists worship Allah and the Leftists worship atheism, but the ideological differences are not that big compared to the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Common enemies and common goals overcome doctrinal differences, to be worked out later.

The difference becomes even smaller when you put a sharp sword at the throats of the Left.



Anti-Americanism has come roaring back like a bad rash,  flaring up after years of remission. Anti-American rage is pervasive on our Left and the dominant media. (But I repeat myself, as Mark Twain might have said).

In Europe most of the major media — Der Spiegel, Stern, Le Monde, the Guardian, the BBC News — make a specialty of slamming America, with Israel thrown in as the Little Satan.   


Who the Hard Leftists are

The history of NeoCommunism is well known. It starts with the 68’ers in Europe  — les Soixant-huiteurs, named after the 1968 student riots, which served as the major agitprop opportunity. Radicalized youth were created and went on to careers in poltiics. People such as former German Socialist Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who now literally works for the Russians, bought by the giant oil monopoly Gazprom. German anarchist and Green politician Joschka Fischer actually has now turned against his old comrades.  Where have we seen this before?

In the US, of course, the NeoCommunists were the Sixties Radicals who decided to carry on a “Long March through the Institutions.” That means the college faculties, the high schools, the media, Hollywood, and government. Today, major foundations started by Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie have turned Hard Left. Capitalist money is turned against the very engines of prosperity.

Hillary Clinton’s puppy love for Saul Alinsky, when she was a college student in the Sixties, is symbolic of the way the “new” radicals fell in love with the old, hard-line Communists.  Hillary Clinton started her adult life as a millenarian zealot, following the old prophet of radicalism. It’s anybody’s guess what she believes today, but I suspect it’s not the Methodism of her youth. The methods of the Democratic Party today are taken straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook.



The methods of Neocommunism parallel those of Old Communism to an astonishing degree.

The routine use of orchestrated group lying (so that many different people are  suddenly making the same accusation);

The constant use of innocent-sounding front groups like and Media Matters;

The use of stooges (like military retirees, both real and phony);


Will the Evil Empire Strike Back?

The biggest difference between Old and New Marxism today is that NeoCommunists don’t control the Soviet Empire. The Left has turned that to its advantage, however. It is no longer possible to accuse them of being run by the Soviets. They will tell you they are patriotic Americans, which is very true, if you adopt their belief that America must be subjected to a Leftist regime for its own good. What’s good for the international Left is good for America. Just ask them, very politely. It’s not a secret. 



The ideological goals of NeoCommunism have not changed one bit, which is why the term “communism” is so accurate. The sucker goal is to create Paradise on Earth by overthrowing democratic capitalism. The real goal is to enable the rise of a new ruling class with huge power over ordinary people.  One reason that NeoCommunists have so much in common with Islamic Fascists is that both fantasize about the same millenarian end: Islamists also hate democratic capitalism, and they also want to take over the world for a purer, more idealistic tyranny. Check out Saudi Arabia and Iran for some good examples.


After the fall of the Soviet Empire, the Left changed tactics but not goals. In Europe the result was called the “Third Way,” and it is the controlling ideology of the European Union today. The “Third Way” claims to be a compromise between capitalism and Communism, but it comes down to sucking resources from relatively free markets for the sake of centralized State power and control. EU propaganda is just recycled socialist propaganda. You can easily see it on the web.

It is no accident that the United Kingdom today is surrendering its national sovereignty to the European Union as fast as possible: The socialist ruling classes in the UK know they will merge seamlessly into the EU elites, at higher salaries, bigger perks, and much more power.  The UK elites are simply planning to join the new ruling class of the emerging European Empire. It’s a promotion they just can’t turn down.


Obama “No Show” Contradicts Himself in Criticism of Clinton Vote

Obama is now critisizing Hillary on her vote to dub the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He claims this gives Bush a blank check to attack Iran. Now had Obama been present in the Senate that day he could have cast a vote against, however all he can say is that had he been there he would of. Where was Obama on such a critical vote, by critical I am refering to his use of this as cannon fodder against Hillary. Had this been such an important vote to him he would not have been too busy campaigning, he would have been doing his job that he is paid to do.

Now I have no love for Hillary, however I am developing an even nastier taste for Obama’s politics… He has no right to say anything about Hillary’s voting practice unless he participates in the same votes.

Is this really the man that should be our next President, where will he be when important decision need to be made?

Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday criticized a recent vote by Democratic presidential rival Sen. Hillary Clinton as helping to give President Bush a “blank check” to take military action against Iran.


¨Sen. Barack Obama says Sen. Hillary Clinton has shown “flawed” judgment.

“We know in the past that the president has used some of the flimsiest excuses to try to move his agenda regardless of what Congress says,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Last month, Clinton voted to support a resolution declaring Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite part of the Iranian military, a foreign terrorist group. (The nonbinding amendment to the Defense Authorization Act passed by a 76-22 vote.)

Obama said he would have voted against the measure but didn’t because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. He said it was impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate. “This is a problem” related to running for president, he said.

Obama said Clinton also had shown “flawed” judgment during the vote to authorize the Iraq war five years ago.

“We know that there was embodied in this legislation, or this resolution sent to the Senate, language that would say our Iraqi troop structures should in part be determined by our desire to deal with Iran,” Obama said. “Now if you know that in the past the president has taken a blank check and cashed it, we don’t want to repeat that mistake.”

Clinton on Thursday defended her vote on the resolution during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio, saying “what I voted on was a nonbinding resolution. It’s not an amendment. It’s not a law.”

While Clinton was campaigning Sunday in New Hampton, Iowa, an audience member at a town hall-style meeting pressed her on why she voted for the Iran measure and asked why she hadn’t learned from past “mistakes.” Calling “the premise of the question” wrong, the senator from New York argued the resolution calls for the terrorist label so that sanctions can be imposed.

The sanctions, Clinton said, will in turn “send a clear message to the leadership” and lead to stronger diplomatic efforts.

Earlier this month, Clinton also co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, that would prohibit military operations against Iran without congressional approval.

Obama’s comments came on the fifth anniversary of the 77-23 Senate vote that authorized the president to use force against Iraq. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against the resolution authorizing force at the time.

Clinton’s 2002 vote shows a clear difference in judgment between the two of them, Obama said. Video Watch as Obama questions Clinton’s judgment »

“I don’t think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment and it speaks to my judgment,” Obama said. “It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward.

“I think her judgment was flawed on this issue.”

Obama said he also will step up efforts to clarify his differences with Clinton, whom many political observers view as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

“There’s no doubt we are moving into a different phase of the campaign,” Obama said. “The first part of a campaign is to offer some biography and give people a sense of where I’ve been and what I am about.

“In this next phase, we want to make sure that voters understand that on big issues, like the decision to go into the war in Iraq, I had real differences with the other candidates, and that reflects on my judgment.”

Another leading Democratic candidate, John Edwards, also voted in 2002 to authorize force in Iraq while he was then a senator from North Carolina. He later called his vote a mistake.

In a veiled swipe at Clinton, Obama also suggested he could better unite the country and offer “something new, as opposed to looking backward and simply duplicating some of the politics that we’ve become so accustomed to, that frankly the American people are sick of.”

Obama would not say whether he would consider Clinton as his running mate should he become the Democratic Party’s nominee.

“I think Sen. Clinton is a very capable person,” he said. “Right now, my goal is to make sure I am the nominee, and she is still the senator from New York.”