"The Shadow Party" - Democrats, Soros, and, Among Other Things, The Second Amendment

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

A new book by David Horowitz and Richard Poe...exposes the machinations of a radical clique working at the highest levels of government and finance to undermine American power... Poe has written a number of bestselling books. His last two releases were Hillary's Secret War and The Seven Myths of Gun Control. (Excerpts of article below).

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. 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.

-Snip-

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?

Poe: 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.

-Snip-

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.”

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. 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.

-Snip-

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.

-Snip-

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.
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.
 
I don't know why, but reading that article didn't send as many chills up my spine as say, getting a Bush administration progress report. I think it has to do with the author looking like Freddy Mercury. Just something about that I can't get past...
 
Well...

Soros also funds Amnesty International, whose US executive director has called for the arrest of President Bush as a war criminal.

I feel Bush and his cronies are war criminals, they don't want to follow the Geneva Conventions and certainly turn a blind eye to torture. However, I do think anyone who would try to destroy the Bill of Rights, (Oh wait already destroyed.) needs a reality check. Problem is, the Democrats and Republican party are one and the same, nothing ever gets done, and they each take turns being good guys and bad guys. (It's like pro wrestling if you think about it.):D


Epyon
 
I feel Bush and his cronies are war criminals, they don't want to follow the Geneva Conventions and certainly turn a blind eye to torture. However, I do think anyone who would try to destroy the Bill of Rights, (Oh wait already destroyed.) needs a reality check.


Bush is a war criminal for executing a war against terrorists and those who trample the Bill of Rights only need a reality check?
Has the heat gotten to you:confused:
 
DonR101395....

I never said killing your enemies is wrong, how about the prisoners in Guantanamo? Why can't they be treated as POWs? Because they have no "nation" per se? They also have no trial or access to any form of due process, Rumsfeld has been known to try to use torture when he can get away with it. Google the term "black sites" better yet here's a link on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site

And then tell me that denying ANY enemy combatant basic rights as stated by international law is not a war crime?


Epyon

P.S: I only said reality check because what I had in mind was rather inappropriate in a public forum. Sorry if I seemed vague, I do feel though that our government is a bigger problem than Iraq or whatever the BS the government wants us to believe/fear these days as to who our enemies are. It's just a tactic for freedoms to be expunged from our society under the guise of "fighting terrorism". I do acknowledge though that terrorism IS a problem, but who can we say may have caused it in the long run? The officials who are in power attached by strings of money to corporations.
 
I do acknowledge though that terrorism IS a problem, but who can we say may have caused it in the long run? The officials who are in power attached by strings of money to corporations.

Oh epyon, you just didn't! Are you really going to imply that something we've done may have somehow contributed to the things happening to us? Are you really going to say that we should have some responsibility for the effects we have on other nation's peoples? C'mon...that's just...just...I don't even know what to say.

What's next? Saying that for every action there's an opposite and (sometimes) equal reaction? Blasphemy! Where's an inquisition when you need one...wait a sec, here comes some old conservative white guys...:D
 
Epyon,

You are right - these terrorists caught on the battlefield are NOT POWs - sorry - they don't get that distinction; therefore you are right again - they are NOT entitled to the Geneva Convention, public defenders, etc. etc. Life is tough there, and if they don't like it, then don't mess with us. NO war crime being commited, as much as you would like it be.

As for torture - I am still waiitng for the definition. Hard to legislate something without knowing what it is meant. I have a feeling your and other liberal's idea of torture will be a bit more...emcompassing then Rumsfelds - especially since he is somewhat responsible for gathering information for protecting the lives our troops and you are not.

As you are inclined to blame our government for every evil in the world, you will lean towards the left, and as such, do not have a good view to judge those making decisions as they see fit to protect this nation. It is a shame as you give more respect to the rights and words of terrorists and other enemies of your country then to your own leaders.

Esquire,

I must say atleast your tendency to blame the US when people want to murder us is consistent, though naive - since in your mind no other possible reason exists because YOU "have a hunch" everyone else in the thinks just like you and just wants to live in peace, therefore it MUST be all our fault. Typical liberal selfish stance actually - certain if YOU think a certain way everyone else must, or should too...makes understanding other views, especially evil ones, a bit difficult. Hang in there, maybe you will see the light! :)

Kind of liberal thinking that leads to gun control actually - as those selfish elites who live in gated cmmunities with 24 hr security, or have armed body guards can't possibly imagine why 'normal people' would need a gun for self-defense. Out of step with reality down here on the ground.
 
As you are inclined to blame our government for every evil in the world, you will lean towards the left, and as such, do not have a good view to judge those making decisions as they see fit to protect this nation. It is a shame as you give more respect to the rights and words of terrorists and other enemies of you rcountry then to your own leaders.

Would a person be any less fit to judge our desicion makers (like the decider!) if they believed that our government could do no wrong? And is it not a greater shame when the words of terrorists and other enemies of our country have the ability to be believed moreso than our leaders? Our leaders, as of late, seem to have grown more shifty, conniving, dishonest (big suprise there), and intent on expanding the American Empire, regardless of what other people/nations think. Doesn't make someone a lefty for believing that the expansion of our empire may have been a cause for so much of the 'resistance' we're fighting.

After 9/11, we had the world by the heartstrings. Does it make me liberal to question why we don't now?
 
I never said killing your enemies is wrong, how about the prisoners in Guantanamo? Why can't they be treated as POWs? Because they have no "nation" per se? They also have no trial or access to any form of due process, Rumsfeld has been known to try to use torture when he can get away with it. Google the term "black sites" better yet here's a link on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site

And then tell me that denying ANY enemy combatant basic rights as stated by international law is not a war crime?

Simple, they are not POW's, they are illegal combatants. The Geneva Conventions apply to legal combantants. Rumsfeld using torture? Can you define torture? Can you show a legal definition that all countries agree on? What basic rights were they denied? They have been sheltered, fed, given access to their religious material, allowed to bath.
Sorry, but if you poke a mean dog with a stick don't cry when he bites you on the a$$.

I do acknowledge though that terrorism IS a problem, but who can we say may have caused it in the long run?

Wow, that's profound:rolleyes: So, you're saying we caused the terrorist attacks? How did we do that? Can you cite any specific action we took that would have caused the events of 9/11? IMO the only thing we did wrong was not confronting the problem from 1992 to 2000.

What's next? Saying that for every action there's an opposite and (sometimes) equal reaction? Blasphemy! Where's an inquisition when you need one...wait a sec, here comes some old conservative white guys...

Here's your old conservitive white guy, now can you cite a specific action that resulted in an equal reaction? I'm a little forgettful at times, but I don't recall any old conservitive white guys hijacking airplanes and flying them to Mecca then crashing them killing a few thousand people.
 
Do you really expect anything but evil from a Jew who helped the Nazis steal from other Jews during
WW-II? For all his billions Soros isn't worth spit.

In an April 15, 1993 interview on the PBS television show Adam Smith’s Money World, Soros explained that Baumbach’s “job was to take over Jewish properties, so I actually went with him and we took possession of these large estates. That was my identity. So it’s a strange, very strange life. I was 14 years old at the time.”
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/08/far-right-attacks-on-holocaust.html

George was taken in by a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary’s fascist government. Baumbach claimed George as an adopted godson. In this role, Soros went with Baumbach to deliver deportation notices to Jews and helped him confiscate their property. Critics claim that this event is an indicator of the moral quality of his life-long choices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
 
Esquire,

I do see your point - it IS a shame that Bush et a. aren't trusted by his 'own people" - and THAT is not the terrorists fault. It is also not a bad thing to question, to reason with your own mind who/what is what. I do not fault that at all - just disagree with some of the conclusions! :)

I do think it is wrong to ignore history. I think it is wrong to try to make this country weaker, as some liberals want to, to avoid angering others who may not agree with our position in the world. I do not think our government flawless, but I do think for the most part this country has been a real leader over the years in trying to do what is right, to be a force for good and NOT a cause for evil. We have also seen we usually have better results in the long run when we turn to action when requird instead of appeasment.

There is a difference between empire building and protecting the interests of this country - overall I think we tend to be too conservative in the use of our power, as we let diplomacy and the UN run their courses long before we take action. Of course not everyone will agree that what is good for us is good for them - no argument there - other nations have THEIR own nterests first - NOT ours. We can not count on the likes of France or Germany or Russia to side with us, not when they are sellling arms to Saddam and nuclear hardware to Iran. Yes we Do need to use prudence. We also should not let every foriegn mental case (or country) with a bomb and a death wish to dictate our country's policy. That especially includes those who are sworn to OUR destruction - or conversion.
 
You are right - these terrorists caught on the battlefield are NOT POWs - sorry - they don't get that distinction; therefore you are right again - they are NOT entitled to the Geneva Convention, public defenders, etc. etc. Life is tough there, and if they don't like it, then don't mess with us. NO war crime being commited, as much as you would like it be.

If there is ever a second American revolution, I will probably be too occupied with other things to enjoy seeing everyone who espouses doctrines like this shove their feet into their mouths when they see this attitude turned onto "those damn terrorists who won't give up their guns," but it'll still be amusing.

Does anyone seriously think that the diehards who would sacrifice their lives in an attempt to safeguard the constitution and restore a just government (in the future) are going to be using uniforms and fighting against the military in conventional warfare? Not a chance in hell, because they're going to want to win.
 
Amusing or not - still doesn't change THE FACTS. THE NON-UNIFORMED COMBATANTS CAUGHT ON THE BATTLEFIELD DO NOT MEET THE DEFINTION OF POW COVERED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

But in either case...

The debate is simple. Are the terrorists uniformed enemy combatants or nonuniformed enemy combatants? If they are uniformed enemy combatants, they are afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If they are nonuniformed combatants, the Geneva Conventions allows for and US and European precedence calls for them to be executed. Under the Geneva Conventions, the military tribunals are called for to simply determine their status as uniformed or nonuniformed combatants, nothing else.

Under the Geneva conventions, uniformed combatants may be detained for the duration of the war as POWs without writ of habeous corpus or charges being filed because they are NOT criminals, they are enemy combatants. Likewise, nonuniformed combatants may be detained indefinitely or executed at the discretion of the convening authority.
 
Then perhaps the Geneva convention no longer serves the same rightful purpose that it did sixty years ago?

I note that you have no way to approach it aside from 'facts of the law', instead of what is right or may have severe unintended consequences.

PS: the Caps Lock key is 1/8" of an inch from your "A" key.

Edit: I see that you are simply editing your post to add new information instead of posting replies. That really messes up the flow of discussion, I wish you wouldn't do that. I'm forced to now because I don't want to have two posts in a row. Asymmetrical warfare is a reality and no longer limited to terrorists. Are you trying to say that all ununiformed combatants are terrorists?

Seems more like an attempt to maintain a monopoly on warfare to large organized militaries by denying human rights to combatants who are unable to maintain a revolution or war by any other means. In other words, a pro-christian anti-slavery movement could pick up arms in Sudan, but be unable to survive and gain momentum by any other means than asymmetrical warfare. They could be tortured and executed in the worst possible ways and their captors would be completely legitimate under Geneva.

Requiring people in that situation to assemble with uniforms and not hide among their people or play to win (with 'cowardly' tactics like ambushes and insurgency operations) is as ridiculous as requiring everyone to carry muskets and line up abreast in fields before shooting at each other.

The consequences of this - for everyone involved - should be very clear. If a civil war breaks out in the United States, we will see it first hand when freedom fighters are both playing to win and knowing that if they are ever captured, the 'Geneva Convention' will be of no protection to them.
 
Perhaps.

And perhaps they should not take arms up against this country if they don't like the results.

Excuse me for bringing FACTS into the discussion - see why you might not like that. OK then - them AVOIDING the whole issue BY NOT FIGHTING AND TRYING TO KILL US would be more "right" then anything else.

THANKS (found it!) :)
 
If there is ever a second American revolution, I will probably be too occupied with other things to enjoy seeing everyone who espouses doctrines like this shove their feet into their mouths when they see this attitude turned onto "those damn terrorists who won't give up their guns," but it'll still be amusing.

Does anyone seriously think that the diehards who would sacrifice their lives in an attempt to safeguard the constitution and restore a just government (in the future) are going to be using uniforms and fighting against the military in conventional warfare? Not a chance in hell, because they're going to want to win.

All I can say is
 

Attachments

  • tinfoil.gif
    tinfoil.gif
    529 bytes · Views: 15
And perhaps they should not take arms up against this country if they don't like the results.

Yeah, I know. It's getting so I can barely go for a drive anymore, so many damn Iraqi insurgents coming over here to take up arms against this country. Oh, wait..

them AVOIDING the whole issue BY NOT FIGHTING AND TRYING TO KILL US

What else should we expect from savages?
 
epyon

I feel Bush and his cronies are war criminals, they don't want to follow the Geneva Conventions and certainly turn a blind eye to torture.

Thank goodness your 'feelings' are irrelevant. Effective arguments are constucted upon objective facts, not subjective 'feelings'.

Do you want to talk torture? Define your terms. Traitorious POS's like McCain include sleep deprivation, loud music, and barking dogs as "torture". Classic Lib BS, calling it something which it is not, and repeating it frequently.

I underwent worse in SERE school, and countless GIs have endured REAL torture. Get a clue.

And, BTW, using Wiki to reinforce your case is, in essence, using a novel you wrote to substantiate your own whacked-out theory.
Wiki is to reference as Lenin is to 1st Amendment.
 
Do you want to talk torture? Define your terms. Traitorious POS's like McCain include sleep deprivation, loud music, and barking dogs as "torture". Classic Lib BS, calling it something which it is not, and repeating it frequently.

Well good thing a true patriot like Cheney was around to issue a classified addendum to the existing military manuals after that Dbag McCain so wrongly convinced congress to try and stop the appearance of torture, despite it's tremendous boost to our nation's credibility of being 'the good guys'.

We all know that there will be somebody (CIA) who will be willing to get their hands dirty if it means saving lives, but we need to at least have our faces strait when we say we stand against torture.

Lockstep, faces forward everyone.
 
Back
Top