Afraid of shadows

David Horowitz and Richard Poe have written a book about George Soros and the negative effect he’s having on American politics. It’s called The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. FrontPage Magazine has interviewed Poe about the book. I can’t decide if Poe and Horowitz are suffering from paranoid delusion or if they’re warning us about a genuine threat. I the beginning of the interview, it sounds like Grassy Knoll talk. However, when Poe starts talking about Soros’ on-record statements, and the way in which he’s used his money, the Grassy Knoll retreats and the sense that there is something there rises.

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. 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: 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.  [Bolded emphasis mine.]

In other words, Soros would impose a reverse religious test on all political candidates, something currently banned under the Constitution the Founding Fathers were kind enough to give us.

If you have the chance, read the whole interview and tell me if you think the anti-Soros cadre is in “Grassy Knoll” or reality land?  And if you’ve read the book, I’d be even more interested in what you have to say.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    I haven’t read the article yet, but their extensive use of Soros’ own words must lend credence to Horowitz and Poe’s charges. The money trail is pretty cut-and-dried, too–a check for $10,000 (or $10 million for that matter) to your favorite cause is pretty hard to take “out of context”. And I’d say that the accuracy of determining Soros’ intentions increases linearly with the amount of money he donates.

  2. says

    Great post, Book,

    George Soros is one of the most dangerous men of this century.

    Because he is in the shadows, the average (dumb) voter in our Republic has no idea of his present and future influence in their lives — all lives, Conservative, liberal and the neutered. (but that is redundant — liberals are politically neutered.)

    $oro$ has found a way to buy/$ell his political philosophy in our beloved country and the shills in the democrat party just love his money.

    Pity our Republic.. The question, “Is it too late?”

    I am afraid so.. but don’t give up — keep fighting the good fight…

    ExP (Jack)

  3. Ymarsakar says

    What’s so surprising Book? This isn’t any new fangled thing someone cooked up. Rich folks have been funding social unrest and domestic insurgency projects against people they dislike since the advent of human civilization.

    The only question people should ask is, does Soros have money and is Soros using his money to pay for these organizations. The rest just follow as per logic and historical context demands.

    The common misconception that popular revolutions and revolts amongst the “common man” were done through blood and sweat, are inaccurate. Popular revolutions have no chance of success without money. As in, real money, not money converted from sweat. Real money means aristocratic money, it means money from people in the system, people who have connections, connections who have connections, the good old boy network.

    So instead of looking at Soros, and looking at what he does, look at the ACLU and so called “freedom coalition grassroots efforts”, the people for the downtrodden, the common man. Look at those organizations and calculate their chance of success without outside aristocratic money.

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

    The Republicans, lead by Bush, don’t have a propaganda or cloak and daggers initiative or even operators. They shouldn’t be gloating over the success of their enemies and underestimating them. Back in Byzantine times, that would have gotten the entire conservative cadre executed and exiled.

    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.

    I’ve already detected the trends before this interview even came up. I’ve described the Democrat party as being the war party of America, as being ruthless, as well as seeking to impose police powers via the excuse of fighting terrorism as a police action upon America. In addition to disarming the population, of course, as per Euro standards. Can’t have a police state without banning guns of course.

    The veneer the Democrats put up, of being peaceful activists and pacifists, are i believe, more of the “cloak” in cloak and daggers.

    The question to me, isn’t whether Soros is funding and manipulating folks and organizations. That is already a given, Book. The question is whether the interview is accurate in its descriptions of the actual power, entrenchement, and future danger of the Soros propaganda network. In other words, does it totally reflect the reality of the times, because while it does reflect the reality, people should ask how well it reflects the reality.

    The interview does a very good job of connecting various open source information into an intelligence brief on the capabilities and connections of Soros’s network. The majority of those connections, in my view, are accurate.

    I’d give the layout, Book, a 85% to 90% accuracy rating. Based upon 3 principles.

    1. Historical.
    2. Operational.
    3. Actual.

    Historically, internal politics have lead to power grabs funded by rich elites, which then take a “power behind the throne position”. Back in the chaos days, military power trumped money, even though money bought legions. Now a days, money doesn’t buy the loyalty of the military, so the military isn’t as powerful in terms of deciding who is the next leader. That’s why the velvet revolutions succede. The military is prevented from interfering by the US and other international high order calcification.

    Operationally, Soros is doing the right things in terms of undermining and producing support groups. Money buys support, bribes pay for people, and so forth. Soros won’t be as effective, however, because he is unable to use assassination as an operational option. Without assassination, his plans have a lot lower chance of coming to fruition.

    Actual, the organizations that are behind a “cloak” such as the ACLU, are being supported and funded by Soros. We know this. The question I have is how much money Soros can funnel to his people, there is of course a limit to all things. Fighting for the Constitution, the ACLU byline, is just a cloak put over the real agenda of the ACLU, which is to destroy the Constitution and impose some sort of autocratic or oligarchical system of rule. Whether that be the courts, judges, lawyers, or rich men like Soros.

    Soros needs more violent and fanatical grassroost corps. That is my recommendation in light of his plans. If he has the intimidation forces ready, his money is multiplied in terms of effectiveness. The amateur attackings of Republican headquarters are children playing. Soros should find a way to directly intimidate the families of the politicians that he seeks to replace. To accomplish this, he has to set up sacrificial pieces, to take the heat if it is discovered. Soros’ organization is not a spy agency, it has little to no operational security. And that is its greatest weakness.

    Soros’ logical next step, if he cannot find operators in the US, is to ally with foreign terroists. He needs an outside threat to justify his response, like banning handguns.

    So either Soros can find fronts and sacrificial pieces inside the US, like organized crime, or he can find foreign help, with the Islamic Jihad.

    There is of course, other foreign help like Mexico’s President and gang members in Mexico that seek to move to California. Soros can easily use those gangs as dupes, foot soldiers, to be sacrificed while Soros maintains his respectability.

    But if Soros does NOT do these things, his plans have a much lower chance of coming into fruition. So keep a heads up in the future about organized crime and Soros taking advantage of foreign or terroist incidents.

  4. says

    Addendum – George Soros.

    Is there something bewitching about a radical leftist whose last name is a palindrome? (with BIG bucks)?

    Likewise, the nation should be wary… George is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR – another shadow government). The CFR is a radical and ultra-liberal think-tank so lionized (but never exposed) by the MSM.. Its present membership includes many past and present national competing politicians. Could such be conspiratorial? Hmmmmm.

    Ymarsakar’s comment makes a lot of sense.

    Sleep well!

    ExP (Jack)

  5. erp says

    The same kind of debunking that BW instinctively thought to do when she read the article is how the Soviets pulled the wool over our eyes for almost 100 years. The scope of the scam was so great, it was difficult for non-political junkies to accept.

    Soros is not alone. Teresa Kerry and her various foundations funded by the Heinz billions are also players as are billionaire Saudi princes and others of the fabulously rich. It’s a worldwide movement. I read during the 2004 campaign that Soros had 32 other billionaires who were ready to spend whatever it takes to destroy us.

  6. mamapajamas says

    Erp: “Soros is not alone. Teresa Kerry and her various foundations funded by the Heinz billions are also players as are billionaire Saudi princes and others of the fabulously rich. It’s a worldwide movement”

    What is amazing is that conservatives continue getting elected in spite of all of this. This gives me hope for the future :).

  7. says

    The rich have always had influence and a world wide government.

    Republicans get elected because Republicans pack weapons, can’t be kidnapped and ransomed without a firefight, and can’t be tortured and intimidated into voting Democrat if not kidnapped. The moment that happens, it is going to be like Al Sadr, Saddam, and post WWII KKK.

    The moment the pop is disarmed, bye bye bye. The moment the Prez pulled Federal Troops from the SOuth, Democrats got into office. Ain’t that surprising…

    Now which party favored disarming blacks? Which party favors banning handguns? Which party favors banning assault rifles, except the assault rifles SWAT and police have?

    Anyone who has even noticed the cloak and daggers coup de tats in the past, would have to be a moron not to see the end game applied to the 21st century.

    Bush is a perfect example of what not to do. Having photos and vids being taken hobnobbing with the Mayor Naggin? I thought Bush stopped drinking. You want to place your party and your leadership against the Democrat populists and manipulators. You have to undermine them, attack them, hit their logistics and their popularity. As with Iraq, you must give a deal to the citizens that cannot be refused. Bush had a perfect chance to undermine the Democrats in Lousiana, Bush could have given himself war powers and sent national guard WITHOUT the permission of the Governor. Then Bush would have told the troops to install martial law, remove the governor, and so forth. It would be wildly popular. Bush would then end up with a huge fight on his hands, a fight the people would be with him on defense and emotional terms. Bush could also garner some more war powers out of that. Instead, the Democrats pinned Katrina on Bush. Good job on the defense, Bush.

    Heard right now, Amanie wants a two on two debate with Bush. Wow. Now that’s undermining the enemy.

    Bush seems to believe he either has a choice to be exactly like the Democrats or be honorable and fight clean. That’s like the Democrats claiming the US has two choices, either act better towards terroists or act as the terroists. False dichotomy.

    Plenty of Presidents tried to be “nice” to the Southern leaders after the Civil War. Guess what happened. Being “nice” didn’t help the blacks or the downtrodden.

    I don’t want a nice President. I don’t want a nice and compassionate ruler. A compassionate ruler is like a military officer that tries to make friends with all his men, like buddy buddies. That’s not leadership, this ain’t a social party or seminar on how to make friends and influence enemies. Nice folks get gobbled up by Vicente, illegal immigrants, gang members, terroists, and Soros clones.

    Bush is a pretty good leader and governor. He just tends to let people run around doing whatever they want (Democrat governor and mayor in Katrina) instead of cracking down with his power. It wasn’t so bad in 2004. Nobody was sure what kind of guy Bush was. TOo busy defending him against imaginary charges of “unilateralism” and “police gestapo wannabe” to see who Bush truly was.

  8. Danny Lemieux says

    I not-too-long ago read an article in which a leading Vatican official matter-of-factly announced that the Antichrist had already been born and that he was living quietly as a rich philanthropist. I always wondered who he might have been talking about.

  9. erp says

    I’m not religious at all, but I really believe that Bush was sent to save the U.S. from the forces of evil. There is something supernatural about his ability to withstand the relentless barrage of negativity and pure unadulterated hatred that is thrown at him 24/7.

  10. says

    Book,

    It is disheartening that your post has so few comments about this travesty.

    You should have thousands of hits and at least hundreds of comments.

    I will put a link on my blog to your post — which probably means no more than if I spit in the ocean to raise the water level.

    Thanks,

    ExP (Jack)

  11. Margaret says

    It’s no delusion when your enemies (Soros, the Left, Islamic Jihadists) tell you bluntly that they are out to destroy you. How bold and direct do they have to be before Americans believe them?

    McCain is a traitor with his support for McCain-Feingold. Bush is worse for not vetoeing the bill. Soros, the dotcom billionaires, and Ms. Heinz-Kerry had no trouble funding their front groups, while ordinary people are stymied trying to support their candidates.

    Everyone on the Right knows that we are being squeezed by the Left and its allies in the elite while being lied to by the MSM. We just don’t know how to get out of the box that we are in.

    I have sensed that if the Democrats win Congress and the Presidency, that we won’t have another fairly honest election again. We will be Chavized from then on.

    We needed Bush to be tough and ruthless in indicting the Clintons for their many crimes while in office. Instead, he cozies up to them while they stab him in the back. Now Hillary is poised to run for the presidency.

    He has let himself be coopted into massive social spending and has not pursued the War on Terror in the way he promised after 9/11. He kept Clintonistas in positions of power in his administration and they sabotaged him for his entire time in office. He lost the momentum of his power and we will lose because of it.

    He should have known that he couldn’t trust Democrats and RINOs and should have lacerated them with his sharp tongue and quick humor, a la Reagan.

    His low poll ratings are not due to independent defections, but due to conservative disappointment. Don’t even get me started on immigration.

  12. says

    Bush getting to know Bill Clinton isn’t that bad of an idea. Bill still wields much influence, and he is especially anti-media considering what they did to him in 1998.

    Bush could get several kinds of support, it just so happens that his father was the one that was working with Clinton. Bush didn’t want to have anything to do with him, it seems, in terms of trading personal favors. Not a wise decision to refuse help, that could be used to secure the country or the war.

    Bush would have been much wiser to help Clinton while destroying Clinton’s bureacratic legacy. Convert the strong, destroy the useless. The useless being, people like Tenet, people like Valerie and Wilson Plame. Destroy the foot soldiers and no general will be able to win.

    He has let himself be coopted into massive social spending and has not pursued the War on Terror in the way he promised after 9/11.

    That’s certainly true I believe.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply