Posted on 10/09/2007 4:11:00 AM PDT by Renfield
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.
Violence plays into your enemies’ hands. Truth, diligence, and hard work will wreck these weasels. And don’t forget, our biggest asset is our leftist adversaries.
Good article and good post. However, there is one fallacy in the premise that was presented. I don’t believe it is possible to listen to Rush’s program with enough intensity to dig out flaws to misquote without also hearing his logic. It is therefore not possible to monitor his program continuously without beginning to agree with him. The issue then becomes: how long do these paid monitors last, before ‘converting’ to the dark side? In other words, does the act of fighting the terrorist (Rush) produce more terrorists than are destroyed?
The NCC does not represent the membership of these denominations. It’s generally the must radicalized, politicalized members of these churches who participate in the NCC. The NCC merely uses the good will of these churches to advance its far-left agenda.
“She has zero chance of getting elected.”
You’re dealing with two of the most polished charlatans in American political history. Plus, there’s the possibility of a third party. If you want to keep the Clintons out of the White House, you’d best stay diligent and hard-working.
“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 certainly worked well and efficiently with George Allen in 2004.
“...with George Allen in 2004.”
Errr -— I believe that should have been 2006.
You’re dealing with two of the most polished charlatans in American political history.
I’d give FDR that dubious honor.
you’d best stay diligent and hard-working.
I do my best. I tell my insane moonbat friends that Kucinich is the only one who can get us out of Iraq and give us “social justice.”
Exactly. But why would anyone want to financially contribute to our own political demise? The even bigger issue is that these “churches” dont’ really care about the saving of souls. They only care about advancing a left-leaning political agenda.
save
Church of the Brethren
I don’t see the connection with the NCC... I believe the “Brethren” are more on Their Own... with Jesus Christ as the only Son of God
Sorry: If you had caught me four years ago, you would have an opportunity to rejoice... I’ve already left the Episcopal Church, USA ... You’ll have to keep looking.
I do believe the Church of the Brethern is affiliated with the NCC.
I will rejoice anyway that you have already left. WE did the same thing. We escaped the ELCA for the LCMS 14 years ago.
bump for early AM read
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.