soros « WordPress.com Tag Feed

The Dems’ Hidden Soros Slush Fund: Leftist activist groups would be first in line for Obama’s “social investment” seed money.

obamarxist — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:36:11 +0000

By Michelle Malkin, NRO

The Democratic Party platform is like a bag of pork rinds. You never know what high-fat liberal government morsel you’re gonna get.

Buried in the 94-page document is a noble-sounding proposal to create a “Social Investment Fund Network.” The program would provide federal money to “social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations [that] are assisting schools, lifting families out of poverty, filling health care gaps, and inspiring others to lead change in their own communities.” The Democratic Party promises to “support these results-oriented innovators” by creating an office to “coordinate government and nonprofit efforts” and then showering “a series of grants” on the chosen groups “to replicate these programs nationwide.”

In practice, this Barack Obama brainchild would serve as a permanent, taxpayer-backed pipeline to Democratic partisan outfits masquerading as public-interest do-gooders. This George Soros Slush Fund would be political payback in spades. Obama owes much of his Chicago political success to financial support from radical, left-wing billionaire and leading “social entrepreneur” Soros. In June 2004, Soros threw a big fundraiser at his New York home for Obama’s Illinois Senate campaign. Soros and family personally chipped in $60,000. In April 2007, Obama was back in New York for a deep-pocketed Manhattan fundraising soiree, with Soros lurking in his shadow.

No doubt with Soros’s approbation (if not advice from the hands-on “progressive” activist or his advisers), Obama fleshed out his Social Investment Fund Network plan last December. In concert with his mandatory volunteerism pitch and $6 billion anti-poverty plan, Obama called for the creation of a “Social Entrepreneurship Agency” to dispense the funds in unspecified amounts. The agency would be a government-supported nonprofit corporation “similar to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” which runs public television. (And we’ve all seen how fair and balanced that lib-dominated, Bill Moyers–boosting private-public enterprise turned out.)

Obama cites the Harlem Children’s Zone, which provides after-school activities and mentors to children in New York, as an example of a program that should be funded. (HCZ’s former senior leader Shawn Dove is now an official at Soros’s Open Society Institute.) The problem with such initiatives, as Mitchell Moss pointed out in the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal several years ago, is that these private-public partnerships formed under the guise of economic renewal often become nothing more than fronts that coordinate “an enormous safety net for social services.” Private donations give the illusion of self-help and philanthropic independence, but in reality, the “clients” are never weaned from the teat of the welfare state. They simply learn how to milk it more efficiently.

Even more troubling is how the Democratic Party/Obama plan would siphon untold millions or billions of public tax dollars into the Soros empire without taxpayer recourse. Obama promises “accountability” measures to ensure the money is spent wisely. But who would assess effectiveness of the spending? Why, experts in the social entrepreneurship community, of course. Fox, meet henhouse.

Soros has donated some $5 billion of his fortune to left-wing nonprofit groups through the Open Society Institute — an institution committed to Soros’ militant ideology of toppling the “fascist” tyranny of the United States, which he says must undergo “de-Nazification” in favor of “justice.” The mob at Obama-endorsing MoveOn, purveyors of the “General Betray Us” smear against Commanding General, MNF-I, David Petraeus, is the most notorious Soros-backed political arm. But scores of other activist nonprofits have received Soros funding under the guise of doing nonpartisan “community” or “social justice” work — and it is exactly such leftist activist groups that would be first in line for the Democratic Party/Obama’s “social investment” seed money.

Point in case: ACORN. As I’ve reported before, Obama’s old friends at the Chicago-based nonprofit now take in 40 percent of their revenues from American taxpayers. They raked in tens of millions in federal antipoverty grants while some of their operatives presided over massive voter fraud, and others were implicated in corporate shakedowns and mortgage scams across the country. Soros has donated at least $150,000 to the group, according to Investor’s Business Daily, and “heads a secretive rich-man’s club called ‘Democracy Alliance’ that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN.”

Once the spigot is turned on, there’s no turning back.

Where are fiscal conservatives on this far-left boondoggle? Well, if you’re wondering why the McCain campaign doesn’t raise hell over this proposed left-wing nonprofit/government pipeline, it’s because McCain himself is a Soros beneficiary. His “Reform Institute,” a tax-exempt, supposedly independent 501(c)(3) group focused on campaign-finance reform, was funded by the Soros-funded Open Society Institute and Tides Foundation.

Birds of a Big Government feather flock together — and look out for each other. Watch your wallet.

— Michelle Malkin is author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

LaRouche denuncia il "padrino di Obama" George Soros dietro la guerra nel Caucaso

GMU — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:36:47 +0000

http://www.movisol.org/08news171.htm

12 agosto 2008 (MoviSol) – Lyndon LaRouche ha denunciato l'agente
britannico George Soros per il suo ruolo nel tentativo di scatenare una
guerra mondiale partendo dal Caucaso. Soros è il padrino finanziario e
politico sia del Presidente georgiano Mikhail Saakashvili, che del
presunto candidato democratico Barack Obama. "Se volete un'anteprima di
ciò che sarebbero gli Stati Uniti con un Presidente Obama", ha detto
LaRouche, "guardate alle recenti mosse della Georgia. Il padrone del
Presidente georgiano Saakashvili è lo stesso di Obama, il britannico
George Soros." "Obama, uomo di Soros, sarebbe un altro Dick Cheney se
fosse eletto?", si è chiesto LaRouche. L'Open Society Institute (OSI) di Soros si vanta di
essere stato la forza trainante della cosiddetta "Rivoluzione delle
Rose" che portò Sakaashvili al potere nel 2003-2004. Nel gennaio 2004
l'OSI, che si era stabilito in Georgia già nel 1994, cominciò a
finanziare direttamente il governo come parte di un programma congiunto
con l'UNDP (United Nations Development Program), allora guidato da Mark
Malloch Brown, oggi segretario generale del Foreign (and Commonwealth)
Office britannico. Malloch Brown è talmente vicino a Soros che, quando
era all'ONU, viveva in un appartamento affittatogli dallo speculatore. I britannici destabilizzano il Caucaso fin dal crollo
dell'Unione Sovietica, finanziando e armando i ribelli ceceni,
permettendo il loro reclutamento nelle moschee londinesi e fornendo
asilo e protezione a mafiosi come Boris Berezovsky, che finanzia le
attività anti-russe e il terrorismo nel Caucaso. "Vediamo gli ingenti flussi di denaro di Soros nelle
casse di Obama", ha concluso LaRouche. "Soros è un agente britannico,
sotto il controllo dell'intelligence estero e dei servizi per le
operazioni speciali di Sua Maestà. Le sue fonti di denaro, dopo il
finanziamento iniziale da parte del ramo svizzero degli interessi
bancari Rothschild, sono, nel migliore dei casi, di dubbia origine.
Soros fa parte dell'apparato della nuova guerra dell'oppio britannica,
ed egli possiede, a tutti gli effetti, il senatore Obama. Ora, egli
fomenta provocazioni da guerra mondiale contro Mosca, nel preciso
momento in cui io chiedo a Russia, Cina e India di unirsi agli Stati
Uniti per creare un nuovo sistema finanziario internazionale che
eliminerebbe una volta per sempre speculatori come Soros".

Géorgie, bouclier anti-missile : regain de tensions entre Russes et Américains

Mecanopolis — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:48:36 +0000

La guerre en Géorgie avait provoqué de vifs échanges entre Moscou et Washington. L'accord en vue entre les Etats-Unis et la Pologne qui accueillera des éléments du bouclier anti-missile américain suscite la colère des Russes.

La guerre entre la Géorgie et la Russie vient déjà de provoquer des tensions entre Moscou et Washington qui réclame un cessez-le-feu immédiat et respecté ainsi que le retrait des forces russes. Ces dernières répliquent en évoiquuant l'éventualité de formateurs militaires américains parmi les soldats georgiens et d'armes américaines, notamment des fusils d'assault M16, découverts en Géorgie.

Pour signifier leur mécontentement, les Etats-Unis ont avancé sur un dossier qui énerve beaucoup la Russie : le déploiement d'un bouclier anti-missile en Europe. Washington est parvenu sur le sujet à un accord avec la Pologne qui va accueillir des éléments de ce bouclier. D'où la colère de Moscou qui estime, selon le chef-adjoint d'état-major russe Anatoli Nogovitsyne, que cet accord avec les Polonais "aggrave davantage" l'état des relations entre les deux pays.

La secrétaire d'Etat américaine Condoleezza Rice a déclaré ce vendredi à Tbilissi, la capitale géorgienne, qu'elle espérait signer "très bientôt" l'accord avec Varsovie sur le déploiement d'éléments du bouclier antimissile américain en Pologne.

Some pipsqueak on the kooky left: Leftist threatens conservative donors

chronicler55 — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:35:59 +0000

A leftist group has threatened donors to conservative candidates and causes. “Accountable America” is warning contributors to conservative causes this election year about "potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."

Accountable America is run by Tom Matzzie, formerly with MoveOn.org, the Soros funded leftist group. In an interview with the NYT, Mazzie says said the group plans to send "warning" letters to nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republicans and conservative causes across the country. Mazzie calls this threatening of American conservatives, "going for the jugular." According to the New York Times, he has picked out his first two targets, “Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul, and Mel Sembler, a real estate magnate, who both have donated to Freedom's Watch.”

Freedom’s Watch said through a spokesman that they were not concerned about this effort. World Net Daily reports:

that Chris LaCivita, a GOP strategist who worked on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth effort during the 2004 campaign, said Matzzie's coalition likely will spur donors, instead of discouraging them."They’re not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left," LaCivita told the Times.

Also, that officials with Judicial Watch plan to investigate Accountable America’s proclaimed “going for the jugular” because those activities may fall under a key federal civil rights law known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. That law is violated when

"two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for president or vice president, or as a member of the Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy."

Threats and intimidation have no place in our democratic elections and are a violation of the law. This new front group, Accountable America, seems have crossed a legal line," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Reactii pro ICR-iste?!

libertas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:56:05 +0000

Mi-a atras atentia un articol al unei fatuci care plangea ICR-ul ca e prea luat la bate de opinia publica pentru expozitia de la New York. Redau mai jos articolul:

"Pornografie, fascism, antisemitism, de toate acestea s-ar face vinovat Institutul Cultural Roman din cauza expozitiei estivale a romanilor, denumita "Libertate pentru lenesi", expozitie de arta moderna, organizata la New-York si finantata cu bani publici.

Semnalul luptei impotriva unui asemenea deviationism revoltator al institutiei condusa de Horia Roman Patapievici a fost dat de Ion Iliescu. Indignat, el a sesizat comisia de cultura a Senatului. Semnalul s-a propagat rapid si s-a extins impotriva tuturor elitistilor (a se citi ticalosilor nenorociti) din societatea civila, care iata ce fel de viziune pacatoasa incurajeaza.

Simbolurile care intruchipeaza diavolesc si fara putinta de tagada gandurile perverse ale celor trei tineri artisti semnatari ai expozitiei de la New York sunt, in principal, doua: subversivul ponei roz cu zvastica pe popou si tabloul cu Moise care ii ofera lui David un falus si primeste steaua in schimb.

Senatorii vor decide cum foloseste ICR banul public, pentru ca deja sunt semne, ne spune Alexandru Andrei, purtatorul de cuvant al lui Nicolae Vacaroiu, ca ar fi multe cheltuieli neortodoxe. Adica cum neortodoxe? Adica toate cele care nu sunt pentru arta religioasa? Dar Curtea de conturi a verificat recent, potrivit lui Patapievici, ICR, vreme de 6 luni, si nu a constat nicio neregula financiara.

Si ca sa fie clar pentru toata lumea ce putreziciune pastoreste Horia Roman Patapievici (vinovat cel putin de elitism), pe blogul jurnalistului (Intact) Andrei Badin au aparut poze si povestiri controversate, tot cu puternica tenta sexuala, ale purtatorului de cuvant al Institutului Cultural Roman din New York, Cristian Neagoe, materiale preluate de pe blogul acestuia.

Omul a explicat ca ele au fost facute si postate inainte de a deveni functionar public, insa cine sa-l mai asculte? Cine sa-l asculte si pe H.R. Patapievici explicand ca simbolistica tabloului cu pricina trebuie cautata in cu totul alta parte decat in zona antisemita?

Cine s-o asculte pe autoarea poneiului nazist care a decriptat originile creatiei ei: teama de ponei care i-a marcat copilaria si ironia la adresa firmelor producatoare de astfel de jucarii a caror sigla a fost inlocuita cu zvastica?

Degeaba au fost invocate comentariile laudative ale criticilor americani, degeaba insusi directorul Muzeului Holocaustului a comunicat ca evreii nu considera nicidecum expozitia ca antisemita, degeaba politia americana, sesizata de cativa romani de bine, a stabilit ca nu e nimic in neregula in privinta exponatelor incriminate. Lasa ca o sa vina ei senatorii sa vada ce e bine si ce e rau, ce e arta si ce e provocare. Ei vor face legea si in arta.

Arta politizata

Lasand gluma la o parte, ma intreb ce competenta au senatorii sa decida in materie de arta, cel mai cotroversat si greu, daca nu imposibil, de standardizat domeniu. Cum pot ei sa spuna daca o cheltuiala in acest domeniu se justifica sau nu ? Pe ce criteriu?

Fiecare dintre ei poate, cel mult, sa spuna daca-i plac sau nu controversatele exponate. Mie, de exemplu, nu-mi plac. Dar asta nu conteaza, cat timp exista alti oameni carora le apreciaza si care le inteleg mesajul. Ca dovada, expozitia de la New York a fost un mare succes, iar cei trei artisti au primit o importanta comanda de la un teatru american. In plus, daca insasi comunitatea evreilor, cunoscuta ca ultrasensibila, nu se simte lezata, de ce ar fi oripilati de pretinsul antisemitism cativa romani verzi?

Daca tot vrem verdicte in arta, oare n-ar fi mai normal sa le cerem criticilor, singurii care pot stabili valoarea unei opere sau daca o expozitie se justifica sau nu. Restul putem spune daca ne place sau, adica suficient pentru a nu privi, dar insuficient pentru a da cu pietre.

"Institutul Cultural Roman isi propune sa exporte cultura romana, dar nu imbratiseaza doar anumite formule estetice. Asta a starnit indignarea celor care nu vad cultura romana dincolo de patrimoniu. Ei daca nu vad Blaga sau manastirile din Moldova cred ca e un atac la cultura romana", a explicat Horia Roman Patapievici strategia ICR, care de altfel este cu mult mai activ cu el la conducere.

Nu e un lucru chiar atat de rau ca o expozitie a ICR a avut multi vizitatori la New York, multe cronici favorabile, ca s-a vorbit despre ea, ca a atras atentia. Pe vremea cand Iliescu conducea destinele Romaniei, in SUA nu se vorbea, ce-i drept, despre expozitii ale artistilor romani, ci despre artistii romani cotonogiti de mineri alaturi de alti intelectuali in mijlocul Bucurestiului. O fi fost mai bine?

De fapt arta nu intereseaza cu adevarat pe nimeni. Horia Roman Patapievici a fost numit de Traian Basescu si doar de presedinte poate fi demis. Un raport senatorial demolator, extrem de previzibil de altfel, al comisiei de cultura a senatului, condusa de Adrian Paunescu, il va pune pe Traian Basescu intr-o situatie delicata.

Daca nu-l demite pe Horia Roman Patapievici, adversarii sai vor striga din rasputeri ca presedintele cultiva, cu buna stiinta, putreziciunea intr-o institutie care ar trebui sa promoveze cultura romaneasca in lume, pe bani publici. Iata ca in an electoral politizarea a invadat si cultura.

Dar daca ma insel cumva si senatorii chiar mor de grija purtiatii culturii, am inca o propunere: sa-l reclamam pe Ion Creanga pentru discriminare deoarece mai misogine decat povestile sale sunt greu de gasit altele. Cat despre una dintre dintre scrierile sale, celebra altminteri si mult mai explicita decat tabloul incriminat acum, cred ca ar trebui arsa in piata publica ca mostra de poronografie. Lista e de altfel deschisa. "

Ioana Ene ( Ziare.com)

Haida de!! Expozitia a avut un real succes?!! Consideri ca aceste mazgalituri pornografice sunt reprezentative pentru cultura romana? Expozitia pe care a prezentat-o ICR publicului din New York este o jignire la adresa intregului popor roman si cred ca in primul rand opinia publica va fi cea care o va judeca. Nu trebuie sa fii Michelangelo sau cine stie ce critic de arta ca sa iti dai seama ca ceea ce se prezinta la acea expozitie nu e arta!! Arta innobileaza sufletul!! Ori ceea ce este reprezentat acolo nu e decat produsul unor minti bolnave!!

Nu cred ca eu, ca si contribuabil, vreau sa dau banii unei asemenea insitutii care sa prezinte cultura romana in strainatate prin simboluri naziste si falusuri!! Impostorii care conduc ICR ar trebui sa prezinte anual un raport de activitate, asa cum fac si celelalte institutii.

Reactiile nu vin doar din partea catorva "romani verzi care se simt oripilati", ci vin din partea unor oameni care se sesiseaza cu privire la asemenea grozavii. Am si eu o curiozitate, fatuca asta prefera culoarea rosie? Nici eu nu-i simpatizez pe cei din Senat, dar cred ca Paunescu e mai indreptatit sa puna problema cand vine vorba de cultura decat aldea Patapievici care arunca cultura direct la gunoi. Si inca o chestiune!! Nu cred ca putem compara pe Ion Creanga cu Patapievici. E cea mai grava eroare! Nici nu sufera comparatie! Ce face aceasta institutie si cel care o conduce, care se lauda ca se drogheaza si bea urina, cu ce scrie Ion Creanga sunt doua lucruri complet diferite!

M-am saturat de toti nataraii astia care pretind ca fac cultura si ca reprezinta interesele tarii!! Toti securistii pe linia GDS s-au trezit ca vor sa conduca institutii si sa scrie rapoarte prin care condamna comunismul. Ia urmariti trecutul acestor oameni? De unde provin? Tismaneanu, Patapievici, Andrei Corbea Hoisie, Sorin Antohi etc..toti, in spatele SOROS. Filialele din Romania a lui George Soros sunt o forma a privatizarii unor activitati tipice CIA. Asa s-au nascut toate organizatiile cunoscute sub numele de "societati civile"- Open Society. George Soros , personal, a explicat cum erau alesi cei care deja faceau parte din sistem, care aveau functii in sistem. George Soros a stat in spatele asa-numitelor miscari anticomunste din 1989 si a revolutiilor portocalii din Georgia (2003) si Ucraina (2004).

Mai multe despre George Soros:

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=171513&data=2005-03-12

My contribution to the Bush Administration...

johnmwilliams — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:32:44 +0000

I'm sure you saw the flap over the Scott McClellan book, "What Happened," when it was released on May 28 of this year. Once I heard that it was a hit piece on the Administration, I decided to do some research about the people behind the book (having watched Scott as Press Secretary, I knew he couldn't have penned a book alone). I started investigating and sent the results to several conservative blogs, the most visible of which is "Little Green Footballs." Charles Johnson rushed it to his blog within minutes after I sent it to him and it found its way to several other blogs including "Stop the ACLU" and "Newsbusters" which published and/or used the research as well. Within the week, almost every conservative talk show host, editor, and opinion broadcaster I listen to announced the links I'd found, from Peter Osnos, a well-known leftwing ideologue all the way back to George Soros:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/29/mcclellan-book-connected-to-soros/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/05/29/mcclennans-publisher-liberal-advances-soros-slams-limbaugh

The "vast right wing conspiracy" has some way to go to catch up to the "vast left-wing conspiracy."

The reasons I investigated? How would an agent that has all of five books to his credit pick up a book from the former Press Secretary for a hit piece on the most maligned President of the last four decades? How would such a book end up under what amounts to a "boutique" publisher? It all smelled fishy-and I found out why. George Soros is now funding Barack Obama. It's scary how much power he's amassed in the media and Washington, D.C. If Obama's elected, the alleged "culture of corruption" under the Republicans will look mild in comparison--assuming the truth ever makes its way to the light of day.

Hey Glenn - Choose McCain.

Look2theWest — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:57:47 +0000

I heard Glenn Beck disparage McCain this morning, again, understandably, and thought I'd let him know I've had a change of heart in the last couple weeks.

Here's my email:

Glenn,

I heard you say this morning that McCain may not be much better than Barack. I understand your anger and disgust about McCain. I’m a big Romney supporter (see vermonters4mitt.WordPress.com) and saw how McCain sucker punched Romney down in Florida to win that primary and the nomination. I was mad as anybody.

However, we’re in the general now and the choice is no longer between McCain and Romney (the best presidential candidate in 20 years), the choice is between McCain and Obama (the worst candidate in 20 yrs - imagine Jimmy Carter with Soros funding).

So the choice is:

McCain vs. Obama

A war vet vs. a community organizer
Winning in Iraq vs. pulling out in defeat (meaning our soldiers died in vain).
Offshore drilling to lower gas prices & save our economy vs. hoping alternatives work out someday and destroying the economy to “teach us to conserve more”.
A Supreme Court that affirms the right to bear arms vs. a court that bans handguns.
A President that will keep radio waves free vs. a President that will usher in the “Fairness Doctrine”
A President with 50 years of Navy/Congress experience to draw on in an international crisis vs. a President with 4 years of Congressional experience – 2 years spent campaigning for President.
A President that has never asked for earmarks and will never sign a bill with earmarks vs. a President that will use the earmark process for four years to make the country “more fair”.
A direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $5,000 for truly portable health insurance vs. a “new public plan” that will offer coverage to all 47 million uninsured, including 12 million illegals.

Still think there’s little difference?

Just last weekend, I decided to follow Mitt’s lead and start supporting McCain overtly. I thought I would feel dirty but it feels good. I’m in the game. I’ve taken a side.

We’re never given a perfect or even a good choice for President. The point is it’s a choice between two people not a choice between a perfect option and an imperfect one.

In 2008, the choice is between a very flawed war hero named McCain against a very liberal Soros-backed empty-suit named Obama.

I’m choosing McCain.

Join me. It’ll be fun.

Thanks…Matt

Obama nation: The new Gestapo?

tadcronn — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:12:00 +0000

"This is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause." -- Senator Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"

Close to half of America's voters are already clapping.

Missed by most media outlets, and completely ignored by Big Media, Barack Obama last month, during a speech in Colorado Springs on July 2, proposed a "civilian national security force" that would be on par with our military.

In the midst of a speech that was, on the surface at least, about volunteerism and duty toward one's country, Obama inserted these lines:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The mainstream media seem to have avoided this issue completely, but a handful of conservative and independent bloggers and Web sites noticed. However, the Obama camp remains mum on the issue, evidently hoping it will go away, like so many other "difficulties" surrounding the Obama candidacy.

Notably, the lines were not included in official transcripts of the speech.

This tells me two things: One, Obama must have practiced those lines in rehearsing for the speech, because when he doesn't have a script, Obama is no more articulate than President Bush on a bender. Two, some adviser struck those lines from the transcript out of some concern that they wouldn't sell to voters, but Obama felt them important enough to keep in his presentation.

Here's what Obama said right before he called for his civilian national security force:

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

The picture Obama paints is disturbing, indeed. While each point on its own sounds vapidly fuzzy, put together with the statement about a civilian national security force, it seems to raise the specter of an American Gestapo.

Take, for the moment, a skeptical view of each point:

College grads to mentor the young: Sounds innocent on one level. But are we talking about some sort of indoctrination program, of the "be part of the in crowd" sort?
Call on Americans: Volunteer or draft? In other parts of the same speech, Obama talked about requiring service of students, and seemed to imply the possibility of a military draft, so this is a fair question.
Join an Energy Corps to conduct ... projects in their neighborhoods: Is this going to be on the level of a Boy Scout paper drive to raise money for a campout? Not likely. Underscore the word "conduct." Obama's speech seems to pin a lot on this "Energy Corps" concept, and he seems to imply that it will have some sort of legal authority. Here in California, we already have seen bans on smoking, fast-food restaurants, trans-fat and plastic bags, and attempts to ban foie gras, fireplaces, driving at certain times, and independently-controlled thermostats -- all under the pretense of environmentalism/animal "rights." Now imagine what legally empowered independent neighborhood energy posses could do. ...
Enlist vets to help other vets find jobs: "Enlist"? And what sort of jobs? With the Energy Corps?
Open consulates that have been shuttered: Where? Iran? Cuba? North Korea?
Double the size of the Peace Corps ... to renew our diplomacy: What the? ... Did I miss something? Since when does the Peace Corps handle American diplomacy? School projects, setting up computer labs, building farms, etc. But diplomacy is for the State Department. Unless Obama has a plan to combine them. ...

Then consider again those two lines:

Evidently, this "Energy Corps" is key, in Obama's mind, to national security, and it needs to be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our multitrillion-dollar military.

There were other disturbing aspects to Obama's speech.

Obama, the candidate who supposedly wants to reduce the military, actually called for an increase in the military:

"We need to ease the burden on our troops while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. And that's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines."

He also said he would expand Americorps to 250,000 slots and use volunteers as his "vehicle" to meet his goals in -- I kid you not -- health care and education, "saving the planet," and restoring U.S. "standing" in the world.

He also said that "people of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve," and he discussed using a federally created computer program to track service hours and work.

It gets even more interesting: "I will launch a new social investment fund network. Its time to get the grass roots, the foundations, the faith-based organizations and the government at the same table," Obama said. So, the government will have more control over private organizations?

He went on to talk about the "need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously." He looked like he was choking on the words, but he talked about "strengthening civic education." Part of the plan includes requiring 50 hours of "service" per year for high school students, 100 hours for college students, and making school funding conditional upon districts developing approved service plans.

Then he slipped in a line about enlisting kids who are "out of school and out of work" in the Energy Corps.

Taken altogether, Obama's speech was deeply troubling for the unbelievers like me who are prepared for the worst from the Obamessiah.

I could be wrong. Obviously, I don't know what's in Obama's heart. But I do know he is a man of exceedingly radical bent, who counts racists, unrepentant terrorists and Christian-slaughtering Kenyan warlords among his friends. I also know that his political views, when he's not hiding them from the audience he's addressing at the time, are extremely radical. I also know that he is an unqualified nobody plucked out of obscurity by behind-the-scenes moneyed manipulators like former Nazi collaborator George Soros at the 2004 Democratic convention.

In short, there is nothing I'm aware of that commends Obama for the presidency, and many things that should, in a sane world, disqualify him.

But this is not a sane world, sadly.

Could Obama's "Energy Corps" become a reality? In the current political world that has abandoned logic and embraced global warming, it's a certainty, doubly so with a Demoratic president and Democratic Congress.

Could the "Energy Corps" become the American Gestapo? Obama's not talking.

Macedonia and Ubuntu

Jon Thompson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:06:56 +0000

I am pretty proud of my adopted country, Macedonia. (Full disclosure - my wife is Macedonian.) At the end of 2005 Macedonia became the world's first wireless country. The full BBC write-up is here. Two years later, in 2007, Macedonia became one of the few countries to roll out, en masse, Ubuntu throughout the educational system. The story, from the Ubuntu website, can be found here and here is a BBC World video detailing the Macedonia Connects wireless story:

A few weeks ago, while my wife was still in Macedonia, I asked her to install Ubuntu on our old laptop which her parents had been using for years, primarily for Skype. The machine had contracted a bug and I am not a fan of bootleg software. With the popularity of Ubuntu it was easy enough to find someone to handle the installation (the neighbor) and within 24hrs she was back up and running. It seems as if everyone in Macedonia keeps a copy of the ISO in their back pocket.

My wife left a few weeks later without explaining to her father how to navigate the new interface and fire up Skype. She was bringing her mother home for a few months and she was worried about having an open line so her folks could communicate. I am not sure if her father had ever used the machine while it had Windows loaded and I know he had never seen Ubuntu. Computer literacy among older generations in Macedonia is quite low but it is improving. Metamorphosis, an OSI/ Soros backed non-profit, has done a lot of work in this area and has a survey on their site detailing INTERNET penetration throughout the country.

Shortly after returning to the States my wife called her father and asked him if he had a minute so that she could explain to him how to get online. His response was, "Don't worry about it. I figured it out on my own." When she told me that I started laughing. That has got to be the ultimate selling point for a product - a complete neophyte simply sits down and starts surfing the web with little to no difficulty.

With such accessibility is there any argument for aid organizations not rolling Ubuntu out in the field? I understand the compatibility issues but the stability of the application coupled with the ease of use is a strong argument for mandating that local field offices run Ubuntu rather than other the various versions of Windows that are available. At this point I am not worried about bugs and even if our machine in Macedonia does crash I'll just buy the next cheapest machine and load up the latest version of Ubuntu.

Soros buys the nomination... Obama borrows it

PJ — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:14:35 +0000

http://www.new-federalist.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_20-29/2008-27/pdf/78-79_3526.pdf

Here are two snippets from The Federalist article. It's VERY interesting to anyone who doesn't understand why Obama is the nominee regardless of his ineptitude.

The ongoing 2008 Presidential election represents Soros’ importation of the techniques he has utilized for popular subversion in foreign lands to the U.S. political process. MoveOn.org, an organization hugely funded by George Soros (Hungarian, aka: Gyorky Schwartz), played a central role in Barack Obama’s capture of the Democratic nomination, despite Hillary Clinton’s clear superiority in the popular vote.

(In) 2003-04, Soros and MoveOn heavily backed Wall Street suckling Howard “Scream” Dean for President. They later mobilized to ensure him a comfortable seat as Chairman of the Democratic Party to do what he does best: lose! As chairman, Dean’s mission has been to demoralize the lower 80% of income brackets (the true base of the Democratic party) while MoveOn officially backed Obama’s campaign, sending him recruiting white collar and affluent professionals, MySpace- addicted youth, and as many minorities and trade unionists who will sell their souls as a new “Democratic majority.”

MediaMatters started with U.S. taxpayer's money, now hijacked by central European socialist groups

Mick — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:58:11 +0000

Google MediaMatters and see the face of the Democrat party. On the 4th of July, no mention of the Declaration of Independence. Instead, attack after attack on John McCain's war record and strange stories about FOX News.

UPDATE: MediaMatters put a little Happy Fourth of July phrase in its banner. Yeah!

Do a little research on Media Matters and see what happened to the line between journalism from PBS, (of course, supported by U.S. taxpayers), and what is now a left-wing propaganda machine.

The articles on MediaMatters, based in Washington D.C., are aimed at attacking Republican and independent candidates and support Obama and Democrat candidates. Imagine if a conservative group took over "Fresh Air" on NPR and turned it into a propaganda tool.

No mention of the Supreme Court decision to uphold and clarify the Second Amendment.

Some questions for the staff of Media Matters:

Which is more important? An individual's right to protect themselves with firearms or the right of the government to keep control of firearms.

How were the Great Lakes formed in the United States?

How is oil formed?

When was the last Ice Age?

If the North Pole has lost all its ice this year, why haven't the water levels risen?

What role do sun spots and solar flares have on weather and climate?

What caused the great ice ages and warming periods?

What does the 4th of July mean to you?

What is your problem with the Second Amendment?

What was Brown and Root's role in LBJ's rise to power? Did you know that Brown and Root are now KBR, the military contractors?

Does it matter to you that NBC and MSNBC are owned and controlled by General Electric, one of the biggest war contractors in world history?

Why is it fine with you and the Democrat party for China and Cuba to draw oil off the coast of Florida, but not the U.S.?

Which country is polluting more? The U.S., China or Russia?

Please comment. We would like to know more about the people who work for Media Matters.

Review of "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets"

Steve Waite — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:48:48 +0000

The financial crisis that began last year has befuddled many a money manager. One investment manager who wasn’t phased by the crisis is legendary financier George Soros. In fact, Soros used the crisis to collect his thoughts on the underlying causes and publish them in a new book titled, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets. The book’s main thesis is that we are entering a new era, one that has significant implications for investors in the future.

Mr. Soros’ new book builds on the foundation established by his classic text, The Alchemy of Finance, which introduced and discussed the concept of “reflexivity” in financial markets. Reflexivity deals with the relationship between thinking and reality, and when applied to financial markets, flies in the face of conventional economic theory. The textbook economics of perfect competition assumes perfect knowledge, but Soros argues that market participants cannot base their decisions on knowledge alone. Their biased perceptions influence market prices as well as the underlying fundamentals of prices.

In his new book, Soros tells us that there is a two-way reflexive connection between perception and reality which can give rise to initially self-reinforcing but eventually self-defeating boom-bust processes, or bubbles. Every bubble, says Soros, consists of a trend and a misconception that interact in a reflexive manner. There has been a bubble in the U.S. housing market, but the current crisis is not merely the bursting of the housing bubble. It is bigger than the periodic financial crises we have experienced in our lifetime.

All the financial crises experienced in our lifetime are part of what Soros calls “a super-bubble,” which he defines as a long-term reflexive process that has evolved over the last twenty-five years or so. It consists of a prevailing trend, credit expansion, and the prevailing misconception of market fundamentalism (aka laissez-faire in the nineteenth century), which holds that markets should be given free rein. The previous crises, Soros tells us, served as successful tests which reinforced the prevailing trend and the prevailing misconception. The current crisis constitutes the turning point when both the trend and the misconception have become unsustainable. In short, it’s the end of an era and the beginning of a new era.

The new era Soros envisions is one based on a new paradigm — a paradigm that discards conventional economic theory based on equilibrium, and instead focuses on reflexivity. The new era extends beyond the boom-bust pattern. The boom-bust pattern, he says, is merely a convincing example of reflexivity. It is convincing because it describes market behavior that is in direct contradiction to the prevailing paradigm, which holds that markets tend toward equilibrium.

Mr. Soros tells us that up until now, his theory of reflexivity could not compete with equilibrium theory because it could not provide unequivocal predictions. He believes this explains why it was not given any serious considerations by economists. But now that equilibrium theory has shown itself to be such a failure at both prediction and explanation, there is an opportunity to explore the frontiers of reflexivity. That said, he does admit that it cannot do what the old paradigm did. It cannot offer generalizations in the mold of natural science. It contends that social events are fundamentally different from natural phenomena.

Mr. Soros is reluctant to make firm predictions about what the new era will look like. He tells us in the concluding chapter of his book that the future depends on the policy responses the financial crises will provoke. That said, he argues that we can identify the problems and the policy options, and we can also make some firm predictions about what the next era will not look like.

Soros tells us that the post-World War II period of credit expansion will not be followed by an equally long period of credit contraction. Boom-bust processes, he says, are asymmetric in shape: a long, gradually accelerating boom is followed by a short and sharp bust. As a result, most of the credit contraction can be expected to occur in the near term. He believes that house prices are likely to decline another 20% or more in the coming year. The deleveraging of hedge funds and bank balance sheets is also in full swing, but Soros doesn’t think it can continue at the current rate much longer. The end of the credit contraction is liable to bring some short-term relief, but it is unlikely to be followed by a resumption of credit expansion at anything like the rates to which we have become accustomed.

Does the end of the super-bubble not mean the end of all bubbles? Soros doesn’t think so. He says new bubbles are already in formation. The flight from the dollar has reinforced an already extended boom in raw materials and energy. He notes that biofuel legislation has generated a boom in agricultural products. And the appreciation of the renminbi has caused real interest rates in China to turn negative, and that is usually associated with an asset bubble.

Perhaps the most contentious view put forth in Soros’ book concerns his belief that the long period of relative stability based on the United States as the dominant power and the dollar as the main international reserve currency is coming to an end. The legendary financier foresees a period of political and financial instability, hopefully, he states, to be followed by the emergence of a new world order. Mr. Soros admits that he is unsure what the new world order will look like, be expresses confidence that whatever regime prevails, it is liable to contain unresolved contradictions, and may be succeeded by a totally different regime in short order.

I would urge investors to pick up a copy of The New Paradigm for Financial Markets. You may not entirely agree with the author’s theory and outlook, but there is a great deal of food for thought in the book.

Trust....McCain...yes...Obama...no...Democrat Party...no

30yrdem-not any more — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:39:11 +0000

I trusted Hillary Clinton....I trust John McCain...I just can't trust Barack Obama...It is more than he has no real record to look at, it is the company he keeps and has for all of his adult life. I am sure there are people in the lives of Clinton and McCain that I would wonder about but....with Obama it seems that the people in his life all have some very disturbing things in common. They are anti-American...anti-white...well some of them ...the ones he has had a 20 plus year relationship with...you know who I am talking about...Reverend Wright, Father Michael Pflager, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn...It is not just that these are people he knows ...these are people he has known, been friends with, people who Obama has said are his mentors, people who helped him shape who he is....people who have helped Barack Obama get to where he is today...and then there is Louis Farrakhan friends with all mentioned above...Oh and lets not forget Tony Rezko....you remember Tony...

The Democrat Party... Do you trust George Soros?...I don't....what does he have to do with the Dem party you ask....Back in 2004 Soros said "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it"...him and his partner Eli Pariser. (Move On.org)...now then...Do you remember Jim Johnson? He was the guy who headed Obama's VP selection committee...he is a business partner of Soros also...yes I know he left because of his involvement with Countrywide...but still...don't you see the circle forming....Back in 2004 Soros donated around $27million of his own personal money to try to stop George Bush from winning...... also Soros and his "new party" raised an additional $300 million plus....Yup...Soros owns the Dem Party....Does he own Obama? ...Remember these things when you go to vote in November....Who would have the power in this country?....

EDIT: Read this post at No Quarter.

Chicago Billionaire Industrialist on Board of Obama’s Mortgage Provider

Also look at this...

Franklin Delano Raines

Raines was a supporter of Obama's senate campaign.

Here is a list...Obama for Illinois

_______________

The Dem Party is not the party I was a part of for over 30 years....

Here is something you might want to read....

From Keith Ellison to Barack Obama

MoveOn.org claims McCain hates babies

robertjohn — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:29:01 +0000

George Soros' truth-twisting machine, MoveOn.org, produced this emotional piece to pull voters away from McCain by tugging at their heart strings. According to this, McCain is going to take baby Alex away from his mom and make him go fight in Iraq. WRONG. This attack is intentionally overlooking the fact that we have an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY. Nobody can make baby Alex serve in Iraq. When he's an adult, IF he wants to join the armed forces, he can ASK to serve, and then work his ass off for the opportunity to do so. Is MoveOn.org trying to suggest that McCain will re-instate the draft, and then start kidnapping babies? Yes, they are trying to suggest that, even though they know that it's not true.

Using a baby in their ad was an attempt to manipulate the emotions of voters. If MoveOn.org cared about babies so much, then they wouldn't be pro-abortion, and they wouldn't be supporting a candidate who refused to vote for the Born Alive Protection Act. MoveOn.org does not care about babies. They only care about promoting their own socialist agenda.

A new way to sell global warming

tvfoh — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:33:14 +0000

Some one has found a new way to sell Glo-bull warming. They tie it to terrorism.

It's the latest attempt to scare the public into accepting socialism as the savior of the world. Too bad the empirical evidence doesn't back up the claims of the sky is overheating.

But they trudge on with Glo-bull worming is going to cause more terrorism. Or like the Soros funded twit James Hanson who hides behind his NASA day job said the other day, "This is our last chance."

I wish it was the last time I have to listen to your drivel.

TVFOH
The View From Out Here

SIMONE LORIA, CHE GOL.. (Speriamo bene..)

ioeimieiamici — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:45:54 +0000

Il nostro neo acquisto, si è distinto per essere un difensore in grado di segnare 5-6 gol a stagione, e qualcuno è stato pure bellissimo..

Speriamo possa confermarsi a Roma e farsi trovare pronto quando sostituirà Mexes o Juan..

Daje Simo', ormai fai parte dell'A.S. Roma, daje..