Sheriff Dupnik Must Resign

Sheriff Dupnik Must Resign

By E.W. Jackson


Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, an elected leader entrusted with preserving the
rights of the innocent regardless of party affiliation, has made it clear he is
unable to carry out his duties in an unbiased manner.  Nor is this the first
time he has shown himself unable to set politics aside in the performance of his
duty.  When Arizona passed the bill dealing with illegal immigration, he refused
to enforce the law.
Now he has claimed that the vitriol of political discourse from
conservatives on radio and television and from the Tea Party led to nineteen
people being shot and six of them murdered.  He called his own home state of
Arizona a “Mecca of bigotry and hatred.”  Other Democrats are echoing the
slander, claiming that the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
and all conservatives are responsible for the deaths of our fellow Americans in
Dupnik should apologize and resign for his incendiary and biased comments.
Given the spotlight, he could not bring himself to behave like a professional
law enforcement officer and stick with the facts.  He used his fifteen minutes
of fame to lash out at political opponents by calling them bigots, racists, and
inciters of violence, lumping in the entire state of Arizona.  He failed to
acknowledge that the only violence at a Tea Party event was perpetrated by
Democrat Teamster thugs against a black Tea Party activist.  As a black
American, I think those who throw around the labels of “bigot,” “racist,” and
“hater” are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others, and they do
our country a great disservice.
Dupnik and those on the left have used this as an opportunity to smear
law-abiding citizens across the country while overlooking the calling cards of a
disturbed man.  It is clear that Jared Loughner, in his demented condition,
rejected God and all moral absolutes.  There was the discovery of his backyard
shrine — containing a skull with burnt oranges — and reports that his favorite
books included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.  This
is all anti-Christian behavior.  Should we blame liberals and the ACLU for
creating an atmosphere of hostility to Christianity, Judeo-Christian, values and
the God of the Bible?
If there is a lesson to be learned from this mass murder, it is that we
must stop romanticizing and minimizing the risks of mental illness.  We need to
get help for people who are a danger to themselves and others, not shut down
vigorous political discourse in our country.  Liberals can make the process of
debate much less bitter by sticking to the issues rather than calling people
names.  A good start would be for Democrats to ask Sheriff Dupnik to resign and
go home to take a long look in the mirror.  Then maybe his Democrat colleagues
will do the same.
My prayers go out to the families and friends of Federal Judge John Roll,
Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and all those involved in the senseless
shooting at her event.  There is no place in our society for violent attacks of
any kind, especially against those who selflessly choose to serve in public
office.  Our nation prides itself on civility.  May God bring strength to them
and their families, and to our entire nation.
God bless the heroic Americans who intervened in this tragic event.  No one
stopped to ask, “Are you conservative, liberal, heterosexual, homosexual, black,
or white?”  Americans stepped in and helped each other.  That is who we are.
The actions of one deranged individual should not be exploited to advance the
liberals’ political obsession with silencing their opponents.
We should view the aftermath of this horrific event as another
demonstration of the greatness of our country.  Real Americans do not ask how a
crisis can be used for political gain.  We act in unity and common concern for
each other without regard to race, gender, or politics.  We respond to crisis by
rising to the occasion, not lowering ourselves to using innocent victims as
pawns in a political game.  The attack on conservatives and the Tea Party, or
the attempt to associate this unbalanced individual with them, is irresponsible
and beneath contempt.
The double standard of the left is despicable and intolerable.  While the
entertainment industry makes billions selling violent movies, lyrics, and video
games, liberals consistently argue that these expressions are not to blame for
any crimes or self-destructive behavior.  “Leave these ‘artists’ alone,” they
cry.  However, because they think they can further their political agenda, they
enthusiastically claim that an act by one deranged individual was caused by the
“tone” of conservative rhetoric heard in the media.  No reasonable person would
conclude that free speech should be illegal because some deranged person might
be incited to violence.
E.W. Jackson is
President of STAND
Staying True to America’s National Destiny — a national organization dedicated
to restoring America’s Judeo-Christian history and values and bringing people
together across racial and cultural lines as one nation under

Page Printed from:
January 14, 2011 – 12:49:21 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth

Thursday, March 25, 2010
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:08 PM

Max Baucus is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the Democrat most responsible fo Obamacare’s final shape other than Nancy Pelosi.

In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the “healthcare bill” to be  “an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans.”  Baucus continued, “[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.  Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America.  This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth

Baucus’ candor is appreciated, though the fact that he waited until the bill passed to announce the real agenda behind the massive tax hikes isn’t a profile in courage.  And the seniors on fixed income who are about to lose Medicare Advantage would laugh at Baucus’ pseudo-populism.

Posted in Abortion, American Fifth Column, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Biden, Bill Ayers, CNN traitors, defeat liberalism, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat John McCain, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, democrat spying, DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic media, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and acorn, democrats and CNN, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and labor unions, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Democrats and taxes, Democrats and the media, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, democrats socialized medicine, Democrats' Nepotism, Dennis Kucinich, Dianne Feinstein, Earmarking, earmarks, Evangelical Left, Fifth Column, Fifth Column Left, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Harry Reid, Healthcare, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Socialist, Hollywood liberals, Homeland Security, Hussein Obama, Impeach, In The News, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic immigration, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Murtha, Left wing churches, Left-wing, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, leftist fund, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Max Baucus, Nancy Pelosi, National Debt, Nazi Pelosi, Obama, Obama Czars, Obama Jackboots, Obama-Pelosi-Reid, Obamacare, partial birth abortion, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Pelosi Land, Radical Politics, Rahm Emanuel, Saul Alinsky. Leave a Comment »

Speaker Of The House Hires A George Soros Activist

Speaker Of The House Hires A George Soros Activist

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

February 13, 2007 – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently hired Joseph Onek to be her Senior Counsel. Most people have never heard of Onek before, but he was an operative in both the Carter and Clinton White House. While in the Carter Adminstration, Onek served as Deputy Counsel to Jimmy Carter. In the Clinton Administration, Onek was a deputy Associate Attorney General and was the Rule of Law Coordinator with the State Department.

Onek also served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and served as an Assistant Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But his more recent work as a Senior Policy Analyst with the Open Society Institute (OSI) should be of deep concern to all Americans. The Open Society Institute is a creation of billionaire atheist George Soros. This virulently anti-Christian man operates what some have called a “shadow government” in America – a network of groups and radical individuals who wish to control America’s social and national security policies. monitors the web of leftist organizations that seek to rule our nation. It describes this shadow government as being “conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes — all identified with the Democratic Party left.”

The OSI funnels millions of dollars into various leftist causes, including euthanasia, open borders, abortion, homosexual activism, marijuana legalization, the undermining of our nation’s war on terrorism and other neo-Marxist visions of social justice. A list of OSI’s grantees (posted on the “” web site) reads like a phone book of every anti-American, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual group in America.

Soros has a warped vision for America, and he’s pouring millions of dollars into public policy organizations that will push his agendas. He is also pouring money into elections. He spent $26 million to defeat Bush in 2004. Today, Soros has decided that Senator Barack Obama should be our next president and has anointed him for that purpose. He will provide Obama with funding plus whatever publicity he can generate for the senator through his various front groups. 

Soros either funds or operates a whole range of such organizations, but the Open Society Institute is his flagship organization.

The current president of OSI is Aryeh Neier, who as director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy, founded the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) back in 1959. OSI’s Director of U.S. Advocacy is Morton Halperin, a man who has devoted his entire life to subverting America’s intelligence efforts to fight domestic and international threats. Halperin is a former Carter and Clinton official who has consistently attacked the work of the CIA.

George Soros must be pleased to have one of his operatives a heartbeat away from Speaker of the House Pelosi. Did Onek get his job with Pelosi through the influence of Soros? Was Onek placed in her office to direct policy decisions? What role does Onek play in Soros’ shadow government?

But, more to the point: What role does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi play in George Soros’ shadow government? Americans deserve answers to these questions.    

Tides Foundation — Leftist funding fountain

Tides Foundation
P.O. Box 29903
San Francisco, CA

Tides Center
P.O. Box 29907
San Francisco, CA

Phone :415-561-6400(F) 415-561-6300(C)
Email (F&C)
URL : (F&C)
Funder Profile:

  • Net Assets: Tides Foundation – $144,299,585 (2004); Tides Center – $36,696,785 (2004)
  • Grants Received: Tides Foundation – $71,164,955 (2004); Tides Center – $55,233,367 (2004)
  • Grants Awarded: Tides Foundation – $74,101,866 (2004); Tides Center – $10,017,642 (2004)

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called “donor-advised,” or donor-directed, funds.

Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides — thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.

If a donor wishes to give money to a particular cause but finds that there is no group in existence dedicated specifically to that issue, the Tides Foundation will, for a fee, create a group to meet that perceived need.

The Tides Foundation promotes a multitude of leftist social agendas, as evidenced by its assertion: “We strengthen community-based organizations and the progressive movement by providing an innovative and cost-effective framework for your philanthropy.” Among the crusades to which Tides contributes are: radical environmentalism; the “exclusion of humans from public and private wildlands”; the anti-war movement; anti-free trade campaigns; the banning of firearms ownership; abolition of the death penalty; the right to receive government-funded abortion-on-demand; and radical gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender advocacy.

In recent years the Tides Foundation has strongly supported the National Lawyers Guild, the Council for American-Islamic Relations, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, and People For the American Way – the latter of which started as a Tides Foundation Project in 1981. Tides also runs a tax-exempt “alternative media source” called the Institute for Global Communications (IGC), a leading provider of Web technology to the radical left.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Tides formed a “9/11 Fund” to advocate a “peaceful national response.” Tides later replaced the 9/11 Fund with the “Democratic Justice Fund,” which was financed in large measure by the Open Society Institute of George Soros, who has donated more than $7 million to Tides over the years.

Tides also set up a Peace Strategies Fund and an Iraq Peace Fund, the latter of which has granted money to such groups as, the National Council of Churches, the Arab-American Action Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the pro-Castro groups United for Peace and Justice and Center for Constitutional Rights. In addition, Tides funds “A Better Way Project,” which coordinates the activities of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition/Keep America Safe Campaign.

In the environmental realm, the Tides Foundation has recently made grants to such groups as the Ruckus Society, the Union of Concerned ScientistsGreenpeaceFriends of the Earth, the Environmental Working Group, Environmental Media Services, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, and the Wilderness Society. It also supports the California Wildlands Grassroots Project, an organization that advocates “permanent protection of intact wildlands on both public and private [emphasis added] lands” in that state.

Tides and the organizations it supports interact closely with one another on a regular basis. For example, Drummond Pike sits on the Board of the Environmental Working Group along with David Fenton, founder of Fenton Communications.

The Tides Foundation is a member organization of the International Human Rights Funders Group, a network of more than six-dozen grantmakers dedicated to finaning leftwing groups and causes.

In 1979 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (These could be, for instance, farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation’s activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

The Tides Center’s Board Chairman is Wade Rathke, who is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. Rathke, who serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union, is the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which has given Tides numerous six-figure grants.

Between 1993 and 2003, at least 91 foundations made grants to the Tides Foundation. These included the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Arca Foundation; the AT&T Foundation; the Barbra Streisand Foundation; the Bauman Family FoundationBen and Jerry’s Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Blue Moon Fund; the Bullitt Foundation; the CarEth Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; Changemakers; the ChevronTexaco Foundation; the Columbia Foundation; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Energy Foundation; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Foundation for Deep Ecology; the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; the Heinz Family Foundation; the Hoffman Foundation; the Homeland Foundation; the Howard Heinz Endowment; the J.M. Kaplan Fund; the James Irvine Foundation; the JEHT Foundation; the Jenifer Altman Foundation; the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Joyce Foundation; the Lear Family Foundation; the Liberty Hill Foundation; the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the Nathan Cummings Foundation; the New World Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the Pew Charitable Trusts; the Ploughshares Fund; the Proteus Fund; the Public Welfare Foundation; the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund; the Righteous Persons Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Roberts Foundation; the Rockefeller Family Fund; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy; the Stern Family Fund; the Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust; the Summit Charitable Foundation; the Surdna Foundation; the Threshold Foundation; the Turner Foundation; the Vanguard Public Foundation; the Verizon Foundation; the Vira I. Heinz Endowment; the W.K. Kellogg Foundation; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; and the Woods Fund of Chicago.

Surprisingly, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center also receive grants from the U.S. federal government. Between 1997 and 2001, these grants included the following: $395,219 from the Department of Interior; $3,350,431 from the Environmental Protection Agency; $3,487,040 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development; $208,878 from the Department of Agriculture; $39,550 from the Department of Energy; $93,500 from the Small Business Administration; $10,986 from the Department of Health and Human Services; and $84,520 from the Centers for Disease Control U.S. Agency for International Development.

Conservatives to Spike the Supreme Court? — For several months we’ve been hearing the mantra that most Republican congressmen don’t deserve to be reelected because the party’s record in Congress is far from a conservative one, especially when one considers runaway spending, huge deficits, ignored scandals, successful filibusters, pro-terrorist legislation, and more.

Conservatives to Spike the Supreme Court?
By Henry Mark Holzer | October 31, 2006

For several months we’ve been hearing the mantra that most Republican congressmen don’t deserve to be reelected because the party’s record in Congress is far from a conservative one, especially when one considers runaway spending, huge deficits, ignored scandals, successful filibusters, pro-terrorist legislation, and more.At the same time, we’ve heard sincere pleas from conservative leaders and commentators that, nevertheless, Republican voters should “hold their noses” and return GOP majorities, no matter how narrow, to the House and Senate.

The principal justification given for what some consider to be a compromise with conservative values (but in reality is not), is that no matter how bad the Republican legislative performance has been, the Democrats are going to be far worse. For conservatives, that’s certainly true. Inevitably, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi domestic agenda will be disastrous, especially for the economy (e.g., rescinding tax cuts). Their foreign affairs policies will surely endanger national security (e.g., abruptly pulling the plug on Iraq).

But even worse is that if Harry Reid becomes Senate majority leader, and if 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens leaves the bench (actuarially, a real possibility), conservatives can kiss goodbye – for at least two years and maybe longer – any chance of obtaining that one crucial seat on the Supreme Court which, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, could have a profound effect on both domestic and foreign policy for years to come.

If this double whammy occurs – Reid running the Senate, and Stevens leaving the bench – there will be a battle for Stevens’s seat (and thus for the soul of the Court), that will make the Clarence Thomas confirmation fight of 15 years ago look like a walk in the park.

Like the Thomas fight, the one to fill Stevens’s Supreme Court seat will be a battle that conservatives must win if they don’t want to see more decisions like the following – for which Stevens was largely responsible:

  • Upholding the McCain-Feingold law’s suppression of political speech;
  • Abolishing the death penalty for young killers;
  • Seizing private property for “public purposes” through eminent domain;
  • Approving the use of race as a criterion for higher education admissions;
  • Providing enemy combatants with habeas corpus, due process, and court access; and
  • Invalidating President Bush’s Guantanamo military tribunals.It is a cliché to observe that we live in perilous times. But cliché or not, the fact is that we do. Pakistan’s unstable government already has atomic weapons. Despotic North Korea may be close to having atomic weapons. The Iranian theocracy is feverishly seeking atomic weapons. Al-Qaeda is trying to buy or steal atomic weapons.

    The military and foreign policy implications of atomic proliferation are almost too scary to contemplate. They will present colossally important and difficult questions of constitutional law for the Supreme Court to resolve – such as in meeting atomic threats, how far the president’s Article II powers extend without consultation with Congress.

    Also on the table are other questions of presidential power, of congressional power, and – always – of judicial power, especially in America’s current battle with Islamic terrorists.

    Indeed, the preliminary judicial skirmishes in that battle – the Hamdi, Rasul, Padilla, and Hamdan cases, dealing with enemy combatants, habeas corpus, due process, access to courts, and military tribunals – have been just a warm up for what’s to come.

    Those cases presented questions of presidential power to wage war under Article II of the Constitution, and although the President won a few rounds, he lost a few as well. The cases also examined the power of Congress, and its constitutional role in modern, asymmetrical warfare. And some lawyers believe, with good reason, that the Court’s tilt in those four cases was, on balance, away from presidential power and in favor of Congressional power.

    Now, with the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, new constitutional questions have arisen, chief among them whether the “due process” that Congress has provided enemy combatants is adequate. While there are those of us who believe the Act provided too much – see

“Khalid Sheik Mohammed is Not O.J. Simpson: Military Commissions Act of 2006” – not surprisingly, there are those like the ACLU who believe it provided too little, and that Islamic terrorist murderers should be treated with the kid gloves afforded defendants in the American criminal justice system.America’s national security has already suffered enough from Justice Stevens. We cannot afford another such appointment. Especially with national security constitutional questions such as warrantless surveillance still to be resolved.

If Stevens leaves the bench in the next two years, even if the president wants to make quality appointments like his of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, George H.W. Bush’s of Justice Thomas, and Reagan’s of Justice Scalia, the president will be stymied if Harry Reid controls the Senate. Indeed, even if Reid doesn’t, the Republicans will need a majority leader who, unlike Bill Frist, has the spine to break an inevitable Democratic filibuster if the nominee is a strong conservative.

That’s why this notion that conservatives should “punish” right-leaning leaders for their real and imagined shortcomings is akin not merely to political suicide, but invites at least one Supreme Court appointment that in national security cases like warrantless surveillance could tip the already closely balanced scales against the country’s war with Islamic terrorists and seriously endanger the survival of the United States.

Click Here to support

13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7 — Copy the text and email it to your friends

by Mona Charen 13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7October 27, 2006 08:54 PM EST
I can understand why Democrats are jazzed about November’s election. The polls combined with the fawning media (“Oh, please, Sen. Obama, let us kiss the hem of your garment!”) are giving them goose bumps such as they have not experienced since “An Inconvenient Truth” debuted in theaters.What I don’t understand is the seeming tepidness of so many Republicans. Yes, the war in Iraq is a long, hard slog. The world is not Topeka, Kansas (would that it were). A journalist pointed out to President Bush at his most recent press conference that the Iraq war has now been going on as long as World War II did for the United States. Well, yes, but we lost 407,316 men in World War II. On Iwo Jima alone, we lost 6,800. This is not to say that the deaths of our people in Iraq should be trivialized. But comparisons with World War II — in terms of sacrifice and terrible price paid — are ridiculous.Republicans have abundant reasons to reserve a spot at their polling places on Election Day:

1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003. Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations. The Dow has set record highs multiple times in the past several weeks. Productivity is up, and the deficit is down. Real, after-tax income has grown by 15 percent since 2001. Inflation has remained low. As Vice President Cheney summed it up at a recent meeting with journalists, “What more do you want?” The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow.

2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven’t materialized. The law has, on the other hand, permitted the CIA and FBI to cooperate and share information about terrorist threats — at least so long as The New York Times isn’t publishing the details of our counterterrorism efforts on the front page.

3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which liberals clung with passionate intensity, has been cancelled, permitting us to work on missile defense. In the age of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is anyone (except Nancy Pelosi) sorry?

4) Immigration. Republicans in Congress insisted upon and got the first serious immigration restriction in decades. On Oct. 26, the president signed a law that will build a 700-mile fence along our southern border and, what is more important, does not offer amnesty.

5) There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?

6) Libya has surrendered its nuclear program.

7) A.Q. Khan’s nuclear smuggling network has been rolled up.

8) John Roberts and Samuel Alito sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

9) Those Democrats who do not want to close Guantanamo Bay altogether want to give all of its inmates the full panoply of rights Americans enjoy in criminal procedures.

10) Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror. The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not — and no one likes it — we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis. We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol.

11) Democrats would like to eliminate the terrorist surveillance program.

12) If Democrats achieve a majority in the House, Barney Frank will chair the Financial Services Committee, Henry Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, and Alcee Hastings will chair the Intelligence Committee.

13) Democrats believe that the proper response to Kim Jong Il’s nuclear test is “face to face talks.” That’s what the Clinton administration did for years. It worked out well, didn’t it? 

Posted in defeat liberalism, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat scandals, democrat socialists, democratic media, democratic morals, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and CNN, democrats and illegal immigration, democrats and immigration, DEMOCRATS AND ISLAM, democrats and Korea, democrats and muliculturalism, democrats and the UN, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, extremists, fear of radical Islamists, get tough on islam, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Gitmo, Hollywood liberals, Hollywood wackos, Homeland Security, Illegal Immigration, Imams and Terrorism, immigrant vote, Immigration, immigration laws, In The News, Iran, iraq, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islam unrest, Islam's Founder, islamic death threats, Islamic immigration, Islamic lies, islamic recruiting, Islamic Schools, islamic taxi drivers, Islamic Women Rights, Islamist Web, Islamists, Islamofascism, Jewish leftists, Jihad, jihad ideology, Jihad watch, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, Leftist Claptrap, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Liberal, Liberal and Left Wing Political Blogs, liberal bias, liberal Iraq media coverage, liberal media, liberal preachers, liberal professors, liberal Teachers, liberal universities, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Realities, Muhammad, Mullahs, Multicultural youths, multiculturalism, muslim, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Brotherhood, muslim charities, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim immigration, Muslim integration, muslim schools, muslim sympathizers, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Muslims go home, NBC, New York Times, News, news leaks, Newsweek, Patriot Act. Leave a Comment »

Someone’s Dying for Your Vote — As the elections draw near, I find myself getting angrier and angrier. On a daily basis, I receive e-mail messages from conservative readers explaining why they’re not going to vote on November 7. Fellow conservative bloggers have elucidated their views on this subject supporting the abstainers, and explaining why a Democrat victory in eight days isn’t such a bad thing.

Someone’s Dying for Your Vote
October 30th, 2006

2,808 Americans have died in Iraq the past 43 months. Another 282 have met such a fate in and around Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Likely all are rolling over in their graves as fellow countrymen who sent them to war are threatening to boycott Election Day.

Particularly disheartening to these fallen heroes must be the conservative abstentions, as likely 90 percent of such Americans were in favor of sending soldiers to Iraq in March 2003, while probably 100 percent supported invading Afghanistan after 9/11. It must be unfathomable to these brave souls that the very people who rallied politicians to risk lives for these efforts are now turning their backs on the honored dead, and what they died for.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.—Thomas Paine

As amazing as it might seem, due to Republican failures to curtail spending, solve illegal immigration, cure Social Security, and police corruption, many Party members are forgetting the more than a million Americans that have died in battle for the precious right to vote.

Should we forsake that right now because this Congress has failed to address such issues? What does that say to the 3,090 soldiers that have died to give Iraqis and Afghanis such a right, or to the 170,000 Americans still at risk to protect it?

Maybe more importantly, would any of the fallen abstain from voting as result of these other issues if they were still alive today?

If the people fail to vote, a government will be developed which is not their government…. The whole system of American Government rests on the ballot box. Unless citizens perform their duties there, such a system of government is doomed to failure.—Calvin Coolidge

As the elections draw near, I find myself getting angrier and angrier. On a daily basis, I receive e-mail messages from conservative readers explaining why they’re not going to vote on November 7. Fellow conservative bloggers have elucidated their views on this subject supporting the abstainers, and explaining why a Democrat victory in eight days isn’t such a bad thing.

Every morning as I drive to work, I hear callers tell Rush Limbaugh why they’re not going to vote; every afternoon I hear the same on Sean Hannity’s program.

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. —John F. Kennedy

So I grow angrier, because I’m saddened for the state of the Republican Party, and wonder how we have so fallen from the exhilaration we felt on November 2, 2004, when President Bush was reelected, and we miraculously added to our majorities in both chambers of Congress. We were going to accomplish so much in the next two years. In particular, finally reform Social Security, and extend the president’s tax cuts.

Alas, as 2005 rolled on, such lofty goals were replaced by scandals surrounding former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the Vice President’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, and a terrible hurricane in the Gulf Coast.

The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.—Dwight D. Eisenhower

2006 wasn’t any better, as a proposed sale of American ports to an Arabic company hit the front pages, along with illegal immigrant protests, and a disgraceful scandal involving Congressional pages just weeks before Election Day.

Nice two years, folks. Nice job taking advantage of the mandate we gave you on November 2, 2004.

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.—Samuel Adams

Like many of my fellow countrymen, I’m ashamed of the performance of this Congress, and my Party. However, that shame does not extend to ignoring the most sacred right bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. Forsaking that right as a form of protest is un-American and unthinkable for a true conservative.

The ballot is stronger than the bullet.—Abraham Lincoln

Folks that are unhappy with what the Republicans have done in the past 22 months should consider voting for the Democrat in their state or district. Or the Independent. Or the Libertarian. Or write in their grandmother Mabel.

But don’t stay home, for that dishonors all that have died to give you this precious right. Such are certainly the sentiments of great Americans past and present:

If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes.—Daniel Webster

That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part.  —Thomas Jefferson

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us.  The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.—Franklin D. Roosevelt

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty.—  Noah Webster

In a world that might say one vote doesn’t matter…, it does matter because each person is of infinite worth and value to God… Your vote is a declaration of importance as a person and a citizen.—Billy Graham

We have a duty to our country to participate in the political process. See, if you believe in freedom, you have a duty to exercise your right to vote to begin with. I’m [here] to encourage people to do their duty, to go to the polls. I want all people, no matter what their political party is or whether they even like a political party, to exercise their obligation to vote. —George W. Bush

Wise words all. Yet, caution shouldn’t be capriciously thrown to the wind when exercising this right, for the consequence of error is great, especially today. The truly judicious, before demonstrating disappointment with their Party by voting for a member of another, should recall the last time Elephants behaved this way. Or have you forgotten that such protestations in 1992 gave us fourteen years of the Clintons, with possibly many more to follow?

With that in mind, try to imagine what turning over the House of Representatives to a dove like Nancy Pelosi (D-California) would say to those that have given their lives to this war effort, and those still risking so. What a shocking statement that would be to our military to hand over the reigns of power to such an irresponsible appeaser less than five years after we sent our friends and family members to die for their country.

So think long and hard, conservatives, about the value of your vote, those that have died to give you the privilege, and the folly of abstention. And, if you still can’t bring yourself to the polling booth on November 7, send a proxy to my e-mail address, for only death would prevent me from exercising this precious right regardless of how disappointed I was in my Party.

Noel Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center’s, and a contributing writer to its Business & Media Institute.  Noel welcomes feedback.

Media Matters’ Attack on The Shadow Party — David Brock’s Media Matters for America is widely recognized as a propaganda front for leftwing billionaire George Soros. (1) For that reason, we were not surprised when Media Matters attacked our new book, The Shadow Party, which exposes Mr. Soros’ sinister agenda and hidden power in American politics.

Media Matters’ Attack on The Shadow Party
By Richard Poe | October 30, 2006

David Brock’s Media Matters for America is widely recognized as a propaganda front for leftwing billionaire George Soros. (1)  For that reason, we were not surprised when Media Matters attacked our new book, The Shadow Party, which exposes Mr. Soros’ sinister agenda and hidden power in American politics. 

Six days before the official publication date, Media Matters posted a 6,500-word article purporting to debunk The Shadow Party.  Bearing the zany title, “Echoing Lyndon LaRouche, Horowitz and Poe smear 14-year-old George Soros as Nazi `collaborator’…”, the text ran 6,533 words.  It  accused us of 25 specific instances of “false”, “misleading” or “unsourced” statements.(2) Of these only four actually fall into these categories, all of them trivial.


First, a footnote on p. 247 should refer to CNBC and not CNN as we wrote.  Second, Shadow Party moneyman “Peter Bing” referred to on p. 186 should have been Stephen Bing. We obviously conflated his name with that of Peter Lewis, another Shadow Party moneyman mentioned in the same sentence. Third, we state on p. 24 that Morton Halperin “directed” the ACLU from 1984 to 1993.  In fact, Mr. Halperin directed the ACLU’s Washington office and the ACLU Foundation, but not the national organization. Finally, on page 126, we mistakenly identified George Soros as the founder the National Voting Rights Institute, when he is only a supporter of the Institute.


Now we turn to the 21 False Allegations by Media Matters


False Allegation #1: “Echoing the rantings of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche and his followers, David Horowitz and Richard Poe charge in their new book that George Soros was a Nazi ‘collaborator in fascist Hungary’ and ‘survived [the Holocaust] by assimilating to Nazism’ as a 14-year-old boy…. Soros is a Hungarian-born Jew who survived the Nazi occupation of Budapest.  The unsourced smearing of Soros as a Nazi collaborator echoes the obscure anti-Semitic rantings of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche…”


In fact our claims about Soros are sourced, and the sources are clearly footnoted in our  text. In fact, we extensively quoted Soros’ exact words. 


When the Nazis came in 1944, Soros’ father saved the family by splitting them up, providing them with false identities and bribing Hungarian Christians to take them in. Young Soros posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary’s fascist government. 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.” (3)  Connie Bruck, who interviewed Soros for The New Yorker in 1995, wrote that, “he posed as the son of a Hungarian government official, sometimes accompanying the official as he delivered deportation notices to Jews, or took possession of property owned by them.” (4)


On December 20, 1998, Soros had the following exchange with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, which is cited verbatim in our book:


KROFT:  My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

         SOROS:  Yes. Yes.

KROFT:  Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

         SOROS:  Yes. That’s right. Yes.

         KROFT:  I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years.   Was it difficult?

         SOROS:  Not at all.  Not at all.  Maybe as a child you don’t see the connection.  But it was – it created no problem at all.

         KROFT:  No feeling of guilt?

         SOROS:  No. (5)


By his own account, the chief lesson Soros learned under Nazi and Soviet occupation is that, when faced with extreme conditions – what he calls “far-from equilibrium” conditions – the rules of civilized society no longer apply.  One is justified in doing whatever it takes to survive. (6)


In keeping with this philosophy, Mr. Soros has written, “I do not accept the rules imposed by others.  If I did, I would not be alive today.  I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted.  And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.  One needs to adjust one’s behavior to the changing circumstances.” (7)

 In Soros’ view, one of those “regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted” is the current Bush administration. All this information, with the sources cited, can be found in our book. 

False Allegation #2:  We are accused of drawing some of our material from an investigative article which I wrote for the May 2004 issue of NewsMax Magazine – material which Media Matters claims it “debunked” long ago.


Yes, I wrote an investigative article which was published in the May 2004 issue of NewsMax. It is just Media Matters opinion that they “debunked” my article. In fact, they no more debunked it than they have our book.


False Allegation #3:  We are accused of having “doctored or misrepresented” a reference from page 52 of Michael Kaufman’s biography of George Soros.


We did no such thing. Seventeen-year-old George Soros told his father in 1946, “I’d like to go to Moscow, to find out about Communism.  I mean, that’s where the power is.  I’d like to know more about it.”  Media Matters complains that we left out the final sentence of the quote, which reads, “Or maybe go to England because of the BBC…” (13)  We did leave it out, because it was incidental. As we related in our book, Soros did end up going to London and not to Moscow, after his father discouraged him from going to Moscow.


False Allegation #4:  We are accused of having “doctored or misrepresented” a reference from page 76 of Michael Kaufman’s biography of George Soros.


On page 76 of The Shadow Party, we quote Soros telling his biographer Michael Kaufman, “My goal is to become the conscience of the world.”  Media Matters implies that we should have quoted the full, unedited passage from page 293 of Kaufman’s biography. It reads: “My goal is to become the conscience of the world.’  The words sounded less pompous in conversation than they appear in print.  Perhaps the hubris was modulated by a wink or a smile.” (14)


Perhaps it was, or perhaps not. Kaufman admits he does not remember.  Kaufman is a Soros acolyte who left a good job at the New York Times to edit Soros’ magazine Transitions for two and a half years.  Kaufman knew his subject well enough to subtitle his Soros biography, “The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire”.   


A more objective source, Connie Bruck, who interviewed Soros for The New Yorker, has written, “[Soros] had harbored messianic illusions – what he describes as a sense of himself as superhuman –  since childhood.  Soros is not reticent about this aspect of his personality.” (15)  Indeed he is not.  He seems to enjoy talking about it, and does so frequently. Here are some examples:


“I have always harboured an exaggerated view of my self-importance – to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god…” (16)


“If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me into trouble.  But when I had made my way in the world, I wanted to indulge my fantasies to the extent that I could afford.” (17)


“It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” (18)


“Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad.  In fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid. I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I have escaped it.” (19)


False Allegation #5:  We are accused of having “doctored a quote”, thus “altering the meaning” of a passage from Soros’ speech at the June 3, 2004 Take Back America conference, on page 53 of The Shadow Party.


Here is Soros’ quote: “I think that the picture of torture in Abu Ghraib, in Saddam’s prison, was the moment of truth for us,…I think that those pictures hit us in the same way as the terrorist attack itself, not quite with the same force because in the terrorist attack we were the victims. In the pictures we were the perpetrators, others were the victims. But there is, I’m afraid, a direct connection between those two events, because the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators.”


Here are the words we replaced with an ellipsis: “I think that the picture of torture in Abu Ghraib, in Saddam’s prison, was the moment of truth for us, because that is not who we are as a nation.”


Omitting these words certainly improved the flow of Mr. Soros’ quote – that is what ellipses are for – but we fail to see how our edit changed its meaning.


False Allegation #6:  On page 79 of The Shadow Party we state that Soros has cited his wartime experiences as having contributed to his ill feelings toward fellow Jews.  We are accused of having provided “no source” for this information. In fact we do. The source was provided in footnote 31 at the beginning of the discussion, two paragraphs earlier, on the same page. It cited p. 167 of Kaufman’s biography.  We saw no need to repeat the same footnote a second time in the same discussion, on the same page, to make the same point. Kaufman wrote:  “In those days, the only solicitations he [Soros] regularly received came from Jewish organizations.  `I absolutely did not respond to them,’ he said, acknowledging that his general contempt for philanthropies was even more pronounced in the case of Jewish organizations.  He traces this antipathy to that day in Hungary when as a fourteen-year-old messenger boy for the Budapest Jewish community organization he had delivered messages, drafted under Nazi pressure, ordering Jewish lawyers to present themselves for deportation.”


Soros thus tells us that, as much as he despised charities in general, he despised Jewish charities in particular.  And why?  Because he despised the Judenrat for its treacherous behavior under Nazi occupation.

 Of course, the Judenrat was not a charity.  It was an administrative arm of the Nazi occupation government.   Nor was the behavior which Soros claims he found objectionable in the Judenrat related to any charitable activity.  Why then would Soros’ unpleasant experience with the Judenrat translate into a specific aversion to Jewish charities?


Moreover, how do we explain the many statements Soros has made indicating a deep-seated antipathy toward the very concept of Jewish community, as, for instance, when he said:  “I don’t think that you can ever overcome anti-Semitism if you behave as a tribe. … The only way you can overcome it is if you give up the tribalness.” (20)

 False Allegation #7:  We are accused of having distorted the meaning of Soros’ remarks to the Jewish Funders’ Network on November 5, 2003. “Horowitz and Poe distorted remarks made by Soros to a Jewish Funders Network event in 2003, misleadingly describing Soros as calling ‘on fellow Jews to acknowledge what he called their role in provoking anti-Semitism around the world.’ In fact, Soros attributed “a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe” not to “fellow Jews” but specifically to the foreign policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon government in Israel. 

Soros did say that the Bush and Sharon policies in the Middle East “contribute” to what he called the “resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe”.  However, he also said this, as reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world.  As an unintended consequence of my actions, I also contribute to that image.” (21)


Here Soros referred specifically to recent remarks by his long-time nemesis Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, formerly Prime Minister of Malaysia, who had, for many years, accused Soros of triggering the 1997 collapse of the Asian economy through currency manipulation.  On October 16, less than a month before Soros’ speech to the Jewish Funders Network, Mahathir Mohamad had declared that, “Jews rule the world by proxy.” (22)  Soros plainly implied that his own wheeling and dealing in global markets had contributed to the “image” held by Mahathir and others that “Jews rule the world.”


Media Matters may have missed this point, but Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, did not.  In response to Soros’ comments, Foxman said, “If [Soros] sees that his position of being who he is may contribute to the perception of anti-Semitism, what’s his solution to himself — that he give up his money? That he close his mouth?” (23)


Realtor Michael Steinhardt, who invited Soros to the meeting, likewise had no difficulty understanding that Soros was directing his criticisms toward all Jews, including those in the room.  At one point, Steinhardt sought to defuse tensions by taking the microphone and joking, “George Soros does not think Jews should be hated any more than they deserve to be.”  Steinhardt’s quip reportedly brought chuckles from the audience. (24)


In this instance, as in so many others, Media Matters defends the indefensible.  Mr. Soros’ views on anti-Semitism are well-known.  As noted above, Soros is on record stating that the ultimate source of anti-Semitism is the very existence of Jews as a distinct “tribe” or people.  He told The New Yorker, “I don’t think that you can ever overcome anti-Semitism if you behave as a tribe. … The only way you can overcome it is if you give up the tribalness.” (25)


False Allegation #8:  We are accused of “cropping Soros’s quote” to CNBC in such a way as to distort his meaning, on page 5 of The Shadow Party. “Horowitz and Poe cropped Soros’s quote, and left out the portion in which Soros explained that his decision [to short the dollar] was based on statements from then-Treasury Secretary John Snow. As Reuters reported that same day:  ‘I have to disclose that I now have a short position against the dollar because I listen to what the Secretary of the Treasury is telling me,’ Soros said in the interview.”


Soros’ statement was obviously a wisecrack, not to be taken literally.  He was mocking Snow for certain remarks he had made which sounded like an endorsement of a “weak dollar” policy, even while America officially touted its commitment to a “strong dollar.”


Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” on May 11, 2003, Secretary Snow had said, “When the dollar is at a lower level, it helps exports, and I think exports are getting stronger as a result.”  Many commentators interpreted Snow’s remark – wrongly, as it turned out – to mean that the U.S. government was actively seeking a weaker dollar. (26)


Playing on this misperception, Soros accused the Bush administration of trying to “talk down” the dollar.  He told CNBC that Snow’s alleged efforts to weaken the dollar would backfire, depressing the global economy and reducing American exports in the long run.  With heavy – and obvious – irony, Soros said,  “I have to disclose that I now have a short position against the dollar because I listen to what the Secretary of the Treasury is telling me. So who am I to stand in the way?” (27)


Of course, Soros was just playing games.  It was Soros, not Snow, who was doing his best to “talk down” the dollar, and he had been doing it for years.


“We desperately need an international currency system that is not based on the dollar,” Soros wrote in 1987. (28)  More recently, on September 16, 2002, Soros told Maria Bartiromo of CNBC’s After Hours, “It looks like the dollar has topped – it has reached its highest level.” (29)  With these words, Soros signaled investors that the dollar had nowhere to go but down, and it was time to start dumping greenbacks.


Obviously, Soros did not adopt this position in response to any remarks by John Snow, who only became Secretary of the Treasury five months later.


False Allegation #9:  We are accused of citing a report from the National Law Journal stating that Hillary Clinton serves on the board of the Soros-funded American Constitution Society.  The reference appears on page 70 of The Shadow Party.


We make no apology for citing The National Law Journal as a source. (30)  It is a well- respected publication.  The same cannot be said of Soros-funded advocacy groups, whose websites have been known to edit their online personnel listings in the wink of an eye, when they find it necessary to shield certain of their associates from unwanted scrutiny. (31)


False Allegation #10:  We are accused of having misrepresented a New York Times report of November 14, 1998. We wrote: “The New York Times reported on 14 November 1998 that… in response to the growing worldwide recession, President `Clinton has proposed a “third way” between capitalism and socialism.’” (The Shadow Party, page 217) Media Matters complains: “[T]he Times reported no such “revelation” about a “third way” or any other new economic plans that day. The Times reference – ‘Mr. Clinton has proposed a ‘third way,’ between capitalism and socialism’ — was buried in an essay on the global financial crisis that appeared on page 9 of the Arts & Ideas section with a Berlin dateline.”


Here Media Matters argues that the piece we cite from The New York Times  has no significance since it appeared on the op-ed page, and not in the news section.  This is a red herring.  The op-ed piece – whose author was the New York Times’ Berlin bureau chief (soon to become its foreign editor) – was not aimed at a mass audience.  It was written by, for and about elite decision-makers.  The fact that it was directed at an elite audience does not make it any less interesting or authoritative.


Bill Clinton had been touting the “third way” since at least 1992, but he had never clearly explained what the “third way” meant.


The global financial crisis of the late 1990s inspired a new frankness among promoters of the “third way”.  Books and articles suddenly flooded the market, predicting the imminent demise of capitalism.  Many promoted the “third way” as an alternative.


George Soros led the pack with an article in the Atlantic Monthly of February 1997, which stated, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.” (32)  Soros followed up with his December 1998 book The Crisis of Global Capitalism, in which he wrote, “The (global capitalist) system is deeply flawed.  As long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations.” (33)

 In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton declared, “We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer.  My fellow Americans, we have found a third way.” (34) 

Commenting upon this Clinton initiative, E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post penned a column titled, “A World Safe for Socialism”, in which he exulted that the bold new talk coming from “Third Wayers” had provided “a refreshing alternative”, “ended the Reagan-Thatcher era” and given “liberals and, yes, socialists presentable new clothes to wear.” (35)


It was in this perfervid atmosphere of socialist millennialism that New York Times Berlin bureau chief Roger Cohen (who was later promoted to foreign editor of the Times) wrote the above-cited op-ed which appeared in The New York Times of November 14, 1998.


Cohen wrote:  “In Western capitals there is a rush to rethink the world. At issue is the end of the so-called Washington consensus, which has held more or less unchallenged since the end of the cold war: that more open markets, freer trade and larger international capital flows are necessarily good….Mr. Clinton has proposed a ‘third way,’ between capitalism and socialism. …” (36)


With this op-ed, written by one of its own bureau chiefs, the Times added its voice to an already deafening chorus of journalists celebrating – prematurely, as it turned out – the end of capitalism.


False Allegation #11:  We are accused of having cited an article from the London  Sunday Times which Media Matters evidently considers to have been unworthy of citation. “In another case, the authors reprint a false news report with apparent full knowledge of its falsity before correcting it themselves. On page 88, they write, ‘His motives in pursuing philanthropy have often been questioned.’  As back-up, they cite a 1995 article in the London Sunday Times by right-wing commentator Taki Theodoracopulos, who reported, erroneously, that ‘all [Soros] philanthropy began in 1987, the first year he and his fund had to pay taxes. Charitable matters are tax deductible and Soros says his aim is to give way half his yearly income, the maximum he can deduct.’  But Soros’ philanthropy did not start “the first year he and his fund had to pay taxes;’ it started in 1979, as Horowitz and Poe acknowledge in the very sentence following the Times reference. ‘In fairness to Soros,’ they write uncharacteristically, ‘he actually began dabbling in philanthropy as early as 1979.’  Then why print the falsehood?”


We cited the article because the point it made was true.  The small (and incidental) exaggeration it contained, we corrected.  As we wrote on pages 88-89 of The Shadow Party: “Soros’ road to power, in this instance, as in others, was through his philanthropic enterprises.  His motives in pursuing philanthropy have been often questioned.  In 1995, the London Sunday Times noted: `[Soros’] investment fund did not pay taxes in the United States between 1969 and 1986, enjoying a `free ride’ that netted him and his investors billions of dollars.  Until the American Tax Reform Act [of] 1986 was passed, [Soros’] Quantum Fund legally avoided paying a cent.’  The Times went on to observe that, `all [Soros’] philanthropy began in 1987, the first year he and his fund had to pay taxes.  Charitable matters are tax deductible and Soros says his aim is to give away half his yearly income, the maximum he can deduct.’ In fairness to Soros, he actually began dabbling in philanthropy as early as 1979.  In 1984, he launched his first Open Society Foundation in Hungary.  But it is also true that his giving remained modest until 1987.”


The point of Mr. Theodoracopoulos’ article was, as his headline succinctly put it, “Soros is Charitable up to the Tax Break”. Mr. Theodoracopoulos made a small error in saying that Soros began his philanthropy in 1987, but we corrected that error in our text.  The larger point – that Soros’ investment fund did not pay taxes between 1969 and 1986 – was entirely accurate, and that was the point of Mr. Theodoracopoulos’ article. (37)


False Allegation #12:  We are accused of having wrongly stated on page 24 that the National Security Archive, which Morton Halperin headed, was an ACLU project. According to Media Matters, it was independent of the ACLU.


Media Matters is wrong.  The National Security Archive at George Washington University was set up in 1985 under the auspices of the ACLU’s Center for National Security Studies, which Morton Halperin headed. The first items in its collection were the so-called “Central America Papers”,  which were declassified documents obtained by New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner, concerning the activities of rightwing death squads in El Salvador.  In 1984, Morton Halperin provided storage for these documents at the ACLU’s Washington office, pending the establishment of a permanent archive for them.   The program of events for the Archive’s 20th anniversary celebration notes that Morton Halperin “sponsored the National Security Archive in 1985 as part of the Fund for Peace and the [ACLU’s] Center for National Security Studies.”  (38)


False Allegation #13:  We are accused of having linked Aryeh Neier “falsely” to the Weather Underground, on page 23 of The Shadow Party.


Readers may judge for themselves. Here is what we wrote, on pages 23-24 of The Shadow Party: “Another key Soros appointee is Aryeh Neier, who is president of the Open Society Institute and the Soros Foundation Network.  As director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy, Neier personally created the radical group Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, in 1959.  During the Vietnam War, SDS was the student group most responsible for fanning the flames of unrest on US campuses, and later transformed itself into the terrorist Weather Underground, which declared war on `Amerikkka’ and bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol.  By that time, however, Neier had moved on to more important projects.


Media Matters objects: “Contrary to what Horowitz and Poe assert, Students for a Democratic Society did not “transform itself into the Weather Underground.” SDS essentially disintegrated following a power struggle during its 1969 convention; a splinter group comprised of some former SDS members who thought the organization was too moderate formed the Weather Underground.”


Again, Media Matters is wrong.  The Weather Underground was no “splinter” group.  It was an elite cadre of high-level SDS leaders who took charge of the entire organization at the SDS national convention of June 1969.  At the convention, Weatherman terrorists Mark Rudd, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and were elected to the top positions of national leadership in the SDS.  The Weathermen thereupon commandeered the SDS national office in Chicago, and began giving orders.  From then on, “most New Leftists recognized the Weathermen as the [SDS] organization’s leadership”, writes Drew University historian Jeremy Varon in Bringing the War Home. (39)


False Allegation #14:  We are accused of unfairly suggesting that Soros’ Open Society Institute did not make it easy for people to find out that the OSI had funded the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.


If a visitor types Lynne Stewart’s name into the search engine on the home page of the OSI site, no grants to Lynne Stewart will appear. There is no reason for a visitor to draw the conclusion that there are additional search engines buried on other, deeper layers of the site.  This is a basic site management principle, with which we presume OSI’s Web designers are familiar.


False Allegation #15:  We are accused of having “grossly overstated” the amount of money that Soros’ Open Society Institute has donated to the ACLU.


According to Media Matters, George Soros’ Open Society Institute gave only $6.6 million to the ACLU from 1998-2004.  Media Matters is wrong.


The ACLU has 51 independent affiliates, located in all fifty states and Puerto Rico.  In addition, it has an ACLU Foundation.  Soros’ Open Society Institute has given generously to many state-level ACLU affiliates, as well as to the ACLU Foundation.


We calculated Soros’ total donations to the ACLU by taking data from IRS filings, the Capital Research Center and the Foundation Directory in Manhattan, and cross-referencing them to eliminate duplicates.  We arrived at the following totals:


1998 – $4,286,720

1999 – $3,120,000

2000 – $5,379,600

2001 – $2,200,000

2002 – $2,406,000

2003 –    $747,000

2004 –    $579,500

Total: $18,718,820


False Allegation #16:  We are accused of having misrepresented the character of Mark Halperin’s infamous ABC News memo of October 8, 2004, on page 70 of The Shadow Party. Media Matters writes:  “On page 70, Horowitz and Poe recited the claim that ‘Mark Halperin, who is political director of ABC News, issued a memo to his reporters during the final weeks of the 2004 campaign, instructing them to slant the news in favor of Democrat candidate John Kerry.’ In fact, as Media Matters noted, when Brit Hume made a similar charge in October 2004, the memo actually said the opposite of what Horowitz and Poe claimed – that reporters should hold Kerry and Bush to the same standard.”


Media Matters is wrong.  Here is the full text of Mark Halperin’s memo.  It speaks for itself: