Spooky stuff this Soros guy, Hillary and the Democrat party


PDA






Can'thavenuthingood
August 29, 2006, 01:12 PM
A good interview here from Frontpage magazine without generalities. Names names and makes serious charges or uncovers much and connects the dots so to speak.

Vick

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

A new book by David Horowitz and Richard Poe has enraged the Left and alarmed many conservatives. It exposes the machinations of a radical clique working at the highest levels of government and finance to undermine American power. That book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. It hit the New York Times bestseller list in its first week in print.

Here to tell us about The Shadow Party is co-author Richard Poe, our esteemed colleague at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, where he serves as director of research. Mr. Poe has written a number of bestselling books. His last two releases were Hillary's Secret War and The Seven Myths of Gun Control.
FP: Richard Poe, welcome to Frontpage Interview.


Poe: Thank you, Jamie.

FP: So what exactly is the Shadow Party?

Poe: The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive.

The leader of these radicals is multibillionaire George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control.

FP: How does it work?

Poe: It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit.

In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates.

The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat pursestrings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him.

During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, “Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it…”

FP: Everyone knows that Soros has poured money into MoveOn. Can you name some other Shadow Party groups?

Poe: The Shadow Party is always changing. New groups form and old ones dissolve. For instance, America Coming Together -- which raised $135 million for Democrat get-out-the-vote drives in 2004 – has been mothballed, at least for now. The most active Shadow Party groups today are probably the Center for American Progress, America Votes, Democracy Alliance, the New Democrat Network, the New Politics Institute, ACORN and, of course, MoveOn.org.

FP: How does Soros use his influence over the Party?

Poe: He uses it to push the Party leftward. He is systematically purging the Party of moderates and packing it with radicals. For instance, the Shadow Party ousted Senator Joseph Lieberman in favor of Ned Lamont, because Lieberman refused to support a “cut-and-run” policy in Iraq.

FP: Isn’t that just politics as usual, though – wealthy fat cats funding their favorite candidates?

Poe: Funding ordinary candidates, be they Democrats or Republicans, would be politics as usual. Funding radical candidates who seek America’s destruction is not. Money is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. The Shadow Party is using it for evil.

FP: Does the Shadow Party really seek to destroy America?

Judge for yourself. In his new book The Age of Fallibility, Soros writes, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.” He announced in 2003 that it is necessary to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.” Soros is working systematically to achieve that goal.

On the economic front, he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation. At the same time, Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass immigration into the United States, and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants. These measures alone have the potential to bankrupt the nation. However, if they fail, Soros has another program that will certainly finish the job. A long-time Soros operative named Jeffrey Sachs has been placed in charge of the United Nations Millennium Project – a global war on poverty designed to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones. Sachs is currently demanding that American taxpayers turn over $140 billion per year to his global welfare bureaucracy.

On the political front, Soros has poured massive funding into such groups as the ACLU, which uses lawsuits to hamstring the War on Terror. Soros also funds Amnesty International, whose US executive director has called for the arrest of President Bush as a war criminal. Another Soros-funded group, The Center for Constitutional Rights, has drawn up detailed articles of impeachment against the President.

FP: Why don’t more Americans know that Soros is pushing these destructive policies?

Poe: The Shadow Party operates through deception. It uses the Democratic Party as camouflage. By posing as ordinary Democrats, Shadow Party candidates trick mainstream voters into supporting them. Their true agenda remains concealed. As Soros writes in The Age of Fallibility, “[T]he Democratic Party does not stand for the policies that I advocate; indeed, if it did, it could not be elected.”

The fact is, Soros aspires to establish a neo-socialist order in America. In the Atlantic Monthly of February 1997, he wrote, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.”

FP: Tell me about Soros’ efforts to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Poe: Mr. Soros advocates deep structural change in our system of government. In April 2005, Yale Law School hosted an event called, “The Constitution in 2020”, whose stated goal was to formulate “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.” Of the event’s five institutional sponsors, one was Soros’ flagship foundation The Open Society Institute, and two others were Soros-funded Shadow Party groups; the Center for American Progress and the American Constitution Society. We nicknamed that event the Shadow Constitutional Convention.

FP: What parts of our Constitution does Soros want to change?

Poe: He appears to have a special animus against the Bill of Rights. Take freedom of worship, for instance. Soros seems to favor some sort of religious apartheid, with fundamentalist Christians banished to a socio-political Bantustan. For example, in a New Yorker interview of October 18, 2004, he said of President Bush, “The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President.”

Then there’s the Second Amendment. Soros has provided massive funding to anti-gun groups and anti-gun litigators. The unprecedented assault on gun rights during the 1990s was largely bankrolled by Soros.

FP: You and David Horowitz have also accused Soros of promoting political censorship in America.

Poe: Most Americans do not realize that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was a Trojan Horse. Its stated purpose was to reform campaign finance law. Its actual effect is to regulate political speech. McCain-Feingold Act was a Shadow Party initiative. Soros and a group of leftwing foundations spent over $140 million to get it passed.

Here’s how it works. McCain-Feingold authorizes federal election officials to decide who may or may not run political advertisements during election season, and what sorts of ads they may run. In September 2004, a federal judge expanded McCain-Feingold’s reach by ordering the FEC to begin censoring the Internet. Blogger outrage forced the FEC to back down, but McCain-Feingold remains on the books. Sooner or later, it will be enforced, to the full extent its creators envisioned. We can thank Mr. Soros for these developments.

FP: Of course, we can also thank Republican Senator John McCain, who co-sponsored the bill.

Poe: Yes, but McCain has a long history of collusion with the Shadow Party.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Soros sponsored two so-called “Shadow Conventions,” held at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in Philadelphia and Los Angeles respectively. Their purpose was to promote campaign finance reform. John McCain gave the keynote speech at the Philadelphia “Soros Convention” (as columnist Robert Novak dubbed it), while Russ Feingold did so at the LA event.

McCain’s service to the Shadow Party brought him financial benefits. In 2001, McCain founded the Reform Institute for Campaign and Election Issues. The Institute’s major funders were mostly leftwing foundations. Prominent among them was George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

FP: It seems ironic that Soros spent ten years lobbying for campaign finance reform, only to emerge as one of the biggest influence buyers in Washington.

Poe: As I said, the McCain-Feingold Act was a Trojan Horse. It made the Shadow Party possible. Among other things, it forced the Democratic Party into a financial crisis, enabling Soros to swoop in and buy up the Party at a bargain-basement price.

Democrats have traditionally relied on large, soft-money donations from unions, while Republicans relied more on small, “hard-money” donations from mom-and-pop donors. When McCain-Feingold outlawed soft-money donations to the parties, Republicans were not unduly hampered, but Democrats flew into a panic. They faced the real possibility of bankruptcy.

Enter George Soros. After forcing the Democrats into a fiscal crisis, he then offered to rescue them. He set up a network of non-profit, “issue-advocacy” groups – the Shadow Party – and invited all the big Democrat donors to contribute to his network. Thus they could still contribute to the Democrat cause, but without giving directly to the Party. The Party became dependent on Soros to raise campaign contributions which the law now forbade the Party itself to raise.

FP: You and David Horowitz charge that Hillary Clinton has a secret alliance with Soros.

Poe: That’s right. They have to keep their alliance secret because any political coordination between them would violate federal election law. Soros’s Shadow Party is barred by law from coordinating its activities with official Democratic Party candidates, such as Hillary.

It’s a poorly-kept secret, however. At the annual Take Back America conference on June 3, 2004, Hillary gave Soros a glowing introduction, saying, “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.” More importantly, her right hand man, Harold Ickes – who served the Clinton White House as deputy chief of staff – now serves Soros as de facto CEO of the Shadow Party. Ickes plays a significant role in running Hillary’s political machine and Soros’ Shadow Party simultaneously. This is arguably illegal, but no controlling authority seems willing to intervene.

The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House. Hillary has no official connection to the Center. However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists. One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.” Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.” The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact, Soros’ brainchild.

FP: You and Mr. Horowitz have said that the Shadow Party purged Joseph Lieberman, in retaliation for his pro-war stance. How do you square that with the fact that Hillary supported Lieberman?

Poe: Hillary supported Lieberman only with lip service. She was just hedging her bets. What mattered was her announcement that she would support whomever won, be it Lieberman or Lamont. Please note that, within 24 hours of Lamont's victory over Lieberman, HILLPAC became the first Democrat political action committee to pledge money to Lamont’s campaign. With friends like that, Lieberman doesn’t need enemies.

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

Poe: It would certainly be nice if we could just sit back and wait for the Shadow Party to fizzle out of its own accord. Given what is at stake, however, I think a more energetic approach is in order.

In my view, the farther left Soros pushes the Democrats, the more dangerous they grow. The Party is becoming more cult-like and fanatical by the day. History teaches that a fanatical minority can prevail over a moderate majority. The Bolsheviks proved that in 1917. Before our eyes, the Democratic Party is transforming into a totalitarian cult, bent on seizing power by any means necessary. This is a time for vigilance, not complacency.

FP: Are we talking Red Guards in the streets? That’s a little hard to imagine.

Poe: Actually, the Shadow Party funds a number of groups which specialize in street action. Last March, about half a million protesters brought Los Angeles to a standstill, calling for open borders and free immigration. Some burned American flags and fought with police. Similar protests occurred simultaneously in many cities. The whole extravaganza was a Shadow Party operation. Virtually every sponsor was a Soros-funded group – at least eight organizations – including ACORN, La Raza, MALDEF and others. One of the organizers, the Center for Community Change, has received $5.2 million from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

FP: What is their plan? How does the Shadow Party intend to take power in America?

Poe: They appear to be pursuing a three-phase plan. The first two phases are based upon the successful strategy which the left used to force regime change in America during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.

Phase One is to impeach President Bush for allegedly deceiving the nation into war. We call this phase Watergate II.

Phase Two is to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and to cut off aid to the Iraqi Republic, just as Democrats cut off aid to South Vietnam after Nixon resigned. We call this phase Vietnam II.

Phase Three is velvet revolution. This is a term used in Eastern Europe to describe the sort of bloodless coup for which Soros is well-known in that part of the world. He has used these methods to topple regimes in many countries, such as Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia.

Soros’ velvet revolutions always follow the same pattern. The rebels wait for an election, then precipitate a crisis by charging voter fraud.

We believe the Shadow Party may attempt something similar in the USA. If they fail to win legitimately in 2008, they will likely cry voter fraud, fomenting an electoral crisis similar to the Bush-Gore deadlock of 2000.

We must expect, however, that the left has learned a few lessons since 2000. It seems doubtful that they will stake their revolution on a decision of John Roberts’ Supreme Court. More likely, they will press for international arbitration this time, possibly under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This group actually monitored our elections in 2004. Its relations with Soros – and with the Democratic Party – are extremely cordial, to say the least.

In normal times, Americans would never accept foreign arbitration of an election, but a destabilized America, demoralized by military defeat, discouraged by the fall of a president, and alarmed by orchestrated unrest in the streets, might just go along with any plan that promised to restore order.

The 2004 election almost seemed like a dress rehearsal for such a maneuver, given the raucous demand by some Congressional Democrats for UN election monitors, and the so-called Boxer Rebellion, in which Senate Democrats challenged Bush’s electoral vote count.

FP: Will Hillary be the Shadow Party candidate?

Poe: That is likely, but not inevitable. Even a “velvet” candidate needs the illusion of mass support. That could prove difficult for Hillary to conjure up. Even so, Hillary can only benefit from these machinations. If the Democrats win, we can rest assured that Soros and Hillary will be pulling the strings behind the scenes, no matter which figurehead they choose to sit on the throne.

FP: How can we fight these kinds of radical tactics?

Poe: In the short time left before 2008, we need to learn everything we can about the Shadow Party and open the eyes of as many Americans as possible to its plans.

FP: Richard Poe thank you for joining us.

Poe: My pleasure.

If you enjoyed reading about "Spooky stuff this Soros guy, Hillary and the Democrat party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Keith Wheeler
August 29, 2006, 01:30 PM
Remember, the trick is to wear tin-foil hats, not aluminum ones...

anyways I thought the right's shadow government of choice was FEMA? Or was that only before they proved to be completely inept?

Carl N. Brown
September 28, 2006, 03:35 PM
Where do we find tin foil anyway? All I can find is aluminum.

Anyway, tin foil or not, the idea that a foriegn billionaire can buy
influence and suppress political speech in America, and so many
on the American left (aka useful idiots) see nothing wrong with
that, is scary. Why should Soros' 527s be the only voices allowed
in a campaign?

Isn't George Soros the money man behind IANSA and Rebecca Peters?
Has not Rebecca Peters attacked the 1st Amendment as well as
the 2nd?

Liberal Gun Nut
September 28, 2006, 04:11 PM
Someone went to a lot of trouble to make that up, and it's not even funny or interesting enough for me to read the whole thing.

MechAg94
September 28, 2006, 04:15 PM
The important thing to remember is that Soros is not the only guy out there with money.

LESSON YOU SHOULD LEARN FROM THIS: Campaign finance laws only serve to hide the money in politics, not control it. I believe it has been said before that there was more turnover in D.C. before campaign finanace was introduced a while back.

OpFlash
September 28, 2006, 04:55 PM
Its telling how Carl Rove is demonized in the MSM regularly as being the evil brain behind the Bush administration but you only hear the name George Soros from conserative publications. I'm not saying I necessarily believe everything stated in this interview (who really knows?) but my gut tells me it contains more than a smidgen of truth.

geekWithA.45
September 28, 2006, 05:29 PM
Yeah, read that one a while back, the Jury's still out for me.

In the spectrum from cockup to conspiracy, I usually come down on the side of cockup, but this one, stripped down to bare essentials, might have some elements of truth to it:


* We know that Soros is a Player
* We know that he seeks power and influence, and spends his cash freely to obtain it.
* We know that he's sympathetic to extremish leftism.
* We know that he's played these games before.
* We know that McCain-Fiengold was a fraud. (We have video of Treglia talking about how he orchestrated a puppet play for congress, backed by 8 or 9 leftist Foundations.)
* We deeply suspect that the Dem party has been compromised by people far further left than their constituents.
* We generally regard, with room for debate, that the leftist influence to have departed the wide sphere of what's generally considered consistent with the Lockean premise of American principles.


So the pattern seems to hold.

Nonetheless, it's all circumstantial, and ambiguous enough that it may or may not be true.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 28, 2006, 05:46 PM
Well I don't know how socialist George Soros is; but he did make his money in currency speculation and destabilizing governments to promote that speculation. Economic war is launched against the United States every day on a wide variety of fronts. It wouldn't suprise me at all to see Soros leading the charge on one of those fronts.

Lucky
September 28, 2006, 05:52 PM
Can someone explain how the 3-phase plan works? He talks about Nixon losing, so he's talking about presidential stuff. But to withdraw and cut Iraq funding the D's would have to already be Pres, and they're not? Does he mean the D's control Congress and get the withdrawl done there?

Lone_Gunman
September 28, 2006, 06:05 PM
I agree this is scary stuff.

Almost as scary as the Big Oil, Karl Rove, George Bush conspiracy on the right. Gas today cost $1.98 a gallon, six weeks before elections the Republicans are worried they will lose badly. Of course, to suggest there is some kind of connection is the subject of tin-foil hat fantasies.

I have probably doomed this thread to be closed as soon as Art happens by for even mentioning this.

I find the comments about impeaching Bush particularly funny, since the Democrats have minorities in both the House and Senate, and absolutely no chance of impeaching him. If Soros is so dumb as to think that is possible, he would not be as rich as he is.

AJAX22
September 28, 2006, 06:19 PM
Initially It was my knee jerk reaction to dismiss this entierly as someones foil on to tight. but reading it thorugh all the way, it makes a few disturbingly lucid points.

R.H. Lee
September 28, 2006, 07:22 PM
We've already got a Shadow government (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52164) with shadow agencies (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52170), so what's wrong with a shadow party?

Gordon Fink
September 28, 2006, 07:41 PM
I’ve often wondered what a multi-billionaire would stand to gain from turning the United States into a “socialist hive”—besides bankruptcy, I mean.

~G. Fink

Bartholomew Roberts
September 28, 2006, 08:15 PM
Almost as scary as the Big Oil, Karl Rove, George Bush conspiracy on the right. Gas today cost $1.98 a gallon, six weeks before elections the Republicans are worried they will lose badly.

Gas today cost $1.98 a gallon because after Katrina shut in refineries and pumping rigs for months last year due to hurricanes, someone had the bright idea to plan ahead for this year's hurricane season and produce more petroleum products than they thought they would need.

No hurricanes have come along, so there is an excess of gasoline on the market. Transport costs make it cheaper to sell the gas locally rather than ship it to where market prices are higher. Supply and demand. Given the current world demand for oil, it would be difficult to manipulate the market price even if you wanted to and had the ability. Drive the market price of oil down to $40 a barrel to sway American voters and China buys twice as much for its future growth needs, driving the price back up.

Lone_Gunman
September 28, 2006, 08:28 PM
I certainly hope you are right, and that special interests are not attempting to manipulate voters.

I was told in another thread that oil companies have no interest in politics and are only trying to make money. If that is true, though, they are unique among industries. Every other industry seems to lobby heavily and support candidates they think will vote favorably for them.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 28, 2006, 09:56 PM
Every other industry seems to lobby heavily and support candidates they think will vote favorably for them.

Politics is all about making money. It isn't that I don't think the oil companies wouldn't prefer the Republicans to maintain power - it is just that nobody who wants to make that claim wants to show the economic data. Where is the excess production and refining capability being used to depress market prices coming from? I'm not a big fan of shadowy conspiracy theories that attribute vague powers to groups as though they are not bound by economics and physics like the rest of us mere mortals.

For that matter, I don't know that I think it is wrong or bad that a company sacrifice its own profitability to support a candidate it thinks will be best for it in the long run. In the end, it is still the decision of the individual voter to reward that strategy. Voters who do will get what they bargained for...

Lucky
September 28, 2006, 11:02 PM
Price isn't actually determined like that, aiui. It's set not by what's available and what's wanted, and not by what people think will be available and what will be wanted, but by what people think people will think will be available and wanted.

There was a stockbroker in Japan who ignored his bosses orders and cornered the world copper supply, simply by gaining control of 5%. 5% is considered control.

I'm not saying I believe there's a conspiracy to keep prices low, because it doesn't make much sense, to me. But for the record, wasn't one of the deciding factors in the Soviet Union's downfall the US influence on OPEC to over-produce oil, driving down the price, and kicking out the last leg the Soviet economy had to stand on? That was my understanding.

Liberal Gun Nut
September 28, 2006, 11:16 PM
If you can't see that that interview was made up, kinda like a small part of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or something, then geez

CalamityJane
September 28, 2006, 11:42 PM
I'm about half-way through this book right now, and it has explained a lot of things for me. I have a pretty high threshhold against believing in conspiracies, but this rings true. I hope many people read the book, or at least hear about it.

longhorngunman
September 28, 2006, 11:44 PM
How can you say it was made up? You said you didn't bother reading it. On to other things. If Big oil/Rove/Bush&Co. are so adapt at manipulating oil prices then why did they allow the price to go UP drastically before Bush's 04 re-election? Oil really started jumping in 2004 and of course upset a lot of the sheep who took it out on Bush. He'd won with 60% of the vote if gas had been a dollar.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 29, 2006, 12:26 AM
But for the record, wasn't one of the deciding factors in the Soviet Union's downfall the US influence on OPEC to over-produce oil, driving down the price, and kicking out the last leg the Soviet economy had to stand on? That was my understanding.

It wasn't U.S. influence on OPEC, so much as U.S. influence on a specific member of OPEC - although to be honest, the Soviet Union didn't do itself any favors by attacking a nation that the OPEC nations perceived to be Islamic.

The big difference is in the mid-80s, the Saudis maintained an excess production capacity of almost 10 million barrels/day. The Saudis have not really added any additional capacity since then though and the summer figures from EIA show their excess production capacity at more like 1.7 million barrels/day. That makes a big influence on their ability to affect the market.

The other issue is that the "Big Oil" isn't that big on the national stage. In most of the rest of the world, oil companies are owned by the state (i.e. Royal Dutch Shell, TotalFinaElf, Saudi Aramco, Pemex, etc.). Even if Bush and his oil buddies got together and conspired to lower prices to facilitate Republican power in Congress, all it would take is a token gesture by the likes of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela being both a major source of U.S. oil and also owning refineries in the U.S.) to erase that from the map and then some. You start looking at some of the other oil-producing countries that have some animus towards GWB (Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc.) and it becomes pretty apparent that American oil companies would be risking a lot of money on a very chancey bet.

Now the Saudis may be the one country that still has the power; but even in their case there is only so much you can do - and the surplus production figures from EIA show they aren't doing it. In fact, the Saudis are only producing about 0.2 MMBD over their OPEC quota.

Lone_Gunman
September 29, 2006, 01:17 AM
Even if Bush and his oil buddies got together and conspired to lower prices to facilitate Republican power in Congress, all it would take is a token gesture by the likes of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela being both a major source of U.S. oil and also owning refineries in the U.S.) to erase that from the map and then some.


I am not sure what that means. What token gesture are you talking about?

mdao
September 29, 2006, 02:08 AM
I am not sure what that means. What token gesture are you talking about?

Hugo Chavez could just decide that he doesn't like selling to imperial US scum and reduce oil shipments to the US. It'd take a bit of time before we'd be able to secure alternate supplies and prices would spike.

ReadyontheRight
September 29, 2006, 02:21 AM
I’ve often wondered what a multi-billionaire would stand to gain from turning the United States into a “socialist hive”—besides bankruptcy, I mean.


Yeah -- Socialist leaders have no money or power. Right?:rolleyes:

As has been said before, some animals are more equal than others.

Liberal Gun Nut
September 29, 2006, 03:01 AM
I'm talking about this Shadow Party. Come on. That's stupid.

Of course there are insider groups within the Dems, and the Republicans, and probably also the Libertarians and the Ferret Liberation Front also. Of course George Soros is in this insider group. He probably has Charles Schumer's cell phone number, just like Jeb Bush probably has Dick Chenney's phone number. Whatever. As soon as he talks about something called the Shadow Party, he's just talking nonsense.

Of course George Soros and the Democrats want to create a situation where there is federal oversight of every aspect of our lives. That's not exactly hidden, is it?

Lone_Gunman
September 29, 2006, 09:18 AM
Hugo Chavez could just decide that he doesn't like selling to imperial US scum and reduce oil shipments to the US. It'd take a bit of time before we'd be able to secure alternate supplies and prices would spike.

Could he and Venezuela stand to do that, even for the short term? The Venezuelan economy is less stable than ours. They need to sell us oil worse than we need to buy it from them. I don't think that short term (say the next 6 weeks), they could impact our gasoline prices.

geekWithA.45
September 29, 2006, 09:25 AM
Interesting sidebar on energy, and kicking the last leg out from beneath the Soviet stool:

We used an economic software weapon on the Soviets, which caused an overpressure condition and a huge explosion in a natural gas pipeline.

Nobody directly injured.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002

Bartholomew Roberts
September 29, 2006, 11:58 AM
They need to sell us oil worse than we need to buy it from them. I don't think that short term (say the next 6 weeks), they could impact our gasoline prices.

The point is that Chavez can continue to sell us oil (and at higher prices) while easily undoing anything that "Big Oil" in the U.S. could conspire to do. And it doesn't have to be Chavez.. he is just in the best position to do it.

Lone_Gunman
September 29, 2006, 01:48 PM
I still dont see how Chavez selling us oil could undo a conspiracy by Big Oil to lower prices right before an election. If he continued to sell oil, wouldnt that drive the price down even further?

Carl N. Brown
September 29, 2006, 03:12 PM
Gas today cost $1.98 a gallon, six weeks before elections

Oil and gas prices have gone down in other countries outside
the influence of any Texas Big Oil conspiracy, unless Bush is
conspiring to go beyond buying the election with cheap gas,
but is going to rule the world, nya-ha-ha-ha.

Soros has too much influence in american politics but that does
not prove the existence of a "Shadow Party" just as oil and gas
prices going down and elections coming up can be totally
coincidental.

Lone_Gunman
September 29, 2006, 03:26 PM
Soros has too much influence in american politics but that does
not prove the existence of a "Shadow Party" just as oil and gas
prices going down and elections coming up can be totally
coincidental.


That is my whole point. Neo-Conservatives will enthusiastically believe in the Shadow Party, and deny a big oil conspiracy. Liberals do exactly the opposite.

romma
September 29, 2006, 03:47 PM
Where individuality gives way to the "collective good". After all, people either in power or grappling for power know what is best for all of us. Make no mistake about it, there is at least one or more concerted efforts under way to rule,censor and restrict what we may or may not do. Gun control, media control, energy control, revenue control, birth control, impulse control and control control... My hands can't type all the different control methods currently being implemented because they hurt from typing so much... And besides, you get the point.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 29, 2006, 03:59 PM
I still dont see how Chavez selling us oil could undo a conspiracy by Big Oil to lower prices right before an election. If he continued to sell oil, wouldnt that drive the price down even further?

Venezuela is number three on the list of countries we buy oil from (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm) (behind Canada and Mexico). Venezuela sells us more oil than Saudi Arabia does AND they own the refining capacity in the U.S. to process it into gasoline.

So say gas drops $0.10 a gallon - all Hugo has to do is throttle back on the output of crude oil and the output of refineries owned. He doesn't have to stop selling entirely (despite the "all or nothing" nature of the Internet). Gas will soon be back up to its original price. As to whether Venezuela can afford to do that, they certainly can bear the expense better than a cartel of smaller private corporations.

Here is some more info on gas prices and comparative demand:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

Correia
September 29, 2006, 04:14 PM
And you guys thought that "Welcome Home Mr. Nightcrawler" was a work of fiction. :)

CAnnoneer
September 29, 2006, 04:41 PM
Most of the fragments are probably true, but I doubt the existence of an all-pervasive conspiracy. Human societies instead exhibit a form of "collective" intelligence in that a number of people in different positions and of different views end up pushing the whole system into a particular convergent direction albeit for generally divergent reasons. That is why what has to be defeated is the very ideology of the left, at the most general level possible. Only that would stop the disparate busybody cogwheels in the machine from turning the wrong way...

Malone LaVeigh
September 29, 2006, 06:43 PM
Right-wingers like Scaife and Coors have been funneling funds to thier favorite political operatives for decades. It's about time the other side got some cojones. We are well on our way to being some kind of a facist one-party dictatorship.

Fletchette
September 29, 2006, 07:10 PM
Geekwitha45:
In the spectrum from cockup to conspiracy, I usually come down on the side of cockup, but this one, stripped down to bare essentials, might have some elements of truth to it:


* We know that Soros is a Player
* We know that he seeks power and influence, and spends his cash freely to obtain it.
* We know that he's sympathetic to extremish leftism.
* We know that he's played these games before.
* We know that McCain-Fiengold was a fraud. (We have video of Treglia talking about how he orchestrated a puppet play for congress, backed by 8 or 9 leftist Foundations.)
* We deeply suspect that the Dem party has been compromised by people far further left than their constituents.
* We generally regard, with room for debate, that the leftist influence to have departed the wide sphere of what's generally considered consistent with the Lockean premise of American principles.


So the pattern seems to hold.

This is also my take. While people are typically skeptical of "conspiracy theories" (which is a good thing, by the way) I see some truth to this one. The Soros faction of the Democrat Party has reminded me of the Bolsheviks and Nazis in their infancy. Both of those groups were a) minority populations that took power surreptitiously and b) conspiracies that actually did occur, no tin-foil required.

A German in the late 20's or a Russian in the early 20th century would probably scoff at someone worried about those conspiracies.

Read my signature line.

Fletchette
September 29, 2006, 07:11 PM
I’ve often wondered what a multi-billionaire would stand to gain from turning the United States into a “socialist hive”—besides bankruptcy, I mean.

~G. Fink

Power.

Fletchette
September 29, 2006, 09:42 PM
Interesting sidebar on energy, and kicking the last leg out from beneath the Soviet stool:

We used an economic software weapon on the Soviets, which caused an overpressure condition and a huge explosion in a natural gas pipeline.

Nobody directly injured.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002

Very interesting. From the article:

"The files were incredibly explicit. They set forth the extent of Soviet penetration into U.S. and other Western laboratories, factories and government agencies."

"Reading the material caused my worst nightmares to come true," Weiss recalled. The documents showed the Soviets had stolen valuable data on radar, computers, machine tools and semiconductors, he wrote. "Our science was supporting their national defense."

This could aptly describe the present situation with the Chinese. Somehow, I am less than optimistic that we have a Reagan that is looking out for our country.

Also note: the Russian spy that helped us in this program did so for ideological reasons. This is direct evidence against all those who believe "economic reasons" are behind everything. Ideas matter.

That Russian should be commended.

MechAg94
September 29, 2006, 11:22 PM
I don't see anyone believing in some all powerful conspiracy. This is just a rich foreiner trying to buy influence in US politics and being somewhat successful at it. Like I said earlier, he ain't the only one and he don't have enough money himself to do it all.

thumbody
September 30, 2006, 08:21 PM
I’ve often wondered what a multi-billionaire would stand to gain from turning the United States into a “socialist hive”—besides bankruptcy, I mean.

~G. Fink

The tax laws of the US whether as they are now or under socialism wouldn't affect Soros at all. He has his money invested in offshore banks that the US gov can't touch. That is why people like him and the Kennedy clan are for keeping the inheritance taxes high or raising them,they are not affected. Only those whose money is invested in the US. Those folks didn't get rich by playing by the same rules that apply to commoners.

If you enjoyed reading about "Spooky stuff this Soros guy, Hillary and the Democrat party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!