If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

9/14/2007

Freedom's Watch

FreedomsWatch.jpg

Have you seen the thirty-second television spots, or heard the shorter radio spots, being sponsored by Freedom’s Watch? If not, you must.

The simple, half-minute, fact-based snapshots are far more powerful than we might believe. They grab the viewers’ and listeners’ attention instantaneously, and they are just the kind of honest ‘sound bite’ that will leave a lasting impression on those of our countrymen who are not necessarily interested in doing their own research, are being swayed by the mainstream media’s bias, but are open to hearing the truth. The average American will be deeply touched by these messages.

Take 3 ½ minutes out of your busy day to watch these seven powerful testimonials to our military’s successes in Iraq (especially number four – in which double amputee, re-enlistee John Kreisel reminds us that ‘It’s no time to quit. It’s no time for politics’.)

The first time my husband and I saw one of Freedom's Watch’s television spots, about two weeks ago, I immediately went to my computer to find out how we can financially support this organization that is obviously dedicated to countering the lies, distortions and anti-American sentiment being disseminated by the likes of moveon.org – and being telegraphed by the left-leaning politicians and their cohorts in the media.

I discovered, upon hitting the ‘donate’ link on their site, that the organization does not as yet have the ability to receive donations on the website. Apparently they are too busy doing more important things, like attempting to counteract media propaganda and leftist political posturing, by spreading the truth. I checked back in tonight, two weeks later, and there is still no way to donate.

I sent Freedom’s Watch an e-mail tonight, strongly suggesting that they attempt to enable that donation link soon, because I am certain that my husband and I are not the only patriots who have been sufficiently impressed by their ‘product’ to want to become a part of the crusade ourselves, if only financially.

How very different this organization is from those supported by the left, to whom power and money are of ultimate importance, and America’s sovereignty and the safety of her citizens are secondary.

LeftistCamouflage.jpg

Freedom’s Watch has also requested of the New York Times that the newspaper allow the organization to place the same size ad that moveon.org placed this week, at the identical reduced rate of $65,000 – enjoying the same $117,000 discount. The Times has yet to respond to their request.

I urge all of you to watch their seven television spots on the site, and to check back as I did tonight, until they have installed the capability to receive donations online. Then please donate as much as you are able. Because of the historically unprecedented, entrenched, seemingly monumental depth of the corruption and treason in Washington, most of us feel powerless anymore to affect change, and to reclaim our republic from the scoundrels who seek to lead her, while also despising her foundations. This is one small, but powerful, way we can attempt to do so from the comfort of our own homes.

I will provide a heads-up when I find that the site has enabled the donation link, and I ask anyone else who might discover that before I do to post an alert as well.

support those1.jpg

~ joanie

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Awesome! I will donate as soon as the link is up and running.

Al said...

MOVEon.org showed their clout when they ran Lieberman out of the Democratic party.

The result?

Lieberman won election to the US Senate anyway.

And as a result of MOVEon's "taking care" of him,

there is one less Democrat in the US Senate.

(Lieberman won as an Independent, despite MOVEon's big dollar efforts against him).

Anonymous said...

Moveon is bankrolled heavily by Google.

Al said...

SEN. CLINTON'S SLUR

NY POST 9-13-2007

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/postopinion/editorials/sen__clintons_slur.htm

September 13, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday found herself positioned firmly to the left of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding that disgusting New York Times/MoveOn "General Betray Us" attack on Gen. David Petraeus' integrity.

That's not an enviable position for a woman who's trying to convince the American people that she's fit to be president of the United States.

Further complicating her life was the position former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took yesterday on the general, the importance of victory in Iraq and . . . the truth. You couldn't ask for a more stark contrast at this stage in a possible Giuliani-Clinton presidential face-off.

At issue was the MoveOn ad, published in Monday's Times, attacking Petraeus' honor as a man and as a soldier.

How disgusting was it?

Even Pelosi, one of the most left-wing speakers ever, said she'd have "preferred that they won't do such an ad."

But Clinton not only couldn't bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus' honesty: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," she huffed to the general Tuesday.

And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as "de facto spokesmen for a failed policy," pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who'd "betray" his nation.

Giuliani, by contrast, had it exactly right.

He called the MoveOn ad "one of the more disgusting things that has happened in American politics."

Added America's Mayor: "The failure of the Democratic candidates to really condemn that, given how much money MoveOn.org spends on behalf of Democratic candidates, is unfortunate."

To say the least.

Meanwhile, the Times' own complicity in the despicable slur turns out to be even worse than imagined: Not only did the newspaper agree to run the libel, it apparently subsidized the hard-left sewer rats who wrote it.

To the tune of more than $116,000.

MoveOn yesterday confirmed that it paid just $65,000 for the full-page missive - compared to what a Times spokesman said is usually $181,000 for such ads.

So, we wonder: Will the Times report the $116,000 difference as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic National Committee - or to Hillary herself?

As if.

Actually, MoveOn might feel cheated: Just a day earlier, The New York Times Magazine ran a free 4,900-word puff piece ("Can Lobbyists Stop the War?") hyping the group and an anti-war coalition it formed.

Maybe the value of that should be declared, as well.

On the merits of Sen. Clinton's attack on Petraeus' report, we wonder:

* Does she have specific data to refute the general's numbers?

* Can she explain why someone like him would risk his career and reputation and lie to Congress?

* Will she show how the two intelligence agencies that vouch for him erred - or, worse, conspired with him to deceive the nation?

Of course not. On all three counts.

But Hillary's slur was an effective way to provide aid and comfort to MoveOn. "There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation," said Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero and Republican presidential contender in his own right. "I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander."

Clinton & Co. need to explain.

daveburkett said...

Thank you Joanie. The videos are excellent. I will donate just as soon as they activate the link.

Al said...

CLINTON BLOWS HER BIG CHANCE

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09142007/news/columnists/clinton_blows_her_big_chance.htm

NY POST September 14, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Either The New York Times is so desperate for ads these days that it's offering fire-sale prices, or it has thrown in with one of the most rabid left-wing outfits in the county.

The facts are clear and simple:

The going rate for a full-page ad for an advocacy group is $181,000, the Times says.

MoveOn.org says it paid just $65,000 for such an ad earlier this week essentially calling the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq - four-star Gen. David Petraeus - a traitor.

The Times refuses to explain the discount, and some are eager to give the paper the benefit of the doubt.

Secrecy and giving benefit of the doubt - thank goodness - aren't what newspapers are supposed to be about.

Certainly, the rancid ad has backfired on MoveOn and blown up in the Gray Lady's face.

But it also causes far more serious problems for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who refuses to denounce it.
snip

CLINTON BLOWS HER BIG CHANCE
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09142007/news/columnists/clinton_blows_her_big_chance.htm

NY POST September 14, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Either The New York Times is so desperate for ads these days that it's offering fire-sale prices, or it has thrown in with one of the most rabid left-wing outfits in the county.

The facts are clear and simple:

The going rate for a full-page ad for an advocacy group is $181,000, the Times says.

MoveOn.org says it paid just $65,000 for such an ad earlier this week essentially calling the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq - four-star Gen. David Petraeus - a traitor.

The Times refuses to explain the discount, and some are eager to give the paper the benefit of the doubt.

Secrecy and giving benefit of the doubt - thank goodness - aren't what newspapers are supposed to be about.

Certainly, the rancid ad has backfired on MoveOn and blown up in the Gray Lady's face.

But it also causes far more serious problems for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who refuses to denounce it.

snip

Calling Petraeus truth-challenged may bring cheers from the far left, anti-war wing of her party.

But Clinton is sorely mistaken if she thinks her trashing of a four-star general will somehow absolve her of her vote in favor of this war in 2002.

snip

why is she pandering to this fringe group of the Democratic Party?

She should instead be a front-runner and begin her long journey toward calming reservations about her among independents and even Republicans who are sick and tired of the GOP.

Calling a troop commander a liar isn't the way to do that.

Anonymous said...

"Freedom’s Watch has also requested of the New York Times that the newspaper allow the organization to place the same size ad that moveon.org placed this week, at the identical reduced rate of $65,000 – enjoying the same $117,000 discount. The Times has yet to respond to their request."

Good for them, but I sure hope they're not holding their breath.

ferdie said...

ANOTHER reaction to the MOVEon-NY TIMES ad---

‘Betray us’ betrays entire U.S. officer corps

THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Tacoma, WA - September 13, 2007

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/story/154965.html

This week, Gen. David Petraeus met Gen. Benedict Arnold in the pages of The New York Times.

The introduction was made by MoveOn.org, which – in a full-page ad – rechristened the top American commander in Iraq as “General Betray Us.”

This oh-so-clever play on Petraeus’ name was meant to discredit his long-anticipated report to Congress on the Iraq war. In an extraordinary display of prescience, MoveOn and some other Democratic opponents of the Iraq war were attacking the general’s testimony before he’d so much as uttered a word of it.

Let’s talk about the word “betray.”

According to the dictionaries, it and “treason” have a common Latin root – “tradere.” This means to hand over or deliver up, as Benedict Arnold attempted to hand over the citadel of West Point to British in the Revolutionary War.

Here’s the chief definition of “betray,” according to “Webster’s New World College Dictionary”:

a) To help the enemy of (one’s country, cause, etc.); be a traitor to

b) to deliver or expose to an enemy traitorously

So the people at MoveOn were essentially accusing Petraeus of treason for disagreeing with their views on the war.

Funny – we thought impugning the patriotism of political opponents was something Democrats usually accused Republicans of doing.

MoveOn’s behavior isn’t the only issue here. Other opponents of the war jumped on Petraeus – who reported substantial military progress in Iraq – for supposedly parroting the White House line.

This is another, more covert attack on Petraeus’ integrity. Military officers are ultimately accountable, not only to the president, but to Congress. They swear to defend the Constitution, which invests the war-making power in both the executive and the legislative branches, and they do not swear – as do enlisted personnel – to “obey the orders of the president.”

So when Petraeus testifies to the House or Senate, he is answering to his bosses. Military officers well understand that they have an obligation to speak to Congress as truthfully as they know how.

Does Petraeus support the president’s “surge” of troops in Iraq? Of course he does – he was one of its original advocates. Supporting your own strategy hardly makes you a toady of the White House.

This isn’t just about Petraeus. Such groundless assumptions of dishonest testimony on his part are insulting to the entire officer corps.

. . .

This week, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both asked if they would condemn the “General Betray Us” line. Neither did.

The people at MoveOn aren’t backing down either. They issued a statement: “We stand by our ad.” That, and the refusal of the leading Democratic presidential candidates to disavow it, is nothing short of disgraceful.

Anonymous said...

No Democratic censure for MoveOn ad
By Sean Lengell
Washington Times September 12, 2007

Democratic congressional leaders and the party's presidential candidates yesterday refused to repudiate a liberal group's ad questioning Gen. David H. Petraeus' character.

Capitol Hill Democrats rejected a call for votes in both chambers to condemn the attack newspaper ad, run by MoveOn.org, saying Republicans are trying to take attention off what they call the president's failed Iraq policy.

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.

The MoveOn.org ad which ran in the New York Times on Monday features a photo of the general, who is giving testimony on Iraq to Congress this week, and the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

Republicans had hoped to force Democrats into the uncomfortable position of voting for a measure to officially denounce an organization that has helped raise millions for party candidates in recent elections.

"This smear campaign consisted of entirely unwarranted and fallacious attacks, and sought to impugn the name of a highly respected man of integrity," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican.

Mr. Cornyn introduced the Senate resolution yesterday condemning the attacks that was rejected by Democrats.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070912/NATION/109120086/1002

Ferdie said...

Has MoveOn Betrayed the Democratic Party?
The meaning of the “General Betray Us” ad.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGVlNTM2NzgwN2Q1Yjk3Zjk5NTlmNGI3OGMxNmFmM2M=

By Byron York September 10, 2007

With its full-page “General Betray Us?” ad in the New York Times, MoveOn.org has once again put itself at the forefront of the antiwar movement. And if past patterns are any guide, a number of Democrats are embarrassed, and even angered, by MoveOn’s actions but are afraid to reveal the true extent of their feelings. MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout — and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line — for many in the party to take it on.

Democratic leaders might be further embarrassed by a new email, headlined “Your dog can help end the war,” sent out by the leadership of MoveOn’s political team. The email asks members to attend a protest on Capitol Hill this morning preceding the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. “Congress was fooled before by the White House’s ‘dog and pony show,” the appeal says. “We need to make sure they’re not fooled again. That’s why we’re hosting our own ‘Dog and Pony Show’ outside the Capitol Building right before Petraeus takes the stage for his testimony. We want to show Congress and the cameras that the American people aren’t buying the White House spin.”

“We’re bringing real ponies, signs and a big banner that reads, ‘CONGRESS: Don’t be fooled, AGAIN!’ Can you make it — and bring your dog if you have one?”

It seems unlikely that many top Democrats will be bringing pets. But the thing that should trouble party leaders is not that MoveOn is capable of silly stunts. It’s not even that MoveOn is capable of making slanderous comments about U.S. military officials. And it’s not that MoveOn is against the war in Iraq, which polls show many Americans believe was a mistake. Rather, MoveOn’s latest campaign is a continuation of a drive to oppose not just the action in Iraq, but the war on terror in general, and, in a larger sense, America’s use of military power in its own defense.

MoveOn was founded in 1998 by a husband-and-wife team of Berkeley, California software developers named Wes Boyd and Joan Blades. Its original mission was to oppose the Clinton impeachment. In 1999, after the impeachment trial ended with Clinton’s acquittal, MoveOn moved on to defeating Republicans who had favored impeachment. It mostly failed in that effort, and soon after the 2000 elections found itself without a clear political goal. All that changed on September 11, 2001.

At a time when polls showed a huge majority of Americans favoring military action against the terrorists who attacked New York and Washington, MoveOn put its energy into opposing the war in Afghanistan. Shortly after the terrorist attacks, Boyd and Blades circulated a petition that read, “Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists’ hands.”

At the same time, an activist named Eli Pariser, recently graduated from college, circulated a petition of his own, calling on George W. Bush to use “moderation and restraint” in responding to 9/11 and “to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.” Boyd and Blades were so impressed by Pariser’s work that they hired him; he now is a top MoveOn official.

Now, with the “General Betray Us” campaign, those Democrats again face the question: Do they dare to cross MoveOn? Not long after the 2004 elections, Pariser famously said of Democrats, “Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” The next few days could be crucial in determining whether he was right or not.

Anonymous said...

Oliver Stone to create anti-Iraq war TV spot for MoveOn.org

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2007/04/21/oliverstone-moveon-iraq.html?ref=rss

Disgusted said...

SMEARING A HERO NY TIMES and MOVEon team up

September 12, 2007 -- It's hard to decide which was the more disgusting: Monday's New York Times ad slandering Gen. David Petraeus, or the newspaper's decision to publish it in the first place.

Or was it the refusal of Sen. Hillary Clinton - who aspires to become commander-in-chief - to condemn it?

The ad, placed by the hard-left paranoiacs at MoveOn.org, libeled a genuine American hero while further debasing the political debate in America - no mean feat, but all in a day's work for the social termites at MoveOn.

One expects better from the Times, though. It is one thing to print paid opinion - but quite another to participate in the rhetorical tar-and-feathering of a singular public servant like Petraeus.

His sin?

He presented to Congress a meticulously detailed report on the progress of the conflict in Iraq. The news, if not unambiguously good, is at least optimistic - that is, if one wants America to actually win the war.

And it's not Petraeus's view alone: Two U.S. intelligence agencies deemed the report's methodology and numbers the most accurate and authoritative on Iraq.

No matter. MoveOn begs to differ, and the Times seconds the motion.

The ad called Petraeus a liar - a "military man constantly at war with the facts" - and accused him of "cooking the books" about Iraq.

It called Gen. Petraeus "General Betray Us," mocking the one thing a military man cherishes most - and that MoveOn understands least : personal honor.

But forget the hard left for a moment. What about supposedly mainstream Democrats?

Don't they find this kind of fascistic smear over the top?

Apparently not.

Indeed, it seems they meant for groups like MoveOn to be their attack dog.

"No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV," a report quoted one (unsurprisingly) anonymous Dem senator saying. "The outside groups will do this for us." (From the senator's mouth to the Times' megaphone.)

Sen. Clinton also went deep. A spokesman for her presidential campaign, Blake Zeff, said calls to condemn the slur were "a political sideshow," adding that Clinton would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."

Sorry, but her focus at the moment should be on defending the honor of the officer she voted to confirm as top commander in Iraq.

She's not the only Democrat to duck the issue - fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer was also AWOL yesterday - but she's the member of her party most likely to be elected president next year.

And unwillingness to defend a general officer - not on a matter of policy, but on a point of personal honor - won't go unnoticed in the Pentagon.

Not to mention that it would be the right thing to do.

Yes, it might cost her with the MoveOn termites, to say nothing of the editors of The New York Times.

But leaders lead.

Gen Petraeus knows that.

Sen. Clinton needs to learn it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122007/postopinion/editorials/smearing_a_hero.htm

Anonymous said...

Moveon.org is a nasty little group of overly funded anti-Americans.

robmaroni said...

"all in a day's work for the social termites at moveon."

I love it! No punches pulled! Good find, disgusted.

Disgusted said...

There is no better way to see liberalism and the Democratic party being exposed than by left wing groups like MoveOn.org and Hollywood. Please keep speaking MoveOn.org...

smithy said...

Isn't it amazing how moveon actually ANNOUNCES that the Democrat party has finally been officially BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, and that all the major Democrat candidates will be spouting the moveon propaganda, OR ELSE?

Talk about chutzpah! And the (not so) funny thing is that, with time, there will be little backlash.

More and more it looks like the 2008 election will be the predictor of whether we turn this country around or seal its doom.

Thisisagoodsite! said...

Nothing turns me off more than moveon.org trying to convince me that our soldiers are liars and baby killers.

Didn't the Democrats learn their lesson with Kerry that this won't work in the 21st century!!!

Anonymous said...

Those who enable MOVEONorg are anti-American, anti-military, and suffer horribly from anal-cranial inversion.

john galt said...

George Soros is scum.

He's deeply involved with moveon.org, Center for American Progress, Open Society Institute, Democracy Alliance, Tides Foundation, and Media Matters. Got an organization that promotes the far-left political agenda, wants to influence the media and to defeat the Republicans? He'll fund it.

Moveon.org has a conference call every morning with Democratic lawmakers in Washington. He seems to have found a "legal" way to buy direct access and influence in Washington.

If he gets away with it, and if he has a major say in the next presidential election, kiss America goodbye.

Al said...

Hillary Clinton accuses the general of being a liar?

Bill Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas and also from appearing before the US Supreme Court for LYING UNDER OATH before a grand jury.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, why the hell should we believe a highly decorated four star general who was wounded three times in battle and holds a PHD from Princeton when we can listen to someone as baggage-laden as Hillary Clinton. Her accusations of lying against the General were extraordinarily pathetic given her past history!

Anonymous said...

A foreigner is the most influential mover and shaker behind the modern democrat party. A fine mess we've got ourselves into.

Anonymous said...

MOVEON.ORG is an enemy combatant. PERIOD!

marcus aurelius said...

A must read for any who do not know:

"The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party"

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595551034/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4047432-1152003?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189836009&sr=8-1

Sandra said...

I think she's got a lot more guts than her husband does. But he's got better hair.

***********************************

Elizabeth Edwards makes hers the first campaign to directly criticize MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, breaking with the Democrats' strategy of, basically, ignoring it.

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/A_Sistah_Souljah_moment.html

Disgusted said...

The left have always "spit" on all of the military, stomped on their graves and this continues to this day.

Patriot American said...

MoveOn.org is really not all that extreme people. Go to the site and see what they have. It's mostly petitions and the like. They don't threaten people with machine gun death or call people personal names like the right does on a daily basis. If you have a legitimate beef or disagreement, state your disagreement logically and maturely. When you start comparing your fellow countrymen to Dictators like Stalin and Hitler or insinuating they somehow would enjoy an American "defeat" (whatever that means), than you're not to be taken seriously. This is big boy subject matter, try and act accordingly.

Anonymous said...

For some reason these people in Wahington, think they are Gods, when in reality they are a bunch of asses. They should all be tried for treason along with Harry the crook and Nancy the moron.

Ferdie said...

MoveOn.org targets Giuliani

MoveOn.org plans to escalate the political ad wars in an early primary state.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – After first sharply criticizing Gen. David Petraeus, MoveOn.org is now setting its sights on former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

MoveOn.org is planning to air a television ad in Iowa, which will focus on Giuliani’s “frequent absences” while working with Iraq Study Group, said a MoveOn.org spokesperson. Earlier in the week, the liberal advocacy group took out an ad in The New York Times attacking Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq.

A Giuliani spokeswoman was dismissive of the new television ad.

“This is, after all, the same liberal group whose website compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler, the same liberal group that wanted no military response against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11,” the spokeswoman said.

The announcement of the new MoveOn.org television ad comes the same day Giuliani placed his own ad in the Times Friday rebutting the organization and attacking "the Democrats' orchestrated attacks on General Petraeus."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/14/moveonorg-targets-giuliani/

Thisisagoodsite! said...

As a former G.I., here is what I see as the difference between conservatives and liberals (please note that I did not say Republicans and Democrats): For a conservative, it will always be "America First." For a liberal, it will always be "America's fault." The loudest liberal voices are those that neither urge a better way to prosecute this war, nor address the good things that soldiers do. Instead, the loudest voices, are those that speak of Americans as murderers, rapists, and warmongers (Brian DePalma, MoveOn, etc.). Where were those voices, when President Clinton was conducting the air war against the Serbs? This leads me to believe that this is not about right versus wrong, but about pushing for liberal power.

Ferdie said...

Sandra, What does that tell you when Elizabeth Edwards disagrees with fellow lefties? The far left has lost its mind!!!

Ret. Navy Nurse said...

Do I need to remind the entire country that if it wasn't for myself, my fellow military brethern and honorable, outstanding men and women like General Patreus going all the way back to the American Revolution (of which I can personally trace my family roots of military service) that we as Americans today have the rights we have. It is not the military that you should take your disgust and fight with. It is with your do-nothing politicians who refuse to allow the military to do the job that they were sent to do and to fund that job. So stop your whinning, back stabbing and snickering. Buck up, get a back bone and stand behind your military. They fight for your rights remember that and don't ever forget that. They uphold the Constitution that gives you the right to take pot shots at good and honorable people who love this country. Are you ready to sacrifice yourself, your loved one? Before you start touting your polictical correctness and blasphemy. Are you prepared to die for your country? I am. They are. Are you? Probably not. So stop your sniveling and whinning. Support your troops before the terrorists hit us again. And if you think that Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists don't want us dead, think again. America, it's time to wake up and get your head out you know what. We are at WAR. That means there will be casualties and there will be collateral damage. That is what war is all about. It is an ugly job. Nobody likes, nobody wants it. Did everyone forget 9/11/01. and 1993 bombing, and the USS Cole and the Beirut bombing and the Iranian Hostage Crisis and on, and on. We've been dealing with this for over 30yrs, not just the last 5. Do you all of you have short term memory loss or what? You all need to get caught up with the history of the area over the last 1000 years and back. This area of the world has known nothing but violence. They have ruled by the sword not diplomacy. They don't know what peace is. They want a holy war. Bin Laden got special permission from the highest cleric (muslim priest) in Saudia Arabia. This is for real. They are playing for keeps. They don't love life like we do. Enough is enough with the polictical bickering in our country. That is exactly what the enemy wants. They want us in disarray and chaos. It's called divide and conquer. We need to ban together under right and wrong not political parties. I choose to stand up for freedom, my constitution, my country and my military (which by the way maybe your next neighbor, a coworker a family member,) not a political party. America pull it together. We are fighting for our very life and our freedoms. Wake up!

Anonymous said...

Calling a man who has dedicated his life to defending our nation, regardless of the politics behind it, a betrayer is a low shot. It make me doubt the sincerity of moveon.

Al said...

Anonymous said...
A foreigner is the most influential mover and shaker behind the modern democrat party. A fine mess we've got ourselves into.


You ever hear of Henry Kissinger,

Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State--Madeline Albright,

Jimmy Carter's national security adviser-- Zbigniew Brzezinski,

And who am I forgetting?

Anonymous said...

Kissinger, Albright, et al didn't have anywhere near the power that Soros now has.

robmaroni said...

Al,

Kissinger, Albright and Brzezinski are all naturalized citizens. Soros is not an American citizen.

Al said...

Kissinger had more power than anyone.

Soros is his replacewment.

Both were "educated" abroad for their "mission" in the US.

What was Kissinger doing in the cabinet and administration of so many US presidents?

Al said...

Kissinger, Albright and Brzezinski are all naturalized citizens.

Isn't that sweet.

.

Al said...

Brzezinski was David Rockefeller's man.

David Rockefeller and his stooge Brzezinski "interviewed" several US governors and finally settled on southern Governor Jimmy Carter.

Rockefeller told Brzezinski that he chose Carter as the candidate because Carter was the most obviously avaricious for his own advancement.

AFTER Rockefeller chose Carter, he entangled Carter in the Bert Lance financial mess, which made Carter his stooge as president.

Guess who Carter's "National Security Advisor" was: Brzezinski.

Today Brzezinski backs Obama, which is very significant.

Brzezinski also praises the book by academics Walt and Mearsheimer, which says Jews run the US.

How much of the dismantlement of the US went into high gear during stooge Carter's "presidency" ?

Al said...

"Soros is not an American citizen."

Soros brags that while he is a U.S. citizen, he is also a European. For open-society advocates, citizenship has little meaning.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/25/104735.shtml
__________________________________


Soros, who emigrated from Hungary in 1956 and later became a naturalized U.S. citizen,

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200312%5CPOL20031215a.html

cw-patriot said...

Whether or not their standing as a naturalized citizen causes Kissinger, Albright and Brzezinski to have the best interests of our republic at heart (which I assume most readers here are aware isn't the case regarding K, A and B) is irrelevant. It is indeed frightening to contemplate that someone with absolutely no allegiance to this country -- even someone sporting the 'wolf in sheep's clothing allegiance' of convenient naturalized citizenship -- may well dictate the results of the next election, and may play a major role in sculpting both foreign and domestic policy in another Clinton presidency.

But what else is new? Foreign money poured into the previous two Clinton campaigns, and countless favors that placed foreign interests above our own sovereignty ensued (among countless other invasive powers that trump American safety and sovereignty, China now has the ability to shoot down American defense/communications satellites, and Indonesia enjoys a major say as to our ability to mine our own natural resources, thanks to their generous contributions to the democrat party back in the nineties). The only difference in the Soros case is that the 'foreign' influence is much more blatant.

The PRC and the Riadys couldn't have proclaimed publicly that they had the democrat party 'bought and paid for' and gotten away with it.

The corruption, treason, and influence peddling are much more overt than they were a dozen years ago. And the American electorate is much more ignorant and apathetic (as if that particular state of mind can even be imagined).

The times they are a changin' ...

robmaroni said...

I was not aware that Soros was a citizen. My bad.

Montypython2 said...

"China now has the ability to shoot down American defense/communications satellites, and Indonesia enjoys a major say as to our ability to mine our own natural resources, thanks to their generous contributions to the democrat party back in the nineties."

Not to mention anti-missile technology that will help the Chinese shoot down American missiles.

Good post Joanie.

Al said...

Here is an example of the writing of the lovely Soros, the bankroller of

MOVEon.org,

as well as the bankroller of DEATH IN AMERICA [Euthanasia organization behind the Terri Schiavo killing],

the Drug Policy Foundation [pushing 'legalization' of drugs, supplying the money backing for "legalization" votes in various US states--even though the Federal government has jurisdiction over what drugs are legal, by Federal law],

the International Crisis Group -(ICG)--members Wesley Clark, Lani Guineer, etc., which engineered the Kosovo "war" which put muslim Albanians in place in Serbia's Kosovo, and enabled Soros to get his hands on the Trepca mining complex in Kosovo, the third largest mining complex in the entire world--

the American Civil Liberties Union (Soros controls the heads of the ACLU and then places them at the head of his other organizations once they leave the ACLU),

various "Human Rights" groups bankrolled and manipulated by Soros,

the "Court" that "tried" Milosevic-- the Soros-created Hague International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, run by longtime Soros stooge Carla del Ponte, with Soros' Open Society Institute serving as "fact" gatherer for the "tribunal",

various "immigration" [illegal alien] advocacy groups(who do you think organizes the huge “immigration” marches that have taken place in various US cities?)

anti-gun groups

Anti-Death Penalty groups---


Isn’t it interesting that
Soros and the lefties

want mass murderer Tookie Williams ALIVE—

and Terri Schiavo DEAD.


The list of Soros "organizations"is endless, but I will stop here.

Here is the quote from Soros where he equates putting panties on the head at Abu Ghraib with 9-11 :

“"The picture of torture in the Abu Ghraib, in Saddam's prison, was the moment of truth for us, because this is not what this nation stands for. I think that those pictures hit us the same way as the -- as the terrorist attack itself. Not quite with the same force because the terrorist attack, we were the victims. In the pictures, we were the perpetrators, others were the victim."

(From Soros' speech at Take Back America conference in Washington in June, 2004)

The Washington Post gives Soros space for double size op eds on their editorial page--something they have never done for anyone else.

Soros' tentacles are so extensive and so well hidden that many of the people you see on the talk shows on TV as "experts" are Soros stooges pushing one agenda of his or another, despite the fact they never mention they are paid Soros operatives.

In any article concerning him in their publications, the Washington Post and the New York TIMES always describe Soros as a "promoter of democracy” around the world.
.

John Galt said...

Great research, Al.

kathymlynczak said...

Ain't it funny how some of the people in the most powerful positions in America, some of them even unelected, have strong links to movements that want to bring America down, and 99% of Americans know NOTHING about it?

You can thank the corrupt media and citizen stupidity for our demise. And Soros is laughing all the way to the bank.

Al said...

"I was not aware that Soros was a citizen. My bad."

Rob, not soo bad.

Also "citizens" of the US are Noam Chomsky, Louis "bow tie" Farakhan, Bill Clinton (who wrote that he "loathed" the US military, Seymour Hersh, owners of the New York Times and the Washington Post, Jesse Jackson, Ibriham Cooper (head of CAIR), "professors" like Ward Churchill (and many, many others in academia), slime like Dan Blather, Tom Brokejaw, Howdy Doody's son (Ted Koppel), 'perky' commie Kati Couric, Scott Ritter, Turban Durbin, Bagdad Jim McDermott, Ronald Dellums, Maxine Waters,

I could continue the list for the rest of today and longer----

Anonymous said...

Here is an uplifting item :

Geraldo Rivera Apologizes for Saying He'd Spit on Michelle Malkin

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/15/geraldo-rivera-apologizes-saying-hed-spit-michelle-malkin

calbrindisi said...

I've seen a few of these ads on TV but never caught who sponsored them. My first reaction was that these people are wasting their money by doing this too early because the election is 14 months off. But then I reconsidered because they're not electioneering, they're defending the war effort.

You're right, Joanie. The ads are very effective, especially for citizens who are not well informed. They are emotional soundbites, but every word is true. It's about time we used short, shallow (but meaningful) messages to OUR advantage. I will be sending a donation as soon as the link works.

Ellwoodlee said...

I've seen the ads, or some of them. This is a good group. Will donate when they're ready to take donations.

Al said...

Merrill Lynch Downgrades the New York Times to SELL rating

Merrill Lynch Downgrades the New York Times Co., McClatchy and Lee in Latest Slap to Sector

September 17, 2007

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/D8RN7CG80.htm

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Merrill Lynch downgraded New York Times Co. and two other newspaper chains Monday, following a recent pattern for analysts covering the beleaguered industry.

Analyst Karl Choi cut his rating on New York Times to "Sell" from "Neutral."

. . ..

Last week, the New York Times said overall ad revenue for its News Media Group, which includes its newspaper properties, fell 4.6 percent in August, continuing a pattern seen for more than a year.

. . .

The Merrill downgrade follows a "Neutral" call on the sector last week from Banc of America Securities, when a new analyst took over coverage of the industry. Goldman Sachs analysts cut the Times and McClatchy to "Sell" in July. Lehman Brothers maintains an "Underweight," or "Sell" rating on the stocks and a "Negative" rating on the industry.

Al said...

From the Daily KOS---the leftwing site that, like MOVEon.org--is run on the surface by a just out of college 20 year old, and is actually bankrolled by Soros and company.

The leftwing media (Washington Post, NY TIMES etc) grovels for KOS and does their best to publicize them in their "news" articles.
__________________________________

Thank you Hillary for calling Petraeus a liar!

Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:08:23 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/15/10264/5649

Thank you Hillary for calling out Petraeus for what he is, a liar and a distorter of facts.

While I still prefer an Edwards/Obama ticket, I just wanted to show some progressive blogosphere love here for Hillary for her calling a spade a spade here, and subsequently setting the right wing howling.

The same thanks applies to MoveOn, for their not allowing Petraeus to parade around like some untouchable holy priest without being called on his crap.

Petraeus is trying to help the Bushies hide their war crimes and war lies behind Petraeus's uniform, a uniform which Petraeus has now disgraced by his working most every MSM venue like a champion media whore.

A vital nerve must have been struck to set the right wing howling so about their holy man Petraeus, and I think that we should get Hillary's and MoveOn's backs on this particular issue.

So, whatever your 2008 candidate affiliation, please rec here now to show some love for Hillary and MoveOn for how they took on Bush's media whore Petraeus!

Al said...

New York Times Co. Rated Most Gay-Friendly Chain

EDITOR & PUBLISHER
By Mark Fitzgerald September 18, 2007

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003642420

CHICAGO The New York Times Co. is the most gay-friendly chain in the newspaper industry, and the only one to earn a "perfect score," according to the latest Corporate Equality Index of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation.

HRC describes itself as the largest civil rights organization dedicated to achieving equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. The annual rating, its sixth, evaluated 519 companies on criteria including whether they offer domestic-partner benefits, and include sexual orientation in non-discrimination policies and diversity training and councils.

Only three big newspaper companies are included in the list. Many media giants, such as Tribune Co. and E.W. Scripps, were not evaluated at all.

The Times Co. scored a "perfect" 100 in the HRC Index. Cox Communications was rated a 95. Gannett Co. was rated 65, and Dow Jones & Co. was scored as 30.

The full report is posted on HRC's Web site here.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/ceihome.asp

Al said...

Bush slams MoveOn.org and Democrats for Petraeus ad
Sep 20, 2007

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2039819220070920?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday an ad criticizing the United States' top commander in Iraq was "disgusting" and added that Democrats should have spoken out against it.

The liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org has drawn widespread criticism from Republicans for its ad in the New York Times last week that labeled Army Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" as he testified to Congress that Bush's troop build-up in Iraq was making progress.

"I thought the ad was disgusting," Bush said at a press conference. "I felt like the ad was an attack not only on Gen. Petraeus but on the U.S. military, and I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that ad."

"And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush added. "That was a sorry deal."

Al said...

Senate rebukes MoveOn.org for Gen. 'Betray Us' ad
___________________________________

SRES 315 IS

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 315

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemns personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 11, 2007
Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. MARTINEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
-----------------------------------
RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemns personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

Whereas the Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007;

Whereas General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College;

Whereas General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University;

Whereas General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations;

Whereas General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences;

Whereas General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America;

Whereas during his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals; and

Whereas a recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org , impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 9/18/2007
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] - 9/11/2007
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 9/11/2007
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 9/18/2007

HERE ARE THE US SENATORS WHO VOTED AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION:

NAYs ---25

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold
(D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry
(D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3

Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)







__________________________________
Barbara Boxer dances for her boss, MOVEon.org

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had offered an alternative to Cornyn's resolution that meant to support the troops without singling out the Petraeus ad and, by implication, MoveOn.org.

The statement of purpose of her resolution read thusly:

To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person organization.

The vote on Boxer's resolution broke nearly along party lines, getting a simple majority of 51 -- 46 Democrats, three Republicans and two independents.

A Bloomberg News story quoted Boxer as saying the following:

"This is about politics, lets face it," said Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the sponsor of the Democratic measure. "Since when are we the ad police?"

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/senate_rebukes_moveonorg_for_g.html

Anonymous said...

Freedom's Watch Announces New Print Advertisement in New York Times on Ahmadinejad's Visit



WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Friday Freedom's Watch
President Bradley A. Blakeman released a statement and a copy of the print
advertisement it has requested to be run in the Monday edition of the New
York Times.
"Freedom's Watch could not sit back and allow a terrorist to come to
America masquerading as a world leader. We have an obligation to warn the
world of the dangers of a nuclear Iran and to uncover the true intent, that
being, the destruction of the United States and the State of Israel. Let's
be clear, Iran today kills American soldiers in Iraq and they will not stop
there," said Bradley A. Blakeman, President of Freedom's Watch.
The text of the advertisement follows.
For more information about Freedom's Watch, please visit
http://www.freedomswatch.org
Ahmadinejad Is A Terrorist

Columbia University is wrong to give him a platform.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our nation and the
freedoms we value. He has supported attacks on our soldiers and our allies.
He should be treated as the terrorist that he is.
Yet, while Columbia gives a terrorist like Ahmadinejad a platform to
speak, they refuse to allow the ROTC on campus.
What has happened to this prestigious university?
People who support killing Americans are welcome. But the military that
defends them is not.
Columbia should be ashamed of its actions.
Freedom's Watch knows that America and the forces of freedom are right.
We know the threat of terrorism is real. And we know Democracy must
prevail.
The terrorists and their appeasers are wrong.
"And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon
experience a world without the United States and Zionism."
-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
(CNN, 10/27/05)

Support Freedom's Watch.
Stand up for freedom and those who defend it.
Surrender is not an option.
Victory is America's only choice.

Anonymous said...

while Columbia gives a terrorist like Ahmadinejad a platform to
speak, they refuse to allow the ROTC on campus.

Anonymous said...

I have seen these ads seversal evenings in a row on local TV.

Al said...

The following excerpt comes from "Hillary Rodham Clinton: Her Career and Agendas" by John Perazzo, FrontPageMag.com, July 20, 2007

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read....A1-2785D896386A

[snip]

"Mrs. Clinton has close ties to the billionaire financier George Soros and his so-called "Shadow Democratic Party," or Shadow Party. This term refers to a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks that actively campaign for the Democrats and leftist causes. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold McEwan Ickes -- all identified with the Democratic Party left."

[snip]

"A New York hedge fund manager with a personal fortune estimated at about $7.2 billion (aside from the billions of dollars in investor assets controlled by his management company), Soros is one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful individuals. Since 1979, his foundation network -- whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) -- has given an estimated $5 billion in grants to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. OSI alone donates up to $425 million annually to these various groups, whose major agendas can be summarized as follows:

* promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
* promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
* promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
* promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
* financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
* promoting socialized medicine in the United States
* promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism
* promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

Hillary Clinton shares each of these Soros agendas.

At a 2004 "Take Back America" conference in Washington, DC, Mrs. Clinton introduced Soros with these words: "Now, among the many people who have stood up and said, 'I cannot sit by and let this happen to the country I love,' is George Soros, and I have known George Soros for a long time now, and I first came across his work in the former Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, when I was privileged to travel there, both on my own and with my husband on behalf of our country. ... [W]e need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts." (Cited in David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party, p. 53)

Today Soros remains committed to ousting Republicans, who he likens to "Nazis," from the White House. And because Hillary Clinton appears to be the person most capable of making his dream a reality, Soros is heavily invested in abetting her quest for the presidency. He will do so by continuing to fund his immense political network, whose constituents seek to advance the various agendas Soros shares with Mrs. Clinton."

Al said...

The Soros Threat To Democracy

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY 9/24/2007

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275526219598836

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.
___________________________________
George Soros & MoveOn.org: Exclusive Series
___________________________________

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006.

One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.

Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?

It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?

OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism.

On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.

"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency — as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."

Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news.

That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.

Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.

The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.