Communist Infiltration?

[geronimotwo]

commie phobia

if nothing else the 1950's put a dreadfull fear of communism in this country. would we still believe in democracy if a communist party were voted in? ha! fooled ya, they already are voted in! in fact both our major parties are in support of communistic ideas. it seems to me any tax imposed on the populace in general, that goes to any social program, equals communism. the fact is the word (communist) was turned into a political agenda, and through propaganda, and blatent persecution of communists, has taught us to fear the ideals behind , as much as the russian superpower. at least it has taught us (americans) to fear admitting that we may have anything like a communist thought in our heads, all the while implementing these ideas without using the word (communism) so we can avoid persecution.

liberty and justice for all? could that apply to communist's, and socialist's, AND capitalist's as well?

i don't care what kind of "ist" it is. a government should never be more powerfull than the people.

 

[slzy]

are not hugo chavez and his latin american ilk all commited maoists?

 

[CornCod]

All this nonsense about Chavez being a threat to the US is just a bunch of balderdash. Chavez is a mild socialist with some populist leanings. What makes him "threat" is that he owns a lot of oil and is not a puppet of the US government. He wants to trade for oil in Euros instead of dollars which would put US oil companies at a disadvantage. The Bush Administration is run by people from the oil industry, Bush himself, Cheney ect. Of course, if you threaten to make rich people less rich, you have to be removed from power and killed. That's the rule.

I am a strong believer in the Monroe Doctrine and would never defend someone leading a country in South America that was loyal to a foreign power. The hostility to Chavez is just another example of the ham-handed foreign policy techniques of the Bush Administration. Good diplomacy could handle Chavez.

 

[EttenBoom]

Communism as most of us grew up with is dead. The old Soviet ideals are long gone with only Cuba and North Korea left as the remaining examples (both of which are on the brink of collapse). The only other two remaining "communist" countries China, and Vietnam are growing more and more capitalistic in nature every day.

dingdingdingdingding!
We have a winner here!

You guys need to STOP listening to the talk shows. They could care less about spreading facts, or spreading ideologies. Their primary interest is
ratings!

I've said it before and I've said it again, the major threat of communism died
in 1991. Communist paranioa is not tin foil hat stuff, it's tin foil hat with a little propeller on top stuff. :banghead:

 

[jeep-2]

I've been hearing that the Russians comming since the 4rd grade in 1948, I wish they would hurry up as now i'm getting old and tired of waiting. I still have bruises on my elbows from jumping under the desk, maybe i'll even see a few that i used to watch at checkpoint charlie in 57.

 

[Joe Demko]

Stop listening to talk shows? But how then will I keep myself in a highly agitated state? It makes me feel far more important and like I am central to Big Things Happening to believe that the Commies have infiltrated and I am one of The Few Who Recognize The Threat.

 

[Kaylee]

You guys need to STOP listening to the talk shows. They could care less about spreading facts, or spreading ideologies. Their primary interest is
ratings!

As opposed to network news, who's primary interest is ratings.

Yeah, Communism as a state doctrine is pretty much dead*.

Collectivism as a philosophy is alive and well. As already noted, their presence in certain groups not openly advocating same aren't a matter of "infiltration" so much as just that folks with similar philosophies tend to clump together.

-K



* How ANYONE can still believe its a viable philosophy after Germany boggles my mind. You couldn't ask for a better social experiment in a laboratory - take one nation- one people with a common history, language, culture, and national identity. Draw a line down the middle and practice capitalism on one side and communism on the other. Wait four decades. Observe.
People literally risking death to leave the one for the other, communism failed so badly. Yikes!

 

[shaggycat]

I can confirm that communist thought is alive and very well on college campuses across the country. I am a Poli. Sci. major and many of my professors will openly admit they support communism.

It almost seems to me that the academia feel that capitalism is far to simplistic and places too much control in the hands of the uneducated citizen. They feel that a much more thought-provoking and intellectual outlook on politics is necessary and that communism is the belief of the upper echelon, just as golf has a sort of gentleman's game glow about it.

Many students are easily swayed by said professors because of a tremendous amount of respect for their teachers, because they know no better, and probably, in my opinion, because many college-aged people have a very idealistic view of the world. If we are all honest, it is easy to see that communism appeals to the desire to want to rid the world of poverty, suffering, etc. Yet we all know equally well such thought is just wishful thinking.

To say communism has been more or less eradicated from America would be a gross overstatement.

 

[RNB65]

I've been hearing that the Russians comming since the 4rd grade in 1948, I wish they would hurry up as now i'm getting old and tired of waiting.

Anna Kournikova
Maria Sharapova

Keep 'em coming. The more the merrier!

 

[EttenBoom]

As opposed to network news, who's primary interest is ratings.

Yeah, they stink too.

The big difference is, on most network news shows, at least some time is granted to opposing views. With the more extreme talk shows (Michael Savage is a prime example), anyone with an opposing view is either shouted down, or hung up on.

Staying on topic, I had a friend who worked for a major socialist non-profit organization, and their operation wasn't run any different from a capitalist
business.
Their standard policy was to lay off workers, then fight their unemployment claim. So much for being for the working man.
I may be liberal, but I'm no leftist.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

I can't believe this

Where are you guys coming from who think communism is dead? Do you read the news?

I'm no John Birch but the most powerful competitor in the world, and rising, is China. They actively support and engage in subterfuge on many levels...economic, political, they openly support infiltration on various political and academic organizations. The Chinese see the future - in that the great conflict between the two biggest boys on the block, will be between US and them. We are competing for resources; steel, copper, concrete, tar, OIL, weapons technology. They are subtely making alliances throughout Africa, encouraging young socialist states such as Venezuela - the soon to be military power of South America. The young people of America who are disillusioned with status quo crap politics in our country are looking for something different.
My local university has an active communist organization and many socialist/marxist groups. An intelligent forced grouping has been orchestrated which tied together the ideas of central government control, equalization of the people, with the frustrations of the left. Social democracy has enveloped a mass of people who, if thinking, would recognize the manipulation and being free thinking people, would rebel en haste!
The goal here is to destabilize the republic elements of America and allow room for a powerful socialist movement which would give government the ultimate control; barring anything seen as a threat, even idealogical threats, controlling religion to greater degrees, guns, foods, activities, banning competitive games such as tag, paintball, and activities like hunting, demilitarizing citizen life, and ultimately laying the groundwork for assimilation into the gobal community.
Cindy Sheehan and Hugo Chavez? Ahmanenijad and Putin? Hu Jintao and Kim jong ill? COMMUNISM never died, it simply did what all good hunters do; it adapted to a new environment.

st
--------------------------
CORNCOD - You don't think Chavez is a threat? Please remember, he has initiated a forced land redistribution program that takes away farms from land owners and gives it to the 'poor' (to work for the state). He changed Venezuelan law so he could stay in power another 6 years, past the original 6 years term limit for presidents. He has been given the highest award possible by the president of Iran and has also promised to support Iran in every "conceivable circumstance". He is worrying neighboring powers with an agressive military build up with advanced weapons supplied by Russia. His missile systems, in his own words, are designed and placed to "deny the U.S. control of the Carribean." He called our president Satan in our own country, NY at the U.N. meeting. These are not the behaviors of a mild or moderate politician. Get a clue.

 

[Eleven Mike]

The big difference is, on most network news shows, at least some time is granted to opposing views. With the more extreme talk shows (Michael Savage is a prime example), anyone with an opposing view is either shouted down, or hung up on.

Michael Savage is not actually a conservative. He has no time for views that differ from his, whether left or right. If you'd like an example of a conservative talk-show host that hangs up and shouts down leftists, I suggest Mark Levine. He's entertaining, so long as you don't expect fruitful debates between the two sides. He's also sometimes informative.

Most conservative talk shows use left-wing opinion as a major staple of their programming. They constantly play sound-bites from leftists and read multiple paragraphs from left-wing columnists. Naturally, they proceed to pick apart and ridicule everything they say, but the left-wing point of view is presented.

The cable networks are slightly more balanced than this, in that they invite the right into the lions' den to debate left-wing guests and anchors.

 

[anotherinkling]

This will come as no surprise, as I live in Chicago, but I have communist co-workers. And a couple of anarchists. They're all fun at dinner parties. Gullible, paranoid and misguided but fun. Fortunately, they're all opposed to the 2nd Amendment so we needn't fear them starting an outright revolution, but people of that persuasion do wield a fair amount of influence behind the scenes in this fair city, particulalry in the Puerto Rican community. Che Guevara? A saintly martyr. Castro? A great man. Hugo Chavez? A worker's hero.

 

[Zero_DgZ]

What, the Commies again?

Communists as a whole haven't been a threat to anything except themselves since the 80's. Socialists, yes. True Communists, no.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Most people (including most of those who post on the High Road) have absolutely no idea what communism is.

The real problem is socialism and fascism, and you don’t have to look very far to find those championing these ideologies.

~G. Fink

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

I agree gordon

I suppose I reacted in something of a tirade because it seems so many Americans do not recognize any of the fundamental threats to the right to keep and bear arms. Remaining alert and aware, even if a bit paranoid, keeps one active, training, educated, speaking, writing, discussing. Freedom depends on active and alert citizens being part of the process, not just commenting on it while watching movies and microwaving dinner...

 

[longeyes]

Communism is dead?

You'd better tell some of the organizations backing the illegal alien rights movement, for starters.

Collectivism and welfarestateism are alive, well, and growing.

Y'all need to read up on Antonio Gramsci. You'll realize that cultural indoctrination and infiltration is the way these days, not tanks and MIGs.

Communism has new and nicer names nowadays. One of them is "diversity."

Wake up. Forums like this will be verboten in a few years--deemed "offensive"--if we don't smarten up and toughen up.

 

[mountainclmbr]

The socialist politicians don't do much to keep it secret. The Progressive Caucus consists of about 1/3 of the Democrats in the US House of Representatives. The Progressives openly coordinate with the Socialist Party USA and the Communist Party USA. ANSWER shares office space and some of its officers with Communist Party USA. The Socialist Party USA has a big announcement on its website that cheers about an openly socialist senator being elected "Bernie Saunders (S) Vermont". The socialists want to control people and they want control over the means of production.That is why the Democrats hate corporations and they hate people who can take care of themselves and who are not enticed by the plastic carrot they like to dangle in front of our noses.

 

[Zedicus]

Good time for a repost of this Article I think.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/mind_meld.html

November 30, 2005
Mind Meld
By Jonathan David Carson

During the Cold War, the "convergence" theory held that over time the Soviet Union and the United States would become more and more alike, ushering in an era of world peace. Liberals liked the theory because it meant that the Soviets would magically evolve in the direction of freedom and democracy, thereby making unnecessary our efforts to defend ourselves, and because it gave an air of inevitability to social programs in the United States, even making them instruments of world peace.

While the Soviet Union and the United States were busy converging into nonexistence and lone superpower status, liberals, ever at the forefront of history, were busy anticipating the convergence by becoming more like the Soviets. Whatever the Soviets liked, liberals liked, and whatever the Soviets disliked, liberals disliked.

The demise of the Soviet Union presented liberals with a problem and an opportunity. They solved the problem but neglected the opportunity. That Soviet collapse and American survival destroyed their convergence theory did not discomfit them. Empirical disconfirmation of their theories has never been a problem for them, and they are quite capable of making up new ones. No, the problem was that without the Soviets, they would not know what to think, and they might splinter if they began thinking independently.

The opportunity was that Soviet overlordship could no longer hinder the growth of the American left by discrediting it in the eyes of the American people and by preventing it from developing according to American realities. Indeed, as soon as the Soviet Union was swept into the dustbin of history Marx had assigned for capitalism, a flawed liberal candidate won the presidential election, something he probably could not have done had his political opponents not first vanquished the most powerful enemy our nation had yet encountered, a feat the liberal establishment considered impossible.

Bill Clinton epitomized American liberals in more ways than one. James Carville famously drew an empty box meant to represent his boss's brain and said that he didn't know what the President really believed. That empty box was the potential post—Soviet liberal mind.

Here they were in power in all three branches of the federal government, in the media, in the universities, in the public schools, in city governments, in the foundations, and in much more, and they were not sure what to do with their lives. They had almost everything, but it somehow felt like nothing. They wanted to question authority, but they were authority. They felt an emptiness they could not fill with yoga or formulaic charges of racism.

They had campaigned for decades against the arms race, and Reagan and Bush had ended it. They had not trusted anyone over thirty, but now the young were bored with them and their reminiscences. They had hoped to die before they got old, but now they feared death from cancer and heart disease. They had scorned as money—grubbing materialists people who worked decade after decade to support their families. Now they put in endless hours to further their own careers. They had reveled in free love, and now they hated their ex—husbands and former wives. They wanted to preserve the environment, but did not want to actually live out in it. When the salt has lost its savor, what is the point of sprinkling it on our food?

And then came 9/11, and though they were too stunned to realize it at the time, for American liberals, life again had meaning, that is, an enemy of the United States to make excuses for, to protect from conservatives, and in whose image to fashion themselves. Islamofascists would try to drive American troops from the Middle East, and liberals would try to bring them home. Criticism of Islam is illegal under sharia law, and liberals would try to make it impossible here.

Terrorists would seek a repeat of 9/11, and liberals would oppose the Patriot Act. Al Qaeda would use public libraries to avoid detection by Internet sleuths, and liberals would make people crazy with fear that Bush would find out what books they were checking out. Palestinians would blow up pizza parlors, and universities would divest from companies doing business in Israel.

Iran would stone adulterers and homosexuals, and Hollywood would mock uptight Republicans. Islamic immigrants would commit honor killings, and feminists would accuse conservatives of sexism. Saudi Arabia would prohibit Christianity and Judaism, and the ACLU would drive them from public life in the United States. Insurgents would blow up American soldiers as they handed out candy to Iraqi children, and Democratic senators would liken our armed forces to Nazis and communists.

Terrorist sympathizers would concoct American and Israeli atrocities, and the world press would report them. Suicide bombers would infiltrate Iraq through Syria, and liberals would denounce the United States invasion. Muslims would brag about their ancestors, and liberals would denigrate ours. Terrorists would kill the just and the unjust alike, and professors would deconstruct the difference between right and wrong.

Islamicists would burn American flags, and liberals would scoff at flag—wavers. Muslims would claim that the Bible is made up of forgeries, and liberals would engage in Higher Criticism. Baathists would disrupt elections in Iraq, and Democrats would declare ours illegitimate. We would uncover mass graves in Iraq, and liberal Democrats would call for investigations in the United States. Muslims would drive Jews from the Middle East, and liberals would limit their numbers in the academic world with affirmative action.

Islam would spread polygamy, and liberals would undermine the institution of marriage. Zarqawi would bomb crowded mosques, and liberals would accuse conservatives of Islamophobia. Pakistani terrorists would behead Daniel Pearl, and liberals would accuse conservatives of hostility to freedom of the press. Terrorists in Iraq would behead Nicholas Berg, and his father would blame the President. Insurgents would kill Casey Sheehan, and Cindy Sheehan would accuse George Bush of murder. How sweet it is!

Yogi Berra says that predictions are difficult, especially predictions about the future. Nevertheless, I predict that as the "war on terror" drags on, as it will regardless of what happens in Iraq, the left in America will come ever more to resemble foreign jihadists, to the extent even of carrying out suicide bombings and maybe even beheadings. Frustration with the failure of their message to bring about political change, combined with blind hatred of the existing order will be the trigger, just as it was for the Symbionese Liberation Army and other brutal left wing groups of a few decades earlier.

Liberals will make excuses for them, of course, and make their capture difficult, just as some did for the SLA, and as some are now making excuses for foreign terrorists and hampering our efforts to defeat them. Now that liberals know what to think again, will anyone else trust them?

Jonathan David Carson, Ph.D., may be reached at [email protected] For more information, see his website Make Haste Slowly

Eye opener isnt it?

 

[doubleg]

The perfect goverment has a balance of every form of goverment. Everything in the world relies on balance. To much or too little of one thing and it will fail. The key to a goverments survival is diversity, the founding fathers knew this.

 

[Zedicus]

And also This Article.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6706

SHADOW PARTY



* Nationwide network of non-profit activist groups, whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats
* Consists of more than five-dozen unions, activist groups, and think tanks
* Activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, and covert operations
* Conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes



The so-called "Shadow Democratic Party," or "Shadow Party," is a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising and covert operations (including opposition research and media manipulation). The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes -- all identified with the Democratic Party left.

A political consultancy called the Thunder Road Group (TRG), located on the 7th Floor of the historic Motion Picture Association Building at 888 Sixteenth Street NW in Washington, DC, serves as the unofficial headquarters of the Shadow Party. Three other Shadow Party groups also lease space in the same building, including America Coming Together (ACT), America Votes, and the Partnership for America's Families. The clustering of these groups in a building owned by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is significant. The MPAA has long enjoyed a close relationship with the Democratic Party; many high-ranking Democrats have transitioned comfortably from government jobs into glamorous posts in the MPAA's upper management.

The Shadow Party draws much of its funding from the entertainment world. According to the Center for Public Integrity, as of August 2004 Jane Fonda was the third largest Shadow Party donor ($13,085,750), followed by Hollywood producer Stephen Bing in fourth place ($9,869,014). The second and first spots were held respectively by the husband-wife team of George and Susan Soros ($13,120,000), and by Soros' longtime friend and collaborator, insurance mogul Peter B. Lewis ($14,175,000).

No one knows who first coined the term "Shadow Party." In the November 5, 2002 Washington Post, writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote of "shadow organizations" springing up to circumvent McCain-Feingold's soft money ban. Journalist Lorraine Woellert first called the Democrat network a "shadow party" in a September 15, 2003 Business Week article titled, "The Evolution of Campaign Finance?" Other journalists quickly followed suit. Some journalists refer to the Shadow Party as "the 527s" or "the 527 groups." These terms derive from the fact that most of the non-profit groups within the Shadow Party are registered under Section 527 of the U.S. tax code. Section 527 groups face weaker regulation and looser disclosure requirements than other types of non-profit groups. Thus they are better suited for operating in the shadows, in areas of dubious legality. Section 527 groups are used for raising "soft money." For a thorough explanation of Section 527 groups and soft money, click here.

Wall Street billionaire George Soros is the Shadow Party's principal founder and mastermind. Clear hints of Soros' intentions began to appear as early as the 2000 election. It was then that Soros (shouldering about one-third of the cost) sponsored the so-called "Shadow Conventions." Organized by author, columnist, and socialite Arianna Huffington, the Shadow Conventions were media events designed to lure news crews from the real party conventions that year. Huffington held her "Shadow Conventions" at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in Philadelphia and Los Angeles respectively, and featured leftwing critics of mainstream politics. The Shadow Conventions promoted Huffington's view that neither Democrats nor Republicans served the interests of the American people any longer. In Huffington’s view, U.S. politics needed a third force to break the deadlock.

Among the issues highlighted at the Shadow Conventions were racism, class inequality, marijuana legalization and campaign finance reform. Most speakers and delegates pushed a hard-left line, accompanied by "Free Mumia" chants from the crowd and an incendiary tirade by Jesse Jackson. A former conservative, Huffington told reporters, "I have become radicalized."

The Shadow Conventions were purely symbolic affairs. They fielded no candidates for office. However, many of Soros' activities during the 2000 campaign went beyond symbolism. It was during the 2000 election that Soros first experimented with raising campaign funds through Section 527 groups.

In preparation for the 2000 election, Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issues -- gun control and marijuana legalization. Their donations greatly exceeded the limits on political contributions stipulated by campaign finance laws. Soros therefore laundered their contributions through Section 527 groups - dubbed "stealth PACs," by the media of that time.

One of Soros' stealth PACs was an anti-gun group called The Campaign for a Progressive Future (CPF). This group sought to neutralize the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA), by targeting for defeat any political candidate, at any level, who the NRA endorsed. Soros personally seeded CPF with $500,000. Others gave more. During the 2000 election, CPF funded political ads and direct-mail campaigns in support of state initiatives favoring background checks at gun shows. Soros used other 527s to agitate in favor of pro-marijuana initiatives which appeared on the ballot in various states that year. Donors to Soros' stealth PACs during the 2000 election cycle included insurance mogul Peter B. Lewis and InfoSeek founder Steven Kirsch, both of whom would turn up as major contributors to Soros' Shadow Party during the 2004 election season.

During the 1990s, Soros had grown close to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Their ascension to power gave him easy entreé to Washington elites of a sort he had long coveted but never enjoyed. Soros became the Clintons' unofficial envoy to Russia and to other former Communist states. The assignment proved lucrative for him. Soros made a fortune in the so-called "Russiagate" phenomenon -- the orgy of backroom "privatization" deals and Russian junk bond issues which Clinton officials such as Strobe Talbot, Al Gore and Lawrence Summers helped foster in the former USSR.

More importantly, Soros discovered in Hillary Clinton an ideological soulmate. Mrs. Clinton shared his aversion to U.S. "hegemony." Like Soros, she sought to subordinate U.S. interests to global interests; U.S. sovereignty to global government; U.S. law to global courts; U.S. wealth to global taxation; and U.S. productivity to a scheme for global income redistribution. She also shared Soros' hostility to Israel. Soros and Mrs. Clinton formed a friendship based upon their mutual beliefs. When the Clintons left office, Soros dedicated himself to restoring Hillary to the White House.

Soros has long experience in effecting "regime change." He helped fund the 1989 "Velvet Revolution" that brought Vaclav Havel to power in the Czech Republic. By his own admission, he has helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government -- a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party Soros has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries, prior to instigating a coup.

At the heart of the American Shadow Party is the Center for American Progress (CAP). It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with a new think tank of its own. Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, "We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values." Expanding on this theme, Mrs. Clinton later told The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The center is a welcome effort to fill that void."

Hillary Clinton tries to minimize the depth of her involvement with the Center for American Progress. But persistent press leaks confirm that she -- and not its official President, John Podesta -- has ultimate authority at CAP. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. As Robert Dreyfuss notes in The Nation, "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. 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."

Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center's staff, among them Clinton's national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton's National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton's Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and more. Dreyfuss writes: "[T]he Center's kickoff conference on national security in October [2003], co-organized with The American Prospect and the Century Foundation, looked like a Clinton reunion, featuring Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary; William Perry, his Defense Secretary; Sandy Berger, his National Security Adviser; Richard Holbrooke and Susan Rice, both Clinton-era Assistant Secretaries of State; Rodney Slater, his Transportation Secretary; and Carol Browner, his EPA administrator, who serves on the Center's board of directors."

Hillary Clinton also attended the event, Dreyfuss reports.

Harold Ickes undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left's traditional alliance of the "oppressed," the disgruntled, and the "disenfranchised." He formed a coalition of pro-abortion activists, leftwing minority groups and leftwing labor unions. By the time Ickes was done, he had created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a seventh called MoveOn.org. Together, they constitute the administrative core of the Shadow Party. They are: America Coming Together; America Votes; the Center for American Progress; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; The Media Fund; MoveOn.org; and the Thunder Road Group.

In a November 11, 2003 interview with Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post, George Soros described how he had jumpstarted the Shadow Party in the summer of 2002. The Wall Street billionaire told how he summoned a team of political strategists, activists and Democrat donors to his Southampton beach house in Long Island. According to The Washington Post, attendees included: Morton H. Halperin (Director of Soros' Open Society Institute); John Podesta (Democrat strategist and former Clinton chief of staff); Jeremy Rosner (Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-foreign policy speechwriter for Clinton, and former special advisor to Secretary of State Madeline Albright on NATO; Robert Boorstin (Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-national security speechwriter for Clinton, and former advisor to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin); Carl Pope (ACT co-founder, Democrat strategist, environmentalist, and Sierra Club Executive Director); Steve Rosenthal (Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, former chief advisor on union matters to Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, former Deputy Political Director under DNC chairman Ron Brown, and AFL-CIO Political Director from 1996 - 2002); Peter Lewis (major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur, and founder and chairman of Progressive Corporation); Rob Glaser (major Democrat donor and Silicon Valley pioneer); Ellen Malcolm (co-founder and president of ACT, and founder of Emily's List); Rob McKay (major Democrat donor, Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation president; Lewis and Dorothy Cullman (major Democrat donors, and founders of the Lewis and Dorothy Cullman Foundation in New York).

At the meeting, Soros laid out his plan to defeat President Bush. He began implementing his plan before the meeting had adjourned. Blumenfeld writes: "Standing on the back deck, the evening sun angling into their eyes, Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal, CEO of the liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT), and Ellen Malcolm, its president. They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give ACT $10 million. … Before coffee the next morning, his friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., had pledged $10 million to ACT. Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million. Rob McKay, President of the McKay Family Foundation, gave $1 million, and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman committed $500,000. Soros also promised up to $3 million to Podesta's new think tank, the Center for American Progress."

The Shadow Party had been born, and by late 2003 Soros issued an open call for "regime change" in the United States. "America under Bush is a danger to the world," Soros told Laura Blumenfeld in that same November 11, 2003 interview. Toppling Bush, said Soros, "is the central focus of my life… a matter of life and death. And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."

New groups are constantly being formed in the Shadow Party, while others vanish. To determine how many groups exist in the Shadow Party at any given time is difficult. Even more daunting is try to determine the purpose of each group. In some cases, groups seem to have no function other than to transfer funds from one 527 to another, perhaps in order to obscure the money trail. On December 10, 2003, for instance, a 527 group called the Sustainable World Corporation suddenly sprang into existence in Houston, Texas. Within days of its birth, it gave $3.1 million to the Joint Victory Campaign 2004, which in turn disbursed half of the payment to Harold Icke's Media Fund.

As of 2004, an alphabetical list of Shadow Party groups included the following: Air America Radio; America Coming Together; America Votes; American Constitution Society; American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; Anshell Media; Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Band of Progressives; Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Campaign for a Progressive Future; Campaign for America's Future; Center for American Progress; Clean Water Action; Communication Workers of America; The Constitution Project; DASH PAC; Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund; Democracy for America; Democratic Governors Associations; Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; Dog Eat Dog Films; EMILY's List; Environment 2004; Gore/Lieberman Recount Committee; Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union; The Human Rights Campaign; INdTV; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; Laborers International Union of North American; League of Conservation Voters; New Democrat Network; The Media Fund; Media Matters for America; The Million Mom March; Moving America Forward; MoveOn.org; Music for America; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Education Association; National Grassroots Alliance; National Jewish Democratic Council; National Treasury Employees Union; New American Optimists; New Democrat Network; Partnership for America's Families; People for the American Way; Phoenix Group; Planned Parenthood; Pro Choice Vote; Service Employees International Union; Sheet Metal Workers International Association; Sierra Club; The Thunder Road Group; United Food & Commercial Workers Union; United Progressive Alliance; USAction; Vagina Votes; Voices for Working Families; Vote for Change; Young Voter Alliance; and 21st Century Democrats.

Anyone still think the Dems will solve everything?

 

[Eleven Mike]

The perfect goverment has a balance of every form of goverment. Everything in the world relies on balance. To much or too little of one thing and it will fail. The key to a goverments survival is diversity, the founding fathers knew this.

Can you go a little further with this?

 

[Fletchette]

Max said:

Quote:
Modern Russia is simply Communism emerging from bankruptcy.

man, you made me laugh loudly!

We (Russia) now are much more capitalistic than many of West European countries, which are far more socialist than USSR was (look at Sweden for example)
Putin is just a man with enough balls to rule this country, and he does it at least better than old alcoholic SOB Yeltsin did.
I was grown in Soviet days, and i can compare, believe me.

Well I am glad you appreciated the humor!

Believe it or not, I agree with your quote above; Russia is indeed much more capatalistic than Western Europe. I aslo agree that Putin is much more capable and effective than Yeltsen. However, he does appear to be consolodating power at any cost, including assassination, and his policies are not exactly freindly to the U.S.

Just this week: Putin moves to sieze Shell oil and BP oil assets in Russia and Putin approves of enriched uranium sales to Iran.

So, whether or not Putin calls himself a "communist" or not, he is certainly walking like a duck and quacking like a duck...

 

[MechAg94]

IMHO, the only difference between a socialist and a communist is that a socialist has not actually tried to implement his system and make it work. The communists couldn't do it without becoming dictatorial and allowing people like Stalin to rise to power.

The purpose of our representative democracy is to create a system where individual rights and freedoms are protected and people like Stain (or kings and monarchs) are prevented from rising to power. I has worked for a while. Who knows if it will continue much longer.

 

[Fletchette]

Tecumseh:

Fletchette: I understand your idea about using the 2nd Amendment as a Litmus test. However what party do you support them because it seems that the 2 major parties do not support the Bill of Rights?

Good question. Often, we are given two anti-Bill of Rights canidates which is a no-win situation. When both are equally bad, I vote third party. When one is clearly more individual rights freindly than the other, I vote for the pro-liberty canidate, regardless of party.

For example, I voted for a Democrat this year for Governor. Sitting Governor Dave Freudenthal (D) is extremely pro-gun, having fought the BATFE(XYZ) to minimize the amount of background checks for CCW holders. As a result, CCW holders no longer have to undergo a background check to buy a gun. He also initiated legislation to allow convicted criminals a process, if they follow to the letter, by which they could again excercise their right to keep and bear arms.

A politician doesn't go out of their way to do these things if they were not really belivers in the Bill of Rights. Why would I risk electing a RINO when Freudenthal has been so good to us?