Censorship By Senate Democrats

Limbaugh Makes His Case is one of the recent articles by Byron York for National Republic Online (NRO). Mr. York makes the case for Rush Limbaugh and why the Senate Democrats are attacking Rush. Charlie Gibson on ABC's World News, ran a story with this headline: "Phony War Vets".

On Monday evening, September 24, Rush Limbaugh was struck by a story that appeared on ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson. “A closer look tonight at phony heroes,” Gibson said in his introduction to the report, which was about men who claim to be veterans but are not. In the story, reporter Brian Ross discussed two men who claimed to have served in wartime, possibly to receive free veterans’ hospital and other benefits. [emphasis mine]

Could it be that Rush was only following up an ABC World News story? Obviously the phony heroes, phony war vets and phony soldiers are all very similar characterizations of the Fake Military Veterans the Left has hailed in their attempts to turn public opinion against the IRAQ WAR. Fake because Jessie Macbeth, Reggie Buddle, Scott Beauchamp and others have either not served or otherwise made FALSE claims about their service.

ABC World News, as noted above, aired this story on September 24^th. Two days later Rush made his "phony soldiers" comment. Why haven't the Senate Democrats, who attacked Rush, not attacked ABC and Charlie Gibson? Answer - The MSM, of which ABC is a Member, is generally biased to the Left's Political View. Rush is not.

By creating a false firestorm of controversy in order to discredit one of the biggest opposing views, the Democrats have gained sorely needed points with the Democrats Far Left base. In addition to which Harry Reid et al want to further silence the Right Point of View by having Rush taken off Armed Forces Radio. And the Democrats need as many points as they can after the MoveOn.org General Betray Us ad.

FoxNews.com had mentioned "Phony Soldiers" last May, and for those who claim that Rush did not mention Jessie Macbeth until almost 2 minutes after he made the Phony Soldiers comment.

Limbaugh decided to make the story [about Macbeth] the subject of his commentary for Tuesday, September 25, a commentary that played in the morning on the 600 stations that carry Limbaugh’s show. “We researched it and put the commentary together,” Limbaugh continued. “In our research, we also found a story on FoxNews.com from, I believe, May 20th on Macbeth that had ‘Phony Soldier’ in the headline. We also found a press release from the U.S. Attorney, Western District of Washington, on 9/21, who had successfully prosecuted eight of what he called ‘Fake Soldiers’ who had defrauded the VA system.”

If you chose to read the selected quotes posted at Media Matters, the picture is very different than listening to the actual Rush Broadcast. Media Matters is not the Non-Biased Media Watchdog Group that the name suggests.

And even though there are political arguments on all sides of this controversy, independent-minded critics who look at Media Matters might conclude that its political motivations are simply too strong to merit serious consideration. In addition to its ties to major Democratic donors and to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Media Matters is a deeply politicized organization down to its lowest levels. In the past few days, it has posted eleven stories on the Limbaugh matter. Those postings were written by, among others, Julie Millican, a veteran of the Kerry campaign, MoveOn.org, and the Democratic turnout organization America Coming Together; Sarah Pavlus, formerly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; Andrew Ironside, who worked for the Howard Dean campaign; Adam Shah, a lawyer who worked for the Alliance for Justice, the organization best known for opposing President Bush’s judicial nominees; Jeremy Schulman, a former spokesman for Colorado Democratic congressional candidate Dave Thomas; and Matthew Gertz, former deputy campaign manager for Connecticut Democratic congressional candidate Diane Farrell, as well as intern for New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.

In other words, one might justly conclude that Media Matters is a Biased Democratic Political Front Group that wants to use Congressional Censorship to silence one of the Rights Most Effective Voices.

For more on Media Matters Political Ties, read this article also by Byron York. (The Real Media Matters)

Obama - My Senator, But NOT My Candidate

It is my distinct pleasure to enjoy the antics of two Senators, and be able to call them my own. Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Barack Obama represent my State of Illinois. Add to that, Senator Hillary Clinton was born and raised just outside Chicago, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Whoopee!! Dubious Distinctions to be sure. But too much for one post, so today let's look at just the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

Talk about naive. First, he wants to invade the sovereign territory of one of our allies. Second, he wants to hold talks with Foreign Leaders, hostile to the US, without any prior concessions. Now, he wants to Eliminate all Nuclear Weapons in the World. This astonishing show of Political Naivety is documented in The New York Times. (Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons)

Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

What's he thinking? Can anyone realistically envision countries like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia agreeing to do so and then keeping their word? This idea has worked so successfully in the past as evidenced by over 50 years of the Soviet, US Cold War. Remember treaties like SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and SORT?

International Treaties have not worked any better. North Korea agreed to one such Treaty, Violated the Treaty and then withdrew from the Treaty when caught.

Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, often tells voters that the Iraq war has consumed American foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to address other threats facing the nation. In his speech on Tuesday, aides said, Mr. Obama will assert, as he has before, that the United States should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.

If elected, Mr. Obama plans to say, he will lead a global effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. He also will pledge to end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert. [empahasi mine]

This sounds like a plan which will work. And for his next act I am sure Senator Obama will propose the Government buy Power Ball Lottery tickets to pay off the National Debt!

More Evidence the Surge IS Working

Besides the Leading Democrats sudden position switch, there have been a series of reports of al Qaeda Leaders being eliminated in Iraq due to Military Operations. One of the latest comes from the World Tribune online. Last letter from doomed Al Qaida chief: 'We are so desperate for your help' is the latest report from Baghdad about the success of the Surge.

Officials said several leading aides to Al Qaida network chief Abu Ayoub Al Masri have been killed by the U.S.-led coalition. They said two out of the four foreign aides of Al Masri remain alive.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the previous Democratic Position exemplified by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "This war is lost." April 19, 2007. The article makes clear that it is the Terrorists in Iraq who are losing. Sometimes it makes you wonder if Senator Reid really does want The US to Win in Iraq.

On Sept. 25, the U.S. military killed an Al Qaida chief deemed responsible for transporting foreign operatives to Iraq. The Al Qaida commander, identified as Abu Osama Al Tunisi, was killed in a U.S. air strike as he met his colleagues in Musayib, about 60 kilometers south of Baghdad.

Besides the elimination of an important member of the al Qeada in Iraq's Chain of Command, the letter which Abu Osama Al Tunisi wrote shortly before he was killed is a good indicator of the Surge's Success.

Shortly before he died, Al Tunisi wrote a letter that warned of a threat to Al Qaida operations in Karkh. The lettter, found by the U.S. military, sought guidance from Al Qaida leaders amid coalition operations that hampered Al Tunisi's network.

"We are so desperate for your help," the letter read. [emphasis mine]

Further indication of the Surge's Success comes from the declining casualty figures for the last few months and especially for the month of September. Despite the fact that about 30,000 additional troops are in Iraq, September's death toll of American Forces was the lowest since July 2006. It is hard to deny there is improvement, and this is causing the Front Runners of the Democratic Party to retreat from previous anti-war and anti-surge comments.

Al Tunisi was termed the emir, or commander, of foreign operatives in Iraq. [U.S. Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff of the Multinational Corps Iraq] said Al Tunisi was responsible for the arrival of Al Qaida recruits into Iraq and their placement in operational cells.

Officials said more than 80 percent of suicide bombings have been by foreign operatives. They said most of the Al Qaida recruits arrive in Syria by air and continue overland into Iraq.

In addition to the handling of Foreign al Qaeda recuruts, Al Tunisi was ... responsible for the abduction and killing of two U.S. soldiers in June of that year. [2006]

Must Read

3393 Americans Dead is your must read assignment.

FISA IS A Perversion Of Privacy Rights

Al Qaeda and other Terrorist groups have sworn to destroy us and our way of life. This is not meant to be a "scare you" statement, or an over exaggeration of fact. These facts come from the Terrorist leaders written and spoken words. As a result we, The American Public, need to revise our legal tools, and our attitudes if we really don't want to loose the Global War on Terror.

Two recent articles have highlighted this need for a revision in our thinking about National Security and Privacy. One of the most important considerations is this fact. Without Security, Privacy doesn't matter. We, as Americans, have a right to expect a certain amount of Privacy in our daily lives. However, some of the current laws REQUIRE us to give up both in a flawed attempt to protect privacy.

The first article for your consideration comes from the AP. OK to Spy on Kidnappers Took 9 Hours describes the ridiculous lengths to which our Government must go to protect our basic freedoms. In the name of privacy, we have failed to permanently revise the laws relating to the FISA Court to reflect technology advances.

Last spring, with insurgents apparently holding three American soldiers in Iraq, it took the U.S. government more than nine hours to begin emergency surveillance of some of the kidnappers' electronic communications.

Why did surveillance of the kidnappers' electronic communications take over 9 hours? The answer is Technology, and specifically the American Communications Networks. These Networks are the most efficient in the world, and as a result the kidnappers communications passed though them on US Soil. This prevented our Government from intercepting them without a warrant.

To be Clear, we could not listen to FOREIGN KIDNAPPERS, ON FOREIGN SOIL, because the Electronic Communications passed through DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS ON AMERICAN SOIL. This is lunacy, and extremely dangerous. We were prevented from monitoring the Electronic Communications of foreign kidnappers who held 3 Americans Hostage.

The delay was a centerpiece of the Bush administration's argument to Congress in late July that the law requiring court orders to conduct electronic surveillance inside the United States was dangerously restrictive.

Congress subsequently approved an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that removed the requirement for a court order to intercept foreign communications on U.S. soil. The original law was written to protect Americans from inappropriate government surveillance.

But this amendment expires after 6 months and Democrats have vowed to prevent this essential tool from being made permanent. What are they thinking? Shouldn't it be the First Priority of our Government to protect our security and thereby insure our Privacy? Makes Sense to me.

The Second article is Today's Featured Article at the OpinionJournal of the Wall Street Journal. (Surveillance Showdown) The opening paragraph of this article asks the question we should all be required to answer.

Would any sane country purposefully limit its ability to spy on enemy communications in time of war?

Congress will soon take up this question again, and the answer seems clear to all but the Democrats. The permanent reform of the FISA Court Legislation must be brought up to current technology capabilities.

Privacy activists, civil libertarians and congressional Democrats argue that both foreign and domestic eavesdropping must be subject to judicial scrutiny and oversight, even if this means drastically reducing the amount of foreign intelligence information available to the government, without ever acknowledging the costs involved. [emphasis mine]

What kind of insanity is this? Foreign Intelligence is specifically granted by Constitution to the Executive Branch of Our Government. For this Foreign Intelligence Gathering process no warrant should be necessary.

Warrantless surveillance is also constitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Although today's privacy advocates routinely claim that warrantless searches are inherently unreasonable, that position is insupportable. The Supreme Court has repeatedly approved numerous warrantless searches, balancing the government's interests against the relevant privacy expectations. Thus drivers can be subjected to sobriety checkpoints and international travelers are liable to search at the border.

Fear of "Big Brother" Government listening to our communications is warrantless (pun intended).

For several years I Prepared Income Tax Returns for a living. Certainly the returns I completed contained very sensitive and confidential Personal information. Obviously, this was a reasonable warrantless search I conducted to lawfully complete the Return. Many of those individuals whose returns I completed fully expected that I remembered their most intimate Tax Details. The truth was I did not specifically remember many details because it was a job, not a thrill seeking adventure.

More importantly, my reputation was at stake. My reputation developed through trust, was my source of continued business and therefore my means of support. I earned trust and therefore grew my business.

Reputation and Trust is the business of the Government too. Many of us remember the disgrace of Richard Nixon and more recently Congressman Duke Cunningham. No politician wants this to be his legacy. Even more important, many of the people involved are not political appointees. They are Honest, trustworthy citizens and members of the Military. For the most part, these are individuals who try to do the best job they can, because they believe in what they do.

The government does utilize a series of "minimization" procedures governing how foreign intelligence information is handled to prevent its inappropriate use or disclosure. As explained by CIA Director Michael Hayden in 2006, referring to the post-Sept. 11 terrorist surveillance program before it was subjected to FISA: "if the U.S. person information isn't relevant [without foreign intelligence value], the data is suppressed." The fact that senior U.S. government officials (unlike their counterparts in other countries) do not routinely have access to the unredacted surveillance-generated information about American citizens, and that the system is operated largely by career civil servants, provides an additional layer of privacy protection. [brackets and ellipsis in original]

In a nutshell, if we prevent electronic monitoring of foreign communications for National Intelligence purposes because they pass through US soil based Networks, we will limit the Intelligence to low level operatives. This is because the higher levels are not stupid. They know the best way to prevent interception is to insure US legal protection by using US Based Networks.

National Security and Privacy, in this case, are 2 ends of the same sliding scale. There is a balance point which can insure both, but if the slider is moved too far towards one end, we will loose both.

Henry Waxman: Democratic with Political Agenda

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has a Political Agenda. This agenda is detailed in a published article by Oliver North. (Henry Waxman: Witch Hunter in Chief)

Based on Mr. Waxman's actions, the Congressman believes that the real enemy in America is The Republican Party Generally, and President George Bush in particular.

Since becoming committee chairman, Waxman has initiated numerous investigations into the activities of the Bush administration. According to his own news releases, he has probed -- if that's the right word -- the case of Valerie Plame, the celebrity CIA operative; Karl Rove; medical treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center; Karl Rove; Defense Department and State Department contracting practices; Vice President Dick Cheney; Karl Rove; construction and hiring practices at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad; and the democratically elected government of Iraq, and he has tried to smear the White House over erroneous reports on the tragic death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Other than reducing entire forests to pulp for the paper to print his reports, the American people, in whose name all this is being done, have precious little to show for his tireless work.

Mr. Waxman is, according to some, a person who is very good at writing laws. But the record does not exactly reflect that fact. In fact it shows otherwise.

Notwithstanding Waxman's billing as a legislator who loves to "write laws, and he has been extraordinarily good at it," only three of the 95 bills he has sponsored in the past decade have been enacted. Seventy-seven of them were so good that they didn't even make their way out of committee. [emphasis mine]

According to a Time Magazine article published shortly after the November 2006 National Elections, Congressman Waxman is the Eliot Ness of the Democrats, and Waxman's supporters claim he is a strong supporter and advocate for transparency in Government. But the record does not exactly reflect that fact either.

Waxman's supporters describe him as a crusader for transparency in government. But the Time magazine flattery feature failed to disclose that the Time Warner Political Action Committee was the number one donor -- $13,500 -- to his 2006 re-election campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Perhaps this revelation will prompt him to investigate the Federal Election Commission.

As I recall, the real Elliot Ness didn't ask the Political Affiliation of those who were the targets of his investigations. A look at Congressman Waxman's actions don't show this same Political Indifference.

Apparently Waxman's quest for full accountability in government contracting applies only to Republicans. According to Politico, a Capitol Hill publication, the FBI and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service have been exploring whether Reps. Paul Kanjorski and Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania -- both cronies of Waxman -- improperly earmarked millions of dollars in defense contracts to a firm owned by members of Kanjorski's family. Thus far, Waxman has indicated no interest in the matter.

That same Time article claimed that the Congressman's staff is one of the most highly regarded staffs on Capitol Hill. But the record does not exactly reflect that fact either.

In July, while investigating hiring abuses in the construction of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, this vaunted staff "invited" -- to use Waxman's word -- Mr. Rory Mayberry to testify about how the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was being built by kidnapped Filipino workers.

At the time, Mayberry was described as a whistle-blower who had courageously come forward to describe how unwilling Filipinos were dragooned into building our diplomatic mission. All the major news networks covered his shocking "revelations." But this week, The Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire" revealed that the committee's star witness "has a string of convictions going back to the mid-1980s, including two for forgery, one for burglary and a fourth for welfare fraud." So much for good staff work.

Corruption in Government is something over which neither party has a monopoly. Therefore, Congressman Henry Waxman is not to be applauded for attempts to smear the Republican Party in General, and the Bush Administration specifically. There is plenty of real Corruption which Mr. Waxman's Committee could legitimately investigate. If he would do so, Congressman Waxman would be doing the Country a real Service. As it is he is creating more division and Political Point Scoring at a time when we need to come together, united.

Global Warming is Debunked, Democrats Propose New Taxes

Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age is the title of a research study Press Release from the University of Southern California. As may be deduced from the title, Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) does not have the Greenhouse Gas Effect the "Chicken Little" Global Warming Alarmists are claiming.

Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.

This press release supports the idea that CO₂ is more of an indicator of Global Warming than a cause, which supports previous posts on the subject. (CO₂ Again and Gore - It's CO₂)

“The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” [USC geologist Lowell] Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

Evidence is mounting that reducing carbon emissions (mainly CO₂) will not have a serious effect on Global Warming. Yet as evidenced by the recent remarks of Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), we need to increase taxes to prevent Global Warming by controlling CO₂ emissions. Congressman John Dingell Proposes 50-cent Gas Tax Hike to Fight Global Warming is available from FoxNews.com. Here's the summary of the article ...

Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

Another Democrat who wants to raise taxes for more "Big Government", Great. Representative Dingell has been in Congress since 1955, and is Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Let's repeat the proposed areas of tax increases and credit reductions.

—A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

—A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

—Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

From the way Congressman Dingell frames the issue, the reader comes to the conclusion that the increased tax revenue money would be used to reduce Global Warming through Carbon Emission Reductions. But here is where the Congressman would allocate the increased taxes.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills. [emphasis mine]

I don't follow the Michigan Democrat's reasoning. He claims we need to reduce Carbon Emissions to control Global Warming, which we have just seen probably is not dependent on these emissions. Then the increased Tax Revenue will partially reduce payroll taxes, highway construction, mass transit, Social Security and health programs!? What do these issues have to do with Global Warming? And won't highway construction increase the vehicles on the road, thereby increasing Carbon Emissions?

Democracy Finance

The Soros Threat To Democracy is an interesting article published in last Monday's edition of Investors Business Daily. George Soros, a billionaire who has directs the Radical Left's Politics and Agenda through organizations like MoveOn.org, is against anything Geroge Bush. He uses his money and influence to manipulate Public Opinion.

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.

Soros has pledged at least $5 Million since 2004 to MoveOn.org, and indications are that he would be willing to give more, if that's what it takes to win Elections. He is one person the Democrats are afraid to anger. In fact he has indicated that he gives about $400 Million Annually.

It is not just political organizations that gets his blessing and financial Support.

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 [OSI], 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.

Mr. Hansen is responsible for publicizing the flawed figures which showed 1998 to be the warmest year ever; and that 5 of the warmest 10 years have happened since 1990. Flawed because a mistake in his calculations, when corrected, showed 1934 to be the warmest year, and 5 of the 10 warmest years occurred prior to 1940. That shot a big hole in the arguments advanced by Global Warming "Chicken Little" Alarmists.

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.

George Soros is behind and funding Left Wing Radical Causes, Agendas and Organizations. His influence is also funding Terrorist enabling activities.

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?

Because individuals like George Soros stay behind the scenes, the General Public is only vaguely aware, if at all, how much Soros controls the Democratic Party. His activities are not at all transparent. It is only with the release of annual reports that the extent of OSI's involvement in Politics of the Democratic Party. This is usually long enough after the event that people don't readily make the connection.

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 reach of George Soros is vast. According to this George Soros: The Man, The Mind And The Money Behind MoveOn article also from Investors Business Daily, published Last Thursday, George Soros fills the coffers of many Political Agenda Groups.

The first groups Soros supported back in the 1980s did play a role in undercutting the rickety communist regimes of Eastern Europe. But his motives seemed less than idealistic. All Soros groups tend to tear down tyrannies rather than build up democracies.

And since 2003, tearing down what he views as the "fascist" tyranny of the United States, as he has put it, is "the central focus of my life."

Through networks of nongovernmental organizations, Soros intends to ruin the presidency of George W. Bush "by any legal means necessary" and knock America off its global pedestal. "His view of America is so negative," says Sen. Joe Lieberman, who, like Gen. David Petraeus, has been a target of Soros' electoral "philanthropy." "The places he's put his money are . . . so destructive that it unsettles me." Soros' aim seems to be to make the U.S. just another client state easily controlled by the United Nations and other one-world groups where he has lots of friends. [emphasis mine]

This is truly a person who sees the World in terms of the Glass Half-Empty. It appears to me that the mind of George Soros is open only to ideas he has planted through the groups he supports, and the Radical Left has embraced their ideas and talking points.

Best known among these groups is MoveOn.org, a previously small fringe-left group to which Soros has given $5 million since 2004. Bulked up by cash, the group now uses professional public relations tactics to undercut the Iraq War effort, with its latest a full-page New York Times ad that branded Gen. Petraeus "General Betray Us."

It ran Sept. 10 in the New York Times, the same day Petraeus delivered his progress report on the surge in Iraq.

MoveOn.org previously put out ads depicting Bush as a Nazi, something that certainly echoes Soros' sentiment.

"We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process," he told this year's Davos conference in Switzerland.

MoveOn.org was instrumental in Howard Dean's election to Chairman of the Democratic Party because Soros saw this as another opportunity to move the Democratic Party further to the Left.

Soros acolyte Arianna Huffington is on record as advocating that outcome. Berating Democrats for their electoral losses in 2004, she wrote: "Have these people learned nothing from 2000, 2002 and 2004? How many more concession speeches do they have to give — from 'the center' — before they realize it's not a very fruitful place?"

However, MoveOn.org is just the tip of the Soros funding Iceberg.

Soros also has financed spin outfits such as Media Matters that specialize in providing distorted conservative political statements as grist for leftist politicians and media.

Media Matters (and MoveOn.org) succeeded last year in denying incumbent Lieberman the Democratic nomination for Senate in Connecticut and effectively drove the moderate out of his own party. Net result: Fewer Democrats, including today's crop running for office, are willing to challenge any Soros-financed pressure group.

Soros wants to use every legal means to influence the outcome of Elections. Can you tell by this time that he supports those who, if elected, will move the US further left? Spin is not the only method used by George Soros.

He has also bankrolled groups involved in the manipulation of elections, an activity that has increased since his money came into the picture. Two groups — Americans Coming Together and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — were sanctioned recently by the Federal Election Commission for fraud.

Soros pledged $10 million to ACT, which has since been fined $775,000 for illegally funneling $70 million set aside for voter registrations to Democratic candidates.

He also gave at least $150,000 to ACORN, the left-wing group best known for pushing minimum-wage hikes, marching for illegal-immigrant amnesty and harassing Wal-Mart. ACORN has been accused of voter fraud in 13 states since 2004 and was convicted of falsifying signatures in a voter registration drive last July, drawing a fine of $25,000 in Washington state.

Soros says he has ended funding to voter-drive organizations, but he still heads a secretive rich-man's club called "Democracy Alliance" that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN.

It's also noteworthy that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org advocates "paper-trail" electronic voting in the U.S., the same kind used in Venezuela, where allegations of electronic fraud and ballot secrecy violations have ended confidence in the system and sealed Chavez's dictatorship.

And the list continues with funding to support Terrorists.

Soros additionally finances groups best described as helpful to terrorists. Since 1998, he has given the American Civil Liberties Union $5 million to empower criminals, including lawsuits on behalf of terrorists' "civil rights."

Soros' Open Society Institute gave $20,000 for the legal defense of radical attorney Lynne Stewart. She was convicted in 2002 of abetting jailed terrorists after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Soros is also involved in the financing of a 9/11 memorial at ground zero, the World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex — which critics say blames the U.S. for 9/11.

Even eco-terrorist groups are supported.

He has handed $3.1 million to the left-wing Tides Foundation, which funds organizations, such as the Sea Shepherds, Earth First! and the Ruckus Society, that have condoned or engaged in eco-terrorism.

Soros has said that The war on terror cannot be won. He supports International groups which have ...

Soros-backed groups have undercut important U.S. allies, including Israel and Colombia, which have aligned with the U.S. rather than the U.N.

As if that's not enough, Soros believes in a One World Government.

Soros additionally finances groups supporting the interests of one-world government. While he has criticized the United Nations occasionally, he favors U.N. dominance in world affairs, sees the European Union as a model for "open society" and has called for a global central bank.

Anyone who doesn't agree with this vision, or who doesn't fit cozily into his multilateral model, gets a visit from Soros-backed groups.

MoveOn.org, for example, led the charge to keep John Bolton out of a permanent seat in the U.N., and Bankwatch piled on to topple Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

Despite working against all things American, Soros does not usually endorse any particular candidate. This tactic keeps the Democrats on their toes and in line with his philosophy.

His chief aim seems to be tearing down Bush, driving the Democrats to the far left and enforcing party discipline through fear. In fact, he seems to like keeping Democrats guessing whether or not he's offended.

The strategy seems to be working. No Democrat had the courage to cross MoveOn.org after its libelous Petraeus ad. On Thursday, a symbolic vote in Congress censuring MoveOn.org for the Petraeus ad passed, but with the notable absence of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Election looming, neither wants to cross Soros' MoveOn.org.

Soros himself does not believe in victory in Iraq and wants to keep America from achieving it.

George Soros has been very successful, but his lack of transparency is not good for Free Speech Democracy. Free Speech is good only when the Speaker's backers and agendas are revealed. Only with the knowledge of motivational bias, can the listener judge the value of the speaker's presented ideas. It is only in this way that most of the Voting Public can elect those candidates who best represent his or her views.

Nuclear Material Was In Syria!

Follow-Up to What was in Syria?

Since last Sunday, 2 posts have discussed a Military Air Operation conducted early this month in Syria by Israeli F-15s.

• Middle East Tension
• What was in Syria?

Meanwhile reporting of this September 6^th bombing of a Secret Syrian Storage Facility, has been almost non-existent in the Main Stream Media. Yet this event may have great significance in the Politics of the World. The reason is explained in this article for the Sunday Times of London on-line (Israelis seized nuclear material in Syrian raid).

Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem. [emphasis mine]

In view of the 6 party talks aimed at getting North Korea to stop its Nuclear Weapon Production, North Korean Nuclear Material in Syria is a Big Deal. The material has been confirmed as North Korean and Several North Koreans were killed in the raid.

Why were North Koreans and North Korean Nuclear Materials in Syria? Two possible reasons come to mind. First, the North Koreans have recently agreed to dismantle their Nuclear Facilities. Therefore, North Korea may have sent part or all of the dismantled facilities to Syria for storage for later re-activation. Second, Syria and Syria's proxy Iran have expressed interest in developing Nuclear Weaponry. The Nuclear Material may have been shipped from North Korea to jump start Syrian and Iranian Programs.

On the other hand, maybe the North Koreans, Syrians and Iranians were trying to kill 2 birds with one stone. Hiding dismantled equipment and assisting Syria and Iran is a very possible scenario. It is also interesting that Israel and the US are sharing information about the activities in Syria and the Connections to North Korea.

Evidence that North Korean personnel were at the site is said to have been shared with President George W Bush over the summer. A senior American source said the administration sought proof of nuclear-related activities before giving the attack its blessing.

Snatched: Israeli commandos ‘nuclear’ raid is another related article from the same source. This article also claims there exists an agreement for intelligence sharing and co-operation between the US an Israel. But before the Bush Administration would give its approval for offensive operations, the US wanted proof that nuclear activities were involved. The Conclusive proof was provided and ...

Today the site near Dayr az-Zawr lies in ruins after it was pounded by Israeli F15Is on September 6. Before the Israelis issued the order to strike, the commandos had secretly seized samples of nuclear material and taken them back into Israel for examination by scientists, the sources say. A laboratory confirmed that the unspecified material was North Korean in origin. America approved an attack.

Details and additional information about this operation are still not being discussed by Israel, now being called the 'North Korean Project'. Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, who once commanded the Sayeret Matkal, was personally in charge of this operation.

Syria likely will retaliate for the Israeli attack. But if Nuclear Technology, weapons or manufacturing equipment was destroyed, the World is likely safer today than it was before September 6^th.

But details of the raid are still tantalisingly incomplete. Some analysts in America are perplexed by photographs of a fuel tank said to have been dropped from an Israeli jet on its return journey over Turkey. It appears to be relatively undamaged. Could it have been planted to sow confusion about the route taken by the Israeli F-15I pilots?

What's the long term effect of these actions? How deep are the ties between North Korea and Syria. There have been other incidents of co-operation between North Korea and Syria involving Chemical War heads at least since 2004, but this is the first evidence of Nuclear activity between the two countries.

What is Iran's role in the mix? We do know that Iran trains, equips and finances Terrorist Groups in Syria, but do they fit into this puzzle?

These questions magnify the importance of our current role in Iraq. It no longer matters why we went into Iraq, because the question of what we do now is much more important. To me it becomes even more essential that we complete the process we started in Iraq now more than ever.

Rathergate - Dan's Waterloo

Byron York writes about the surprise move on Dan Rather's part to sue CBS News. Return to Rathergate exposes several interesting claims by Dan.

First, he claims that, after the report stirred controversy, top CBS management conducted a sham investigation of the story for the purpose of making sure that damaging information about George W. Bush be kept secret.

“CBS announced that it was conducting a thorough independent investigation into the underlying story of the broadcast and its production,” the lawsuit says, “when in fact its intention was to conduct a biased investigation with controlled timing and predetermined conclusions in order to prevent further information concerning Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service from being uncovered.”

This fake investigation, Rather charges, was done so that CBS could “pacify the White House” by making Rather the “scapegoat” of what would become known as Rathergate.

Mr. York is as surprised as I was to learn that CBS was interested in pacifying the Bush White House. It will certainly be entertaining to see Dan Accuse CBS of being a friend of George Bush, while CBS makes the case for being non-biased.

---

Meanwhile at the Huffington Post, Mary Mapes Congratulates Dan because Rather still has more reportorial testosterone than the entire employee roster at FOX News in her post Courage for Dan Rather

Mary was Dan's associate who, as I recall, obtained the documents for the Story. She makes a big deal about the Right Wing Bloggers who attacked the authenticity of the documents concerning George Bush's National Guard Service.

Whether President Bush was ducking Vietnam Service or not was not any more of a story than President Clinton's Draft Dodging. Unlike John Kerry, George Bush did not try to use his Military Service as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Actually Senator Kerry's Senate Testimony which criminalized the US Military was his downfall.

But Mary's most revealing statement is this paragraph.

We reported that since these documents were copies, not originals, they could not be fully authenticated, at least not in the legal sense. They could not be subjected to tests to determine the age of the paper or the ink. We did get corroboration on the content and support from a couple of longtime document analysts saying they saw nothing indicating that the memos were not real.

On the one hand she says the originals could not be produced, therefore, they could not be authenticated. On the other hand Mary claims a couple of document analysts saw nothing indicating the memos were not real, but neither did or could they say they were real. She fails to mention that many more document analysts strongly felt they could not be authentic.

One expert was able to reproduce the document letter for letter with Microsoft Word default settings. Strange coincidence since Microsoft Word was not available when the memos were claimed to have been written.