Soros and his shadow party
- Thread starter PixieStix
- Start date
paperview
Life is Good
Answer me this: Why would someone fund a newspaper that makes NOT ONE DIME? It is one of the most widely quoted conservative newspapers in the world.
He has funded that paper to the tune of BILLIONS, yes, BILLIONS.
Not ONE PENNY in profit has the Washington Times ever made.
x Now you tell me: How ******* capitalistic is that?
Perhaps he believes the traditional values of western culture are worth the sacrifice.
Soros spends his money to eradicate western culture.
All the same to you I see.
Contessa_Sharra
Searcher for Accuracy
- Apr 27, 2008
- 1,639
- 149
- 48
So freaking what!!!!!!!!!!!1
Are you actually trying to promote that the RADICAL RIGHT doesn't spend millions on PR and agenda based BULLSHIT.....
For crissake go make some mac and cheese and be useful!
paperview
Life is Good
You mean like the Traditional Values of the owner of the Wash Times - you know, that would be one where the billionaire megalomaniac LITERALLY CALLS HIMSELF THE MESSIAH.
He runs a damn cult. The MOONIES. He holds mass weddings in Football stadiums.
He tells his followers to donate all their money to him and follow him.
He uses sophisticated mind control in his 'church.'
He funds dictators, he funds the Right Wing GOP.
He owns the Propaganda device known as the Washington Times.
He Even said that Jesus 'got it WRONG' and that all will call him "Father' one day.
He even had a freaking coronation in the US Senate Office Building crowning him KING!
You mean THOSE traditional values???
Kind of kookey , Not really trying to destroy the country though.
paperview
Life is Good
<just shakes head>
Is that what his newpaper prints daily?
Contessa_Sharra
Searcher for Accuracy
- Apr 27, 2008
- 1,639
- 149
- 48
Shadows behind shadows.....
Equity is when you come to the discussion with clean hands. I suggest you take a trip to your own mirror.
Example of one of the RIGHT's CREEPS and LIARS doing it like a shadow party does most things: in a backhanded very secretive and manipulating way - Rick Berman - SourceWatch - Center for Consumer Freedom or Deception? You Decide.:
Biting the hand that spins you
by
Nancy Goldstein, for RawStoryQ
Activists drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine, so
our strategy is to shoot the messenger Weve got to attack their credibility as
spokespersons
our strategy is to shoot the messenger Weve got to attack their credibility as
spokespersons
-Richard Berman from a 1999 interview with the
Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant
chains
Rick Berman doesnt give a damn about you or AIDS research. But youd never know that from the
full-page ad his DC-based PR firm placed in the New Yorker last month (February 14th & 21st).
Readers of the magazine were treated to an image of a red AIDS ribbon set aflame beneath a
quotation attributed to Ingrid Newkirk, President and co-founder of
full-page ad his DC-based PR firm placed in the New Yorker last month (February 14th & 21st).
Readers of the magazine were treated to an image of a red AIDS ribbon set aflame beneath a
quotation attributed to Ingrid Newkirk, President and co-founder of
PETA (People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals): Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, wed be against it.
The text below continues: PETAs violent opposition to medical research is well known. Not as well
recognized: PETA has funneled over $100,000 to criminals For more about PETA and other
extremists go to ConsumerFreedom.com.
recognized: PETA has funneled over $100,000 to criminals For more about PETA and other
extremists go to ConsumerFreedom.com.
The ad claims PETA cares so little about people that they put the interests of animals above humans
even when the litmus test is the AIDS pandemic. By contrast, you might imagine, the Center for
Consumer Freedom supports medical research, including AIDS-related research, condemns violence,
and shirks from criminality.
even when the litmus test is the AIDS pandemic. By contrast, you might imagine, the Center for
Consumer Freedom supports medical research, including AIDS-related research, condemns violence,
and shirks from criminality.
You could imagine that. But you would be wrong.
Because the Center for Consumer Freedom is not, as it describes itself in the small print at the
bottom of the ad, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting consumer choices. Its a front
group that represents the interests of the restaurant, alcohol, and tobacco industries. It started out
as the Guest Choice Network with $900K in seed money from Philip Morris, which
bottom of the ad, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting consumer choices. Its a front
group that represents the interests of the restaurant, alcohol, and tobacco industries. It started out
as the Guest Choice Network with $900K in seed money from Philip Morris, which
kicked in an
additional $2.1 million dollars
over the next two years.
Like PETA, its a tax-exempt activist group but on the other side of the political fence. Unlike
PETA, however, its founder runs a lobbying firm that specializes in corporate special interest
initiatives. Other Berman projects housed at the Center for Consumer Freedoms address include
the so-called Employment Policies Institute, which fights to keep the minimum wage low and
opposes mandatory health insurance for workers, and the American Beverage Institute, which
helped kill federal legislation supported by advocacy groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD) that would have lowered legal blood-alcohol levels for drivers.
PETA, however, its founder runs a lobbying firm that specializes in corporate special interest
initiatives. Other Berman projects housed at the Center for Consumer Freedoms address include
the so-called Employment Policies Institute, which fights to keep the minimum wage low and
opposes mandatory health insurance for workers, and the American Beverage Institute, which
helped kill federal legislation supported by advocacy groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD) that would have lowered legal blood-alcohol levels for drivers.
And the only other time that Rick Berman appears to have concerned himself with AIDS was in a
1989 commentary
for Nations Restaurant News where he opposed the passage of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it would require employers to ignore AIDS infections among
cooks and servers unless a direct threat to the safety of others can be proved. Not, mind you,
because he actually believed that HIV or AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, but
because the average person is still overly concerned about that possibility.
cooks and servers unless a direct threat to the safety of others can be proved. Not, mind you,
because he actually believed that HIV or AIDS could be contracted through casual contact, but
because the average person is still overly concerned about that possibility.
How can you openly value the corporate bottom line over the rights of people living with AIDS and
then run an ad that attempts to profit off the backs of those people? Easy. Hypocrisy and
absolutely no sense of irony about ones own double standards. After all, these are the same folks
who sent picketers to Ingrid Newkirks book signing in DC last month to chant about the need for
full disclosure while wearing masks.
then run an ad that attempts to profit off the backs of those people? Easy. Hypocrisy and
absolutely no sense of irony about ones own double standards. After all, these are the same folks
who sent picketers to Ingrid Newkirks book signing in DC last month to chant about the need for
full disclosure while wearing masks.
And despite the hefty financial backing that Berman and his cadre enjoy from special interest
groups, dont expect them to show up on ActivistCash.com an offshoot of the Center for
Consumer Freedom any time soon. The sites stated mission is to provide the public and media
with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of
their exorbitant funding.
groups, dont expect them to show up on ActivistCash.com an offshoot of the Center for
Consumer Freedom any time soon. The sites stated mission is to provide the public and media
with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of
their exorbitant funding.
But these same folks who never tire of talking about unmasking financial Goliaths and deeppocketed
foundations would never dream of holding themselves to the same standards they
demand of their activist enemies. The Center for Consumer Freedoms
foundations would never dream of holding themselves to the same standards they
demand of their activist enemies. The Center for Consumer Freedoms
tax form (PDF) lists over
$3.25 million in direct public support for 2003s educational efforts but declines to name a single
individual or corporate donor. (PR Watch helpfully posts a
individual or corporate donor. (PR Watch helpfully posts a
memo from an internal whistleblower that
names dozens of Bermans backers
, including Coca Cola, Tyson Foods, Outback Steakhouse,
Wendys, and Monsanto.
Still, the question of who profits from the Center for Consumer Freedom is far easier to answer than
the question of who funds it. Its top expenditure in 2003 was the $1.5 million dollars in consulting
fees and employee benefits it paid to Rick Bermans firm, which it describes as its management
company.
the question of who funds it. Its top expenditure in 2003 was the $1.5 million dollars in consulting
fees and employee benefits it paid to Rick Bermans firm, which it describes as its management
company.
You heard right. Rick Berman has set up a PR machine on behalf of the restaurant, tobacco, and
alcohol industry that presents itself as a consumer protection group, tries to discredit any kind of
investigation or legislation that might cut into industry profits, yells and screams about the allegedly
shady funding behind activist groups, enjoys tax-exempt status as a non-profit organization, and
pays its largest yearly fees into Rick Bermans pockets.
alcohol industry that presents itself as a consumer protection group, tries to discredit any kind of
investigation or legislation that might cut into industry profits, yells and screams about the allegedly
shady funding behind activist groups, enjoys tax-exempt status as a non-profit organization, and
pays its largest yearly fees into Rick Bermans pockets.
Not that Berman isnt worth it. In addition to shifting public debate from corporate responsibility to
consumer liability, he successfully plants his op-eds and talking points everywhere, from USA
Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
to the ever helpful Wall Street Journal and Washington Times. (Berman did not, however, respond
to numerous requests to speak on record for this article.)
consumer liability, he successfully plants his op-eds and talking points everywhere, from USA
Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
to the ever helpful Wall Street Journal and Washington Times. (Berman did not, however, respond
to numerous requests to speak on record for this article.)
Even now, when the media is full of stories about the governments planting of PR as news,
publications accept Bermans ads and articles without blinking. Why is anyones guess. The pressure
on print media to accept all advertising at a time of shrinking revenue? The need for free content?
Political bias? (I was certainly left guessing by the New Yorker, which did not respond to repeated
requests to comment on their ad vetting process, but helpfully faxed me a 2005 rates list that
revealed the $88,845 price tag on the Center for Consumer Freedoms four-color full-page ad.)
Its a reflection of how careless the news media has become that newspapers will run op-eds from
Berman that present him as a consumer advocate instead of a corporate mouthpiece, says Sheldon
Rampton, Research Director of PR Watch. The op-ed pages are full of people like Berman. Thats
part of what the public relations industry does.
publications accept Bermans ads and articles without blinking. Why is anyones guess. The pressure
on print media to accept all advertising at a time of shrinking revenue? The need for free content?
Political bias? (I was certainly left guessing by the New Yorker, which did not respond to repeated
requests to comment on their ad vetting process, but helpfully faxed me a 2005 rates list that
revealed the $88,845 price tag on the Center for Consumer Freedoms four-color full-page ad.)
Its a reflection of how careless the news media has become that newspapers will run op-eds from
Berman that present him as a consumer advocate instead of a corporate mouthpiece, says Sheldon
Rampton, Research Director of PR Watch. The op-ed pages are full of people like Berman. Thats
part of what the public relations industry does.
You have to hand it to those right-wing PR hacks: they sure do know how to get the most out of all
sides of a symbol. Bermans PR firm used the imagery of an AIDS ribbon to arouse left-wing public
ire against PETA in mid February. The very next week, USA Next, a 527 front group, used the image
of two guys kissing to arouse right-wing public ire against the AARP.
sides of a symbol. Bermans PR firm used the imagery of an AIDS ribbon to arouse left-wing public
ire against PETA in mid February. The very next week, USA Next, a 527 front group, used the image
of two guys kissing to arouse right-wing public ire against the AARP.
But there are signs that were learning to fight fire with fire.
One delicious unintended result of the USA Next ad: the couple in the photo have just
filed a $25
million lawsuit
against them and political consulting firm Mark Montini International for using their
wedding photo without permission in a high-profile gay-bashing ad designed to drum up support for
social security privatization.
social security privatization.
And even Bermans luck may be about to run out. This past November,
Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint
with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that
the Center for Consumer Freedom has violated its tax exempt status and engaged in activities with
no charitable purpose.
no charitable purpose.
We were the first organization to go after Berman, said Melanie Sloan, CREWs executive director.
The IRS [has] begun taking a closer looks at nonprofits that may be abusing their 501©(3) status
in the past year or so. I think theyre going to take one look at what Rick Berman has been doing
and shut him down.
The IRS [has] begun taking a closer looks at nonprofits that may be abusing their 501©(3) status
in the past year or so. I think theyre going to take one look at what Rick Berman has been doing
and shut him down.
Note to self:
check back with USA Next, Mark Montini International, and Rick Berman in six months
to see if they still believe that all publicity is good publicity.
Nancy Goldstein
earned her doctorate from Brandeis University, and has taught at Harvard, MIT,
and Connecticut College. She is the co-editor of The Gender Politics of HIV/AIDS in Women (NYU
Press, 1997),which includes her article on the invisibility of women who have sex with women in the
pandemic. Last May she and her partner were one of 36 out-of-state couples to wed in
Massachussetts prior to the governors cease and desist order. She lives and writes in New York.
Nancys column appears every Thursday on RawStoryQPress, 1997),which includes her article on the invisibility of women who have sex with women in the
pandemic. Last May she and her partner were one of 36 out-of-state couples to wed in
Massachussetts prior to the governors cease and desist order. She lives and writes in New York.
Contessa_Sharra
Searcher for Accuracy
- Apr 27, 2008
- 1,639
- 149
- 48
Contessa_Sharra
Searcher for Accuracy
- Apr 27, 2008
- 1,639
- 149
- 48
RodISHI
Platinum Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 25,786
- 11,302
- 940
I was reading through a list of his organizations buy-ins or the sell-outs list of where he bought in not long ago. Some of the names were very interesting. That kind of money with an agenda on your hands you can buy-off and pay-off many organizations and people.
All the more reason to say enough for bullshit tax free organizations determining who the people will elect into the positions of the government leadership.
If the people pay taxes so should the king. That means everyone. If these propped up organizations have a right to try and direct how people will vote and get be tax exempt, so do the churches and every other organization that calls themselves charity.
If they call themselves a charitable organization of any kind make them open up their books for public inspection. If they are unwilling to do so then let them all pay taxes like regular folk. Have that information available to the public so the public can determine if they wish to still support these organizations.
In his 1998 book The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Soros predicted an imminent collapse of the global financial system. Financiers like himself were largely to blame, he wrote, for they had allowed greed to overwhelm their humanity. “The (global capitalist) system is deeply flawed,” wrote Soros. “As long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations.” [6]
Soros offered no coherent solution to the problem. He simply continued his long-established pattern of pouring money into a hodge-podge of fashionable leftwing causes, such as promoting mass immigration into the United States; financing anti-gun lawsuits and lobbyists; demanding voting rights for felons; seeking the abolition of capital punishment; exacerbating Palestinian unrest; promoting abortion; feminism; population control; gay liberation; euthanasia; radical theories of education; marijuana legalization and global government.
FrontPage Magazine - The Shadow Party: Part I
Soros offered no coherent solution to the problem. He simply continued his long-established pattern of pouring money into a hodge-podge of fashionable leftwing causes, such as promoting mass immigration into the United States; financing anti-gun lawsuits and lobbyists; demanding voting rights for felons; seeking the abolition of capital punishment; exacerbating Palestinian unrest; promoting abortion; feminism; population control; gay liberation; euthanasia; radical theories of education; marijuana legalization and global government.
FrontPage Magazine - The Shadow Party: Part I
Passed on March 27, 2002, the McCain-Feingold Act forbade political parties from collecting soft money. To take some of the sting out of the soft-money prohibition, it raised the limit on individual hard-money contributions from $1,000 per candidate each year to $2,000.
However, McCain-Feingold failed to address the issue of Section 527 "stealth PACs." It did not explicitly forbid private 527s from raising soft money for electioneering purposes. This left political operatives in a quandary. Could they or couldn't they continue to raise soft money through private 527 non-profit groups? No one was sure. But the Democrats took the lead in forging ahead, despite the legal risks. Democrats reasoned that as long as the operators of 527 groups refrained from coordinating their activities directly with the candidates or political parties, and refrained from uttering the "magic words," they could raise as much money as they wanted through 527s.
Republicans disagreed. They charged that the Shadow Party was a criminal enterprise, whose activities were akin to money laundering. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to rule on the matter until after the 2004 election. The Republicans were left with no choice but to try to play catch-up. Republicans began building their own 527 network. But the Democrats had the jump on them. It was the Democrats - and George Soros in particular - who had been pushing McCain-Feingold for years. They knew its loopholes and weaknesses intimately, and were ready to exploit them the moment the law was passed.
However, McCain-Feingold failed to address the issue of Section 527 "stealth PACs." It did not explicitly forbid private 527s from raising soft money for electioneering purposes. This left political operatives in a quandary. Could they or couldn't they continue to raise soft money through private 527 non-profit groups? No one was sure. But the Democrats took the lead in forging ahead, despite the legal risks. Democrats reasoned that as long as the operators of 527 groups refrained from coordinating their activities directly with the candidates or political parties, and refrained from uttering the "magic words," they could raise as much money as they wanted through 527s.
Republicans disagreed. They charged that the Shadow Party was a criminal enterprise, whose activities were akin to money laundering. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to rule on the matter until after the 2004 election. The Republicans were left with no choice but to try to play catch-up. Republicans began building their own 527 network. But the Democrats had the jump on them. It was the Democrats - and George Soros in particular - who had been pushing McCain-Feingold for years. They knew its loopholes and weaknesses intimately, and were ready to exploit them the moment the law was passed.
PixieStix
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2009
- 15,096
- 5,474
- 370
- Thread starter
- #79
Thank you Mr. Fitnah, this is what I have been telling people for some time now. I have never totally forgiven McCain in his role in this scam against the American people. All in the name of bipartisanship? No, McCain seemed to be bitter because he was not good at raising campaign money
I have always said that McCain Feingold created moveon.org, and made Micheal Moore even fatter....in his head and wallet. And soros is laughing all along
Money laundering indeed!!
Beginning of deep deep in your face corruption in DC
We can continue with bitter petty bickering and lose the promise of this founding fathers or we can learn and fight back against those who benefit from keeping us fighting each other over parties..
We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
