HEAR SOROS: Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality(Why We Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Dem Prez)

6.06.04 | Mia T

[Mia T]

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros spoke those words even as he was trying his $25,000,000-damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, lethally dangerous dementia on all of America.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct its porcine manifestation.

GEORGE TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

• its naivete about the War on Terror,

• its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,

• its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two essential pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequal power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none--we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the exact antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, the latter two inconvenient concepts, according to Leftist dogma, must be trashed forthwith.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They allow ideology and reacquisition of power trump national security. They become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they seek to aid and abet.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

 

America's Real Two-Front War

 

 

by Mia T, 4.17.04

 

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both quite insane.

If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.

Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.

Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.

To borrow from the Bard, let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.

America must not pull her punches.

To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.

MORE

 

 

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.

neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) distain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04

 

The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003
.

by Mia T, 4.6.03

 

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

 

Mia T, June 9, 1999
THE ALIENS

 

l From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

---

addendum 12.13.03:
Pathologic self-interest: Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview, contained in hillary talks:ON TERROR, (below), is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter presents the clintons' monumental failure to protect America in sickening detail.

Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.

Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.

For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.

William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes,
The New York Times, May 30, 1999

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.

The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

(There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: clinton failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because he reasoned that doing so would have wrecked his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.)

Mia T, 2.11.04
BUSH, THE CLINTONS + WMD PROLIFERATION:
The REAL "Imminent Threat"

 

 

It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.

Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.

And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance.

(This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)

Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited

 

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby

 

 

 

There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.

AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL

 

 

 

At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.

Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 

 

May 11, 3:18 PM EDT

Video Shows Beheading of American in Iraq

By LOUIS MEIXLER
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A video posted Tuesday on an al-Qaida-linked Web site showed the beheading an American civilian in Iraq in what was said to be revenge for abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform. The man identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. civilian whose body was found Saturday near a highway overpass in Baghdad.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu akbar!" - "God is great!" They then held the head up to the camera.

The slaying recalled the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 in Pakistan. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of kidnapping Pearl, but seven other suspects - including those who allegedly slit his throat - remain at large.

NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT Video posted of beheading of American in Iraq

 

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL

JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

Q ERTY6 ^{utter failure}_BUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

more

 

[Twinkie]

Mr. Soros:
Now hear this! We are NOT animals, and this is NOT a farm.
I'm fairly sure the Clintons will be quite pleased to
part you from a goodly chunk of your money. Farms are for
sale. The spirit of America is not.

[Militiaman7]

My only wish concerning Mr. Soros is to have his grave made into a urinal and a have a long line of conservatives waiting to use it.

[muslims=borg]

I wouldn't trust Soros to walk my dog. He is a carpetbagger. I remember back in 1998 he was denouncing the use of derivatives and at the same time his firm was the biggest user of them that I have ever seen.

[Mia T]

bump

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Happy2BMe]

George Sorearse ping . .

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

(Mia, you AMAZE me!)

[WorkingClassFilth]

If one tenth of what is here, on this sole thread, were on the evening news tomorrow night, America would be in an uproar on Tuesday morning. By next Friday, we might well be on the road to recovering this nation's high offices and institutions. With time, our enemies and their machinations would recede into a scummy froth on European shores.

With all of the Islamic horrors captured in digital gory glory (Pearl, Berg, etc.), all of the treason that preceded this administration and the sale of our children's (and the world's) security and the intrusion of obvious Soviet operatives like Soros operating without restraint in economic sabotage and election fraud, what is the point to even having a damned press corps if they just sit around and slurp each other's @sses?

Islamofascist kill because they are fascists grafted into a theology of the insane. krinton and the left betray and poison largely because they are amoral degenerate fascists. The left, in general, works it's evil because they are fascist zealots without sound reasoning or the ability to bear the truth. But, if their is something lower than the press, I'd like to hear about it.

[Happy2BMe]

George Soros Likens Iraqi Prisoner Abuse to 9/11 Attacks
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 03, 2004

(1st Add: Includes comments from RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie)

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Billionaire philanthropist and financier George Soros, a major donor to liberal political causes, says the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners was a turning point in the war on terror that will lead to the downfall of President Bush.

Speaking to thousands of liberal activists at the Take Back America conference in Washington on Thursday, Soros spent more than 35 minutes expressing his disdain for the Bush administration. His address focused mostly on foreign policy and criticism of neoconservatives, whom he referred to as "American supremacists."

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

Soros added, "There is, I'm afraid, a direct connection between those two events - because the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims to perpetrators. This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is that the war on terror, as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims than the original attack itself."

Soros predicted that photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse would be a turning point in the presidential election. He spoke confidently of his desire to see Bush defeated.

"I personally am convinced that there will be a change of regime in this country," Soros said. "I think the general public now recognizes they've been misled. We will reject the Bush doctrine, but we need an alternative vision to reestablish our position in the world."

Soros, however, offered little in the way of solutions, other than to stress that the United States must work together with allies when confronting terrorism.

After months of remaining in the shadows, Soros recently has emerged as an outspoken player in liberal politics. Earlier this week, he was the subject of lengthy, and largely flattering, profiles in the New York Times and USA Today.

As one of the wealthiest Americans, the Hungarian-born, naturalized U.S. citizen has given away more than $15 million to liberal interest groups. The most notable contributions have gone to America Coming Together ($10 million), MoveOn.org ($2.5 million) and a liberal think tank called the Center for American Progress ($3 million).

Soros' stated goal is to defeat President Bush. In the process, he has faced a number of attacks from Republicans. The Republican National Committee notes that Soros' Open Society Institute supports a range of issues from gun control to drug law reform. Soros, however, has denied that he is seeking influence in a potential Democratic administration.

"Abu Ghraib was bad and the soldiers involved are rightly being punished, but for Democrats to say that the abuse of Iraqi fighters is the moral equivalent of the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans is outrageous," said RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie in response to Soros' remarks.

"Their hatred of the president is fueling a blame America first mentality that is troubling," Gillespie concluded.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who introduced Soros to a rousing ovation, hailed the billionaire as the left's answer to wealthy Republican contributors.

"George Soros is using his considerable success in our free market, in our democracy, to make sure that his opinions are heard in the marketplace of ideas. That is within the American tradition," Clinton said. "You will hear a steady drumbeat about 'what right does this very successful man have to use his resources to try to create political movement and action.' Well, I'll tell you, he has the same right as all the people on the right have had."

Clinton then referred to her famous line about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," which has been mentioned frequently throughout the first two days of the conference.

"That didn't happen by accident," Clinton said of the conservative movement. "It happened because people with a very particular point of view ... came together, literally starting 50 years ago. They created think tanks, they created endowed professorships, they set up other media outlets, on and on and on."

She added: "They very slowly but surely started to change American politics. And you've got to give them credit; they've done a good job. They got themselves a president and a vice president and lots of other people who march to their drumbeat."

Clinton's last-minute appearance at the conference came after Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), citing a scheduling conflict, backed out of a scheduled Thursday appearance. But liberal activists did hear from ex-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who, like Edwards, also sought the Democrat Party's presidential nomination.

SOURCE

[KriegerGeist]

they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world:

"the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints,"

As it should be. The Supremes (at least two of them) want the U.S. Courts rule according to "International Law" and John Kerry who would instantly hand sovereignty of the U.S. over to the UN and probably dismantle our military and put us under UN control

"and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine."

Which I don't think is a bad thing considering that doctrine is anti-terrorism and anti-those-who-breed-or-harbor-terrists. And, that doctrine is freedom and liberty to brutally oppressed countries lie Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea just to name a few.

The "Bush doctrine" is not bad doctrine in my opinion.

I hope this Soros character runs out of money, is found guilty of something and and is jailed or perhaps his plane will suffer engine failure or something...

[Happy2BMe]

You are known by those you are willing to fight for.

Soros is fighting for Kerry.

FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Newly released FBI files reveal that presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended a second meeting with North Vietnamese communists in Paris in the early 1970s. Kerry has previously admitted to meeting only once with the North Vietnamese delegations in 1970.

According to the FBI files, Kerry met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris in 1971 in an effort to secure the release of captured American prisoners of war. Kerry has previously acknowledged meeting "both delegations" of Vietnamese communists in Paris in 1970, but has said nothing of the 1971 meeting.

Researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s, believes Kerry is hiding key aspects about his anti-war past from the public as he seeks the presidency.

"Kerry has admitted to one meeting with Madam Binh. Now we have reason to believe there was a second [meeting], so let's press them to admit the second [meeting]," Corsi told CNSNews.com.

"Kerry needs to explain to the American people why he directly went into negotiations with communists," Corsi added. Corsi has written an essay on Kerry's dealings with the Vietemese communists on the Internet site, WinterSoldier.com.

According to Gerald Nicosia, a Kerry supporter and the author of the book Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans' Movement, Kerry's second visit to Paris to meet with emissaries of the North Vietnamese communist government is documented in redacted FBI files from the era.

"The [FBI] files record that Kerry made a second trip to Paris that summer (1971) to learn how the North Vietnamese might release prisoners," Nicosia wrote in an essay in the Los Angeles Times on May 23.

"After deciding not to run [for Congress] in 1970, he and his new wife, Julia Thorne, traveled to France in May to meet Madame Nguyen Thi Binh and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a 'fact-finding mission,"' Nicosia wrote.

Nicosia noted that, "Kerry had tried to distinguish between his own trips to meet with the Vietnamese in Paris, which he considered necessary to fight through the lies of his own government, and actual negotiations with the enemy, which Kerry knew were illegal."

Kerry told the New York Times on April 24 that his first meeting with the Vietnamese communists in 1970 was "not a big deal."

''People were dropping in (at the Paris Peace Talks). It was a regular sort of deal," Kerry explained to the New York Times .

But Corsi believes it was a very big deal.

"You had (Former Nixon aide) Henry Kissinger there (in Paris) trying to negotiate formally with the Paris peace delegation and then these guys (from Vietnam Veterans Against the War) are off on their own side show, establishing back channels to the Vietnamese communists; all of this is against the law," Corsi said, referring to U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, which declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.

"Exactly who was Kerry ... to have arranged these trips? He had to be in discussion with some link with the communist party of Vietnam in order to establish these trips and meetings," Corsi explained.

Kerry also may have had plans to go to South Vietnam in 1971, according to a June 16, 1971 article in the communist Daily World newspaper.

"Former Navy Lt. John Kerry is planning a three-week trip to South Vietnam in July to report on 'what is really happening' to the GI's there, he told newsmen here," read the article, written by the Daily World's Ted Pearson. Kerry was attending an event in Chicago with Jesse Jackson, who at the time was head of the organization, Operation Bread Basket.

It is unclear whether Kerry ever made the trip to South Vietnam in 1971 and Kerry's campaign did not return several phone calls seeking comment for this article.

Nicosia has criticized Kerry in the past for not being more open about his anti-war past.

"I am in kind of an awkward position here. I am a Kerry supporter and I certainly don't want to do anything that hurts him. On the other hand, my number one allegiance is to truth. So I am going to go with where the facts are, and John is going to have to deal with that," Nicosia told CNSNews.com back in March when the contents of the FBI files became public and caused Kerry to revise his past statements on a series of issues dealing with his past.

"I am having some problems with the things he is saying right now, which are not matching up with accuracy," Nicosia said in March.

"I think [Kerry] may be worried or the people around him may be worried that his association with VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) is a very negative thing and they want John to back away from it," he added.

Kerry's anti-war activism and his meetings with the communists had a big impact, according to Corsi.

"Vietnamese communists would not have won the war without John Kerry. They were cultivating his protest activity with the VVAW," Corsi said.

Corsi said the Vietnamese communists have shown their gratitude to Kerry by displaying a photo of him at Ho Chi Minh City's Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum. The photo of fellow anti-war activist and actress Jane Fonda also appears in the Women's Museum in Saigon.

"As soon as [Kerry] came onto the seen, [the Vietnamese communists] latched on to him like bees on to honey. [The communists] said 'This is a guy who tells our story, it will undermine the sympathy for the war in America,'" Corsi added.

See Related Articles:
Kerry's Meeting With Communists Violated US Law, Says Author
Communists Infiltrated Kerry's Anti-War Group, Historian Says
Kerry Still Backpedaling on Presence at 1971 Anti-War Meetings
Kerry Lying About Anti-War Past, Supporter Alleges

[WorkingClassFilth]

Small correction. Soros is fighting for international governance and the abolition of national sovereignty. He is a commie, through and through. Kerry is just the receptical he is using at the moment.

[Mia T]

Before 9/11,
time was not on the side of conventional media.
They, like the dems, are in rapid decline.

But the terrorist threat took time off the table,
i.e., time is now on no one's side.

So the question reduces to one of rate.
Rate of conversion. Rate of attrition.

Will we, through the new fiberoptic venues,
convince enough of the electorate fast enough
to reject the Leftist enemy of America
before the other enemy of America,
the islamofascist terrorists,
succeed in destroying us all?

[T]oday's endless ovation for World War II vets doesn't change the fact that this nation has behaved boorishly, with colossal disrespect. If we cared about that war, the men who won it and the ideas it suggests, we would teach our children (at least) four topics:

• The major battles of the war....

• The bestiality of the Japanese. The Japanese army saw captive soldiers as cowards, lower than lice. If we forget this we dishonor the thousands who were tortured and murdered, and put ourselves in danger of believing the soul-corroding lie that all cultures are equally bad or good. Some Americans nowadays seem to think America's behavior during the war was worse than Japan's--we did intern many loyal Americans of Japanese descent. That was unforgivable--and unspeakably trivial compared to Japan's unique achievement, mass murder one atrocity at a time.

In "The Other Nuremberg," Arnold Brackman cites (for instance) "the case of Lucas Doctolero, crucified, nails driven through hands, feet and skull"; "the case of a blind woman who was dragged from her home November 17, 1943, stripped naked, and hanged"; "five Filipinos thrown into a latrine and buried alive." In the Japanese-occupied Philippines alone, at least 131,028 civilians and Allied prisoners of war were murdered. The Japanese committed crimes against Allied POWs and Asians that would be hard still, today, for a respectable newspaper even to describe. Mr. Brackman's 1987 book must be read by everyone who cares about World War II and its veterans, or the human race.

• The attitude of American intellectuals. Before Pearl Harbor but long after the character of Hitlerism was clear--after the Nuremberg laws, the Kristallnacht pogrom, the establishment of Dachau and the Gestapo--American intellectuals tended to be dead set? against the U.S. joining Britain's war on Hitler.

Today's students learn (sometimes) about right-wing isolationists like Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters. They are less likely to read documents like this, which appeared in Partisan Review (the U.S. intelligentsia's No. 1 favorite mag) in fall 1939, signed by John Dewey, William Carlos Williams, Meyer Schapiro and many more of the era's leading lights. "The last war showed only too clearly that we can have no faith in imperialist crusades to bring freedom to any people. Our entry into the war, under the slogan of 'Stop Hitler!' would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here. . . . The American masses can best help [the German people] by fighting at home to keep their own liberties." The intelligentsia acted on its convictions. "By one means or another," Diana Trilling later wrote of this period, "most of the intellectuals of our acquaintance evaded the draft."

Why rake up these Profiles in Disgrace? Because in the Iraq War era they have a painfully familiar ring.

DAVID GELERNTER
Too Much, Too Late
Baby boomers heap insincere praise on the "greatest generation."
The Wall Street Journal
Friday, June 4, 2004 12:01 a.m.

The time has come to address the real root cause of suicide bombing: incitement by certain religious and political leaders.

In Love With Death
(Dershowitz Explicitly Nails Islamofascism As "A Culture of Death")
The Guardian (UK)| 6/4/04 | Alan Dershowitz

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they seek to aid and abet.

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
Mia T, 5.15.04

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

--Elizabeth Rickard

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they seek to aid and abet.

also:

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

[potlatch]

Your posts are always fabulous Mia!! Nobody better at HTML than you on the forum.

[PhilDragoo]

[potlatch]

That is a main item I try to drum into my kids, beware of the U.N.

[PGalt]

Great,Great,Great,Great stuff. Thank you Mia T.

[ntnychik]

"In Soros we trust". Kerry and Kofi--great graphic. You're killing me.

[MeekOneGOP]

The Soros Threat

The Capitalist Threat
(1997 article by Soros)

SOROS SNACKING ON SIDE DISHES
(Soros the Adulterer)

FR Search for Keyword Soros

FR Search for Keyword George Soros

[Mia T]

thank YOU :)