Soros's Learning Curve

Does anyone remember (whether from living through it, or from the pages of a history book) those old World War I posters admonishing quiet? You know the theme: the walls have ears, Nazi spies are everywhere, and you never know what one piece of YOUR gossip is the missing puzzle piece which was needed to discover all of our secret plans and defeat us.

Now, it seems all too easy to dust off these aging warning posters, give them a polish, and apply them to the War on Terror (New York Times, anyone? Wikileaks?)

But that isn't why I brought them up. I'm using them to segue to a different kind of warning, in a different kind of war.

This war is no less a war for our freedom than was the fight against the Axis; no less a struggle for liberty and safety than the blunting of the jihad; but the enemy, as Pogo says, is us.

I am talking here of the political war (for, as von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means"; and as Chairman Mao said, "Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun") between those who love freedom, and the statists, socialists, and worse who seek to usurp it, and ultimately to snuff it out, in the United States, the last bastion of hope for mankind.

No, not to get too melodraatic -- but think about it, without the United States as a Free Country, how many other Parliamentary, Representative countries would long survive?

And that is why I chose these posters. One of the enemies of Freedom and of these United States is none other than George Soros, currency manipulator extraordinaire and former Nazi collaborator.

No, I'm not talking tin-foil hat. I'm performing what used to be called (in the 1970s, and by our enemies) "consciousness raising."

During the last election cycle, there was a great deal of fuss about how the Democrats magically gained several close races for their candidates in the US Senate. You know, the stories of counts and re-counts; of felons voting; of bundles of ballots found in the trunk of a car.

There was a little-talked about push by the liberals called the "Secretary of State" project. This work, whether funded by, or the brainchild of, George Soros and cronies, had as a goal the election and/or appointment of people to the office of Secretary of State in certain swing states, with the idea that they could engage in strategic -- well, for those fearing lawsuits, incompetence -- or, for those liking tinfoil hats, collusion, with the aim of allowing key races to swing to the Donkeys when need be. (Hey, what's a few thousand absentee ballots among friends?)

Looking at the sudden late power outage in Nevada's Senatorial race, or the sudden downward adjustment in vote totals (by 69,000) in Minnesota, might bring this to mind.

All well and good, for those wanting fresh red meat for the internet-based nutroots. What does this have to do with the posters at the beginning of the article?

Well, consider. Where *did* George Soros or the Donks get the idea that the Secretary of State for a state could be so important during an election?

Why, from our good friend Dubya, during the 2000 election debacle, where Al Gore tried to sue his way into the White House after conceding, changing his mind at 2:00 AM, and where the phrases "intent of the voter" and "hanging chad" became as much a part of the political vocabulary as "stained blue dress" and "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" had become under Bill Clinton.

Do you remember what happened? That's right. Catherine Harris, the Republican Secretary of State, refused to allow an infinite amount of time for ~~manufacturing~~ ~~discerning~~ counting of ballots by the Dems. So they attempted to force the issue through the rubber stamp Floriduh Supreme Court, only to be slapped down by the US Supreme Court.

From this -- it is but a step to see how nefarious schemers and other low-lifes, the kind who want "never to let a crisis go to waste," could come to appreciate the latent power in this hitherto overlooked office.

In other words, Freedom's enemies learn from our successes, as well as from theirs.

1) when we *do* fend them off, we need to double back and see how the technique could be reversed, or exaggerated, and used against us for unjust gain.

2) we need (like they do) to analyze their successes to see what tecniques will defend against them or what new attacks may be forthcoming against us.

Since the GOP has never been primarily the party of cheating, we should NOT use any *underhanded* techniques to win: we should only use pedantry as an active defence against specific skulduggery.

What happened to Katherine Harris? She did get elected to Congress, but some how never got advanced to the Senate.

(Or, for that matter, to people even as obscure as Anita Hill's lawyer during the smear campaign against Clarence Thomas. Her name is Janet Napolitano, and she became governor of Arizona, where her summit with the President of Mexico was once pushed off the news by stories of running gun battles by Mexican smugglers on Interstate 10 by Phoenix, the day of his visit; she's now the head of Homeland Security.)

(*) Is it just me, or does the shadowy face of the speaker in the background of the first poster look like Barack Hussein Obama?

>we should only use pedantry as an active defence against specific skulduggery.

Very interesting. It is also the basis for dealing with the Fae, Genie, and other such powerful yet “rule-bindable” creatures in fiction.
That so many people now think og the government as a genie to fix all their problems, perhaps there is wisdom in dealing with them in that manner.

But here is the deal: pedantry only applies when the government wants it to apply.
Consider that in 1798 the US Supreme Court ruled that the prohibitions against Ex Post Facto law (they appear twice: once in article 1, section 9, paragraph 3 and the other in the first paragraph of section 10 in that same article.) only applied to *criminal* law.
Now, besides the obvious questions raised about where the Constitution allows it’s alteration by the Judiciary OR how the judicial oath to the Constitution can have *any* meaning if the Constitution is whatever he says it is, this allowed the Congress to retroactively alter tax-laws, via this “precedence,” and the claim that the tax laws “are regulatory, not criminal, in nature.”
Yet violations of these altered [or new] laws are punished in *CRIMINAL* courts.

How is some statement, such as “this law is not a criminal law,” to be both true and false at the same time?
The answer is: “Shut up, kid! and quit bothering me.”

The uselessness of pedantry [or, as some would say “logic”/”reasoning”] shows itself in the multitude of firearm laws.
I won’t cite some of the rather absurd definitions in Federal law, but I will illustrate with my State’s Constitution.
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear
arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and
recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed
weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way,
an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet, despite that “no law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense” portion the State has a law prohibiting firearms on university campuses {and also one for public schools}. Now, if there are Citizens who live on the University Campus then doesn’t this law abridge both the right to keep and the right to bear arms? You may argue that they sign those rights away upon application [and admission] however the State Constitution has something to say about that:
All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural,
inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights
of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring,
possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and
obtaining safety and happiness.

Does this not declare the right to defend life and liberty as unalienable?
Isn’t the definition thereof: “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated”
And isn’t the definition of “repudiate” this:
1. to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.
So then, isn’t claiming that the University has the right to make its own rules, especially in this regard, the same thing as repudiating the right of the individual person?

And therein lies the fundamental difference. We aren’t dealing with a computer which literally runs on logic, nor even humans capable of reason*, but with an entire people who reject the idea of absolute and in so doing they reject the very concept of definitions in favor of unbridled-emotionality and a relativistic scale where things are judged only on the feelings they evoke. The “goodity” of following the law is invalidated by the “badity” that someone [who isn’t a police officer] carrying a gun evokes, and therefore there is no ‘contradiction’.

*other than rationalization

Soros is no devil outside the bounds of men, nor Obama, nor any man who lived. All human.

Just as the Cloward-Piven strategy is bound to produce and is already producing quite striking effects, but opposite to what they intended, one great for Liberty, so do does Soros work out his childhood traumas malevolently to an effect that strengthens a Palin and hobbles a Sharpton.

It is not to their motives and desires, or any which are misanthropic, that G-d empowers by their hand, but to make the good, the honest and humbly G-d fearing stronger. Which is what is happening.

Still, it raises the bar for us, for to gain such mighty benefit we also are left a mighty duty to uphold the duties Our G-d has set out for us, and he will hold us to a greater account than them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.