HAVE SCAIFE, MURDOCH AND RUDDY REALLY JUMPED SHIP? (AND WHAT ARE THE CLINTONS PROMISING THEM?)

The New York Times, New York Post, FoxNews | 2.23.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

 

HAVE RICHARD MELLON SCAIFE, RUPERT MURDOCH AND CHRIS RUDDY REALLY JUMPED SHIP?
(AND WHAT ARE THE CLINTONS PROMISING THEM, ANYWAY?)

 by Mia T, 2.23.07

ince leaving the White House, the clintons have been hard at work trying to flip some of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.'

What are the clintons promising them?

Are these seemingly compromised people simply hedging their bets?

Or are they on board with the clintons?

Or is this story standard-issue clinton-machine disinformation?

Speaking of which, from The New York Times last week:

Back when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was first lady, no one better embodied what she once called the "vast right-wing conspiracy" than Richard Mellon Scaife....

But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife's checkbook is staying in his pocket.

Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, "Both of us have had a rethinking."

"Clinton wasn't such a bad president," Mr. Ruddy said. "In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today."

... As a senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton has built an alliance with some former critics like Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation. He has raised money for her, and his New York Post has grown respectful in its coverage.  

As Clinton Runs, Some Old Foes Stay on Sideline
The New York Times (EXCERPT)
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Feb. 16, 2007

 

MY COMMENT to Ruddy, Scaife, Murdoch et al. is this:

Huh?

1. the clintons' documented abuse of power ⁴ (redacted via clinton abuse of power!)
   
     
   
   

2. the clintons' terrorism failure ³.
   
   
   
   

3. the clintons' ¹ rape of Juanita Broaddrick ²
   
   
   

NOTE: This new alignment --whether apparent or real--is right out of hillary clinton's Saul Alinsky handbook.

 

From HILLARY "Zelig" CLINTON: WHEN A CONGENITAL LIAR'S RUTHLESS AMBITION EXCEEDS HER ABILITY:

This brilliant Alinsky-clinton observation by beyond the sea is the perfect segue to an analysis of Alinsky's influence on hillary clinton... which leads inexorably to hillary rodham's closely guarded Wellesley thesis. (Plan to do an extended piece on that shortly.)

In the Wellesley thesis, hillary discussed "how to change the American political culture." This discussion occurred in the context of a tribute to the leftist political organizer, her mentor, Saul Alinsky.

Does missus clinton reveal her own thoughts on the radicalization and even balkanization of the American political process? We can't yet say with certainty because the thesis has been sealed--closed to public scrutiny--from the moment missus clinton insinuated her radicalizing, balkanizing, liquidating self onto the national political stage.

If I had to guess, I would say she adopted Saul Alinsky's theories and practices without modification: hillary clinton exhibits no creativity, no vision of her own and tends to glom onto the latest fashion, whether it's Alinsky's Stalinist methods... or New Age occultism, recall her attraction to the teachings of

• Marianne Williamson, who some described as a "Jewish charismatic spiritualist"

• Ken Scott Nateshvar, yogi to the stars

• and the pièce de résistance, Jean Houston, the Director of the Foundation for Mind Research.

Houston was described by some as a "New Age" author who "studied psychic experiences and mystical connections to historical figures and other worlds." When the story of the Houston connection became public Houston became known as hillary clinton's "Eleanor Roosevelt Conduit."

Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch (or its facile alliteration).

by Mia T, January 3, 2006
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers
+ Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000

There is a great emotional likeness there too. Thank you for putting the photos side by side.

On Alinsky (http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html)

For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don't have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.

According to Alinsky, the organizer -- especially a paid organizer from outside -- must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization."

beyond the sea

 

WHY THE GEFFEN IMBROGLIO SIGNALS CLINTON'S END
'HILLARY'S STRATEGY--NOBODY GETS TO CRITICIZE HER' -- CHRIS MATTHEWS
with a WARNING FOR DAVID GEFFEN


STALINIST RISING?
HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER
(WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)


HOW MANY TIMES IS HILLARY GONNA BE CONFUSED BY MEN?: Chris Matthews
MISSUS CLINTON'S SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE PROBLEM - PART FOUR


HILLARY'S WAR DOUBLE TALK
'John Kerry could not have said it worse himself.' (swift-vet audio)
MISSUS CLINTON'S SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE PROBLEM - PART THREE

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

[Mia T]

ping

[snowrip]

Promising not to kill them, most likely.

Good to hear from you.

[Incorrigible]

Yep. Does money and principles have to be mutually exclusive?

[Doogle]

**thumbing through FBI files**..oh..excuse me ..promises? we don't require and never have require any loyalties from other politicians...*sniff sniff*... your picking on us.


Doogle

[Mia T]

ping

[Incorrigible]

BTW, the font I was referring to is the one used in your last image. The word "Hillary" is in a scary scratch type font. Is that just you and your mouse creating those letters or is it an actual font?

If it's not a font, you should make it one and sell it! It's scary!

[Cicero]

During the clinton presidency, the federal regulatory agencies were instructed to block every move of Murdoch's. It was especially obvious when Murdoch sought to expand his satellite communications, and was blocked. Also, when Fox News was blocked from customers in many of the major markets, such as New York City. Giuliani said that NYC should have access to Fox News, but the clinton's said "no," and they prevailed while they were in the White House.

As a result, Murdoch came out in support of Gore in 2000, presumably because he feared more regulatory persecution if Gore were elected. He switched over to Bush on election day, betting that Bush would win the chad wars.

Since the Republicans don't have a reputation for pulling regulatory dirty tricks and smashing their enemies, obviously Murdoch and Scaife figure it's a lot safer to placate hillary than to placate any of the Republican candidates.

Murdoch donated millions to Gore's coronation at the Dem National Convention, and likely he will do the same for hillary, as Life Insurance. He knows that hillary is vindictive. Regretably, Bush never punished his enemies, so nobody fears a Republican successor. But they fear hillary, and with good reason.

[TBP]

Ruddy has done some of the best work invetigating the Klintoons, especially in the Foster case, and NewsMax continues to run vigorously anti-Klintoon material, so I don't know what you're talking about. Is this quote documented anywhere?

[Mia T]

Geffen appears to be a counterexample.... (Pre-2000, he was snookered by the clintons, but finally saw the light after the clintons selectively ignored the protests of the FBI et al., pardoning the traitor and crook, Marc Rich. )

WHY THE GEFFEN IMBROGLIO SIGNALS CLINTON'S END
'HILLARY'S STRATEGY--NOBODY GETS TO CRITICIZE HER' -- CHRIS MATTHEWS
with a WARNING FOR DAVID GEFFEN

[Mia T]

True, Ruddy has done excellent work uncovering clinton corruption. Which makes a conversion, if it has in fact occurred, all the more troubling....

Thus my question, "Has he jumped ship?"

Ruddy's quote appears in The New York Times, which isn't saying much, but the recent actions of Scaife, his boss, suggest that the quote is accurate.

[Incorrigible]

Geffen is simply changing from one socialist to another.

Scaife et al are compromising their principles and their souls. Though I have to admit, if I had their money to spend on politicians I'd have a hard time opening my wallet right now as well.

[TBP]

Anything that appears in the New york Times should be treated as presumptively untrue.

[TBP]

Anything that appears in the New York Times should be treated as presumptively untrue.

[mo]

Mia-she took their FBI files along with the others we know about...the names released in public of files they took were a red herring ...so we would'nt pay attention to the major American players permanently compromised. I am 100% certain that only about 10% of the files taken were made public...and that EVERY major american figure has their IRS files and FBI files in the Clinton Machine computer at this point. Barak Obama, BTW is probably NOT in there...he rose to prominence on the national sceene under the radar and after they left the executive branch and no longer had access to those "resources".

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump

[dsc]

"Since the Republicans don't have a reputation for...smashing their enemies"

It makes me physically nauseous to reflect that I have nowhere else to pin my hopes but on a party that doesn't have a reputation for smashing its enemies.

[Mia T]

Excellent comments.

It's long overdue for Rs to elect someone who will dump Marquis of Queensberry for Machiavelli.

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) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

America's real two-front war consists of 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 undeterred by MAD, 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 DC--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 (or whomever), 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 (Pinches?). To prevail, America must defeat—thoroughly destroy—her enemies. On both fronts.

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, Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000)

Al 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 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.

ASIDE: The oft-quoted, 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," ² 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 ³ -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.

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

~by Mia T

[stephenjohnbanker]

Great post!

[Mia T]

ping