“We bought America. She is Ours!!”


Top Posts from around WordPress.com had an interesting article from the FOX Forum. The post is called, “Why This Election Will Be Close: Hushed Confessions.” Posted on 10-16-2008, there are “999” comments already. One is mine. If I had to summarize the article, I think this phrase from that post best describes the matter under discussion:

…I am referring to something else — the fear of talking to pollsters, or to your neighbor, or to anyone else about not wanting to vote for Barack Obama because of what he stands for.

I am not at all surprised by the article. This is all very much a part of something I have repeatedly written about, “the enemy from within” America! Needless to say I couldn’t let this post go unanswered. I responded in the following manner:

To begin with, the “implied Socialist ” movement is very real. It grew out of a DSA convention in Chicago in the 90[+?’s]. At that convention, the plans for the Progressive Caucus was born along with a time line for a Socialist President which was at that time projected for the 2012 election. Next on the agenda was to create political correctness as Americans generally reacted badly to Communist and Socialist rhetoric. To enhance their chances of success, there were plans formulated to make a tiered approach to this effort.

One, grass roots such as local PTA, Church groups, Civic Organizations, and local government. Two, get Socialists in elections elected at the state level, have Socialist judges appointed, fill Congress with Socialists. Well the Progressive Caucus was established in Congress under the guiding hand of Bernie Sanders acting on behalf of DSA. In the late 90’s the affiliation of the DSA and the Progressive Caucus was discovered and reported on by a newspaper reporter. The Progressive Caucus set up a {.} Gov site and DSA removed all info and link access on their site to the Caucus. Third, elect a Socialist President in America by 2012.

These plans came about at that convention after much lamenting about “fallen” Russia, when one member suggested that rather than look at that failure, they ought to look at the opportunity to fix what went wrong there [Russia] and set up a better system right here in America.

While I may have some of my time line a little off, this is “exactly” how the “attack from within” was supposed to occur. Did these people succeed better than their wildest dreams? Will our Democracy and form of government collapse from within at the hands of Socialism? You answer that question on election day!!

These people have the Democratic party by the “family jewels” because it requires money to function and relies on the 527’s for support. In fact, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Ickes were the biggest force behind the Shadow Party that now controls the Democratic Party [“We bought the Party. She is ours!”. Jane Fonda was the third largest contributor!! Will the cry go out on election day, “We bought America. She is Ours!!”

To begin with, the “implied Socialist ” movement is very real. It grew out of a DSA convention in Chicago in the 90[+?’s]. At that convention, the plans for the Progressive Caucus was born along with a time line for a Socialist President which was at that time projected for the 2012 election. Next on the agenda was to create political correctness as Americans generally reacted badly to Communist and Socialist rhetoric. To enhance their chances of success, there were plans formulated to make a tiered approach to this effort.

One, grass roots such as local PTA, Church groups, Civic Organizations, and local government. Two, get Socialists in elections elected at the state level, have Socialist judges appointed, fill Congress with Socialists. Well the Progressive Caucus was established in Congress under the guiding hand of Bernie Sanders acting on behalf of DSA. In the late 90’s the affiliation of the DSA and the Progressive Caucus was discovered and reported on by a newspaper reporter. The Progressive Caucus set up a {.} Gov site and DSA removed all info and link access on their site to the Caucus. Third, elect a Socialist President in America by 2012.

These plans came about at that convention after much lamenting about “fallen” Russia, when one member suggested that rather than look at that failure, they ought to look at the opportunity to fix what went wrong there [Russia] and set up a better system right here in America.

While I may have some of my time line a little off, this is “exactly” how the “attack from within” was supposed to occur. Did these people succeed better than their wildest dreams? Will our Democracy and form of government collapse from within at the hands of Socialism? You answer that question on election day!!

These people have the Democratic  party by the “family jewels” because it requires money to function and relies on the 527’s for support. In fact, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Ickes were the biggest force behind the Shadow Party that now controls the Democratic Party [“We bought the Party. She is ours!”.] Jane Fonda was the third largest contributor!! Will the cry go out on election day, “We bought America. She is Ours!!”

Will that be the phrase heard around the country on “Election Day?”

“We bought America. She is Ours!!

Advertisements

~ by devildog6771 on October 18, 2008.

8 Responses to ““We bought America. She is Ours!!””

  1. You have a point as far as this could use more current statistical data. However, the Shadow member mentioned was quoted directly. Soros did set up the Shadow Party as a network of “527’s. There are other types of funded groups that work hand in hand with them. The network is so complex and changing that it is almost impossible to tie them in more specifically.

    As for the integrity of Discoverthenetwork.org, I have yet to find an error in their information. I do check their data.

  2. As to the effect of groups like Acorn – especially with the newer more stringent voter ID laws, it is highly unlikely enough of the fake voters turned in on ACORN lists will actually show up at the polls and vote under false names in numbers great enough to influence the outcome of the election. At most, it could be argued that ACORN and their interests are using a method of intimidation by making voter lists look larger and more heavily stacked in favor of the Democratic party by going into minority areas to register new Democratic voters. However, ACORN is not remotely silent about this – their charter is to do work in low income areas, which are percentage wise more heavily minority. As to Clinton’s research paper: personally, I have, as a student, done a lot of research and written a lot of papers on people I did not fully agree with, but have written statements in which I agreed with parts of their methodology or ideals. For instance, it can be easily argued, academically, that the under lying idea for Marxism came from a civic mindset of Marx in which he showed he cared for his fellow man. But that doesn’t mean where he took those ideas was correct, or that I feel that way…merely that I point out his initial thoughts may have come from a very egalitarian sense of fiscal justice, even if the methodology he used to bring this sense about was flawed and incorrect.

    As to the Shadow Party article. I find some problems. The three-part expose that supposedly shows the financial connection of Soros and the supposed “Seven Sisters” (none of which include ACORN) is a 404. Without showing Soros’ financial connection, it’s hard for me to see his extreme influence. The quote you speak of is also truncated – if it was said specifically about the Democratic party, then it should have been a full quote. Without seeing the full quote, it’s hard for a skeptical mind to allow this statement alone as proof that Soros “bought the party”. What I do definitely see is a very rich man who felt very strongly about removing GW Bush from office, and threw a lot of money at that end. Also, the article that is linked to showing the supposed links between the progressive organizations have fairly lax standards. It is not surprising that progressive groups end up joining forces on a certain cause, just as it is not surprising that conservative groups do the same thing. Like minded people tend to flock to the same organizations. Basically, my argument is that there are too many holes in the story for it to be viewed as some giant conspiracy to take over the party, especially when the evidence shown was the funding of groups that have had an extremely minimal impact on this election. It would be interesting to see what Soros’ campaign contributions have looked like this year, and what groups he has donated funding to. If that link could be shown, I think your argument would hold more weight.

  3. Jamie Holts, thank you for your kind words. I used a picture I had of my nephew for the banner up top. The WordPress theme I used allows me to do so. WordPress has a lot of pretty nice themes for people like me who can do html; but, aren’t quite up to designing a site like this, lol!

    Intelligentbydesign, sorry guy, but you are mistaken. The correct quote and source are as follows:
    “Regarding the Democratic Party, MoveOn PAC director and Soros operative Eli Pariser boasted, “Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it.” [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=75FFB9A4-F6F2-48D6-A209-460BC6AE1899]. George Soros worked over seven years to slowly achieve a take over of the Democratic Party. This was after the 2004 election. This was a great victory for the Shadow Party. The Democratic Party no longer can function without the millions the Shadow Party donates to the Party, strings attached!!

    The small donations to which you refer are direct results of the efforts of the Shadow Party groups. Soros and his chronies donate millions also to the Shadow Party groups.

    ANSWER, UFPJ, Code Pink, and other major Socialist umbrella groups also stage call outs and demonstrations to enlist fellow socialists and minority groups to demonstrate, call elected officials, and vote. ACORN and other fellow Alinsky supporters and followers go door to door and send people out tom minority areas to solicit registration of minority voters.

    In Virgina, my state, and other target states, they target voters to help throw elections in their favor. They also did this in past elections. Fraud is rampart. ACORN also gathers as many new voters as possible. They then turn in huge lists of newly registered voters hoping registrars can’t possibly check them all and find fraudulent registrations. It is all part of Alinsky’s “Rules.”

    Both Hillary and Obama are students and followers of Alinsky. They have been for years! I have more information and sources in my next post.

    As for Hillary’s thesis on Alinsky, she has done everything she can to keep this from becoming public. However, I believe that Free Republic has a copy on their site. In any event, you can do a Google search and get a copy to read!

  4. Well said Great information, keep up the great work!

  5. I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.

  6. Can you tell me who did your layout? I’ve been looking for one kind of like yours. Thank you.

  7. Just wanted to say HI. I found your blog a few days ago on Technorati and have been reading it over the past few days.

  8. Your use of quotes is misleading at best.

    The statements you make about the tenets of the socialist training come from the writings of a reformer who Hillary Clinton did a college thesis on, and were in relation to the fight for union and civil rights in the 1930 – 50s, so I’d say your timeline is more than a little off.

    Where is this newspaper report you speak of that showed the now gone .gov site and is implied to show proof of the conversations of the DSA/Progressive Caucus?

    Since most of the fund raising from the Obama campaign can be shown as small donations by individuals, and there are fewer 527 ads than ever (down by about 100 million dollars in spending from last year, if I read correctly), what do funding and 527’s have to do with Obama’s campaign? And how is a “shadow party” financing a campaign that has taken in more money than ever off of small contributions from more individual donors than ever?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: