Saturday, May 10, 2014
MoveOn - a Disturbing Soros Organization
It's Saturday, so let's play What If. ~~~~~ WHAT IF there were a Non-Governmental Organization called MoveOn, which had mounted so many controversial publicity campaigns deemed to be against the spirit of America that it had been criticized : (1). by the Anti- Defamation League and others when a member-submitted ad which drew parallels between President George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler was submitted to the MoveOn online ad contest "Bush in 30 Seconds." The ad was part of an online MoveOn-sponsored contest during the 2004 presidential election, in which members were invited to create and submit political ads challenging President Bush and his administration. The advertisement was quickly pulled off the website. (2). by Fox News, which criticized MoveOn after it successfully encouraged the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates not to attend two debates sponsored by the network. Fox News advisor David Rhodes and the network's commentators Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly also made accusations that MoveOn.org "owns" the Democratic Party and George Soros owns MoveOn.org. (3). by 31 Republican senators and one independent senator, who criticized MoveOn for running a print ad that questioned the personal integrity of General David Petraeus, with headlines such as "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" and "Cooking the Books for the White House," so that on September 20, 2007, the Senate passed an amendment by Republican John Cornyn of Texas designed to "strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus". All 49 Republican Senators, as well as 22 Democratic Senators, voted in support. The House passed a similar resolution by a 341 to 79 vote on September 26, 2007. Because of this, on September 20, 2007, The Washington Post wrote : "Democrats blamed the group MoveOn for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war." The New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt later stated in an op-ed that MoveOn was mistakenly charged US$77,000 less for the ad than it should have been under Times policies, and MoveOn announced that it would pay the difference. MoveOn ran more ads using a 'betrayal theme, with TV spots targeting former President Bush and former Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani specifically. As a Republican presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani placed a New York Times ad on September 14, 2007 and asked for and received a similar reduced fee as MoveOn, paying US$65,000. (5). by those who accuse Google and MoveOn of selective adherence to trademark law for removing ads from Google Adwords for Maine Senator Susan Collins, citing infringement of MoveOn trademarks. "Wired" stated on October 15, 2007 that the "left-leaning political advocacy group MoveOn is backing down" and will allow Google to show the ads. MoveOn communications director Jennifer Lindenauer said: "We don't want to support a policy that denies people freedom of expression." (6). by the Daily Show and Bill Kristol for mailing to MoveOn members on June 17, 2008, a statement saying that it had produced "the most effective TV ad we've ever created." The ad depicted a mother telling Republican and former presidential nominee John McCain that she will not let him use her infant son, Alex, as a soldier in the war in Iraq. Subsequent to the ad's release, Jon Stewart on his Daily Show, "praised" MoveOn for "10 years of making even people who agree with you cringe." New York Times op/ed contributor Bill Kristol criticized the ad in an essay, including pointing to the fact that the "United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won’t be drafted, and his mommy can’t enlist him. He can decide when he’s an adult whether he wants to enlst or not. (You can google MoveOn for the full details.) ~~~~~ And WHAT IF the same MoveOn had circulated a petition online in defense of Boko Haram, the jihadist terrorist group that kidnapped 287 Nigerian schoolgirls. Here’s what the petition, posted before the kidnappings, actually said before MoveOn took it down : "Reject 'Terrorist' Designation for Boko Haram Petition by AfricaFocus Bulletin (William Minter). To be delivered to Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State, Eric Holder, Attorney General, Representatives Henry Waxman, Bennie Thompson, Chris Smith and 6 other targets. Petition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and Members of Congress : We urge you not to support the formal designation of Boko Haram in Nigeria as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” (FTO). Such a move would be a counterproductive mistake with far-reaching negative consequences for both Americans and Nigerians. It is correct for the United States to join the vast majority of Nigerians in condemning the group for the brutal violence it has nflicted on innocent civilians in Nigeria and their threats to national unity and security n that country But U.S. government designation of the group as a FTO, as currently proposed by several Members of Congress and some officials in the the Department of Justice, would increase rather than diminish the threat from Boko Haram. It would give the group additional visibility and credibility among international terrorist networks. It would increase the chances that the group would direct its attacks against U.S. targets. Most significantly, it would reinforce militarization of Nigerian government actions against the group. Repressive actions by Nigerian security forces in the past have already contributed to increasing support for Boko Haram among those affected. What is needed instead is a multifaceted strategy. Such a strategy must include not only security measures to protect civilians but also flexible diplomacy and serious attention to development issues, particularly in the disadvantaged North of Nigeria where Boko Haram finds support. FTO designation would also cause enormous collateral damage, making it difficult for both the U.S. government and non-profit groups to address humanitarian and development issues, particularly in the North. It would hamper any efforts by third parties to encourage dialogue and it would introduce new tensions into U.S.-Nigerian relations. It would also pose serious bureaucratic obstacles to travel and family remittances for Nigerian Americans and other Nigerians resident in the United States. The Nigerian government is well aware of the counterproductive effects of a FTO designation for Boko Haram and has expressed its opposition. So have more than 20 of the top U.S. scholars on Nigeria. We urge you to heed their informed advice. To endorse this petition as an organization, please send the name of your organization and contact details – We need 200 signatures." ~~~~~ Dear readers, as you have concluded, this is not a WHAT IF. MoveOn exists. MoveOn is made up of two legal entities, each organized under a different section of US tax and election laws. MoveOn Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation. MoveOn Civic Action focuses on education and advocacy on national issues. MoveOn Political Action is a federal political action committee that contributes to the campaigns of many candidates across the country. According to a 2004 article in the Washington Post : MoveOn originally drew support from "some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to the MoveOn Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to the MoveOn Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million." The sister organization launched by MoveOn is AVAAZ, which carries out similar activities internationally. The real WHAT IF is this -- What If the 7 million Americans who send donations to MoveOn came to realize that they are supporting the George Soros flagship organization that is accused of controlling Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as part of the Soros effort to scrap the US Constitution and pull America into the "progressive" leftist-socialist Soros-led hegemony that wants to crush America's voice for individual freedom and liberty. Would the contributions continue???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
George Soros is despicable human being. With his wealth he good do good. Instead he finds it necessary to be destructive, damaging, and vicious with his philanthropic ventures. He actively keeps searching for the methodology to destroy our (United States) countries government and rip to pieces the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIf he finds the US to be so vile why then does he spends so much time, effort, and monies to reinvent us – why did he come here? Why did he become a citizen of a country he finds so many faults with? I am positive that not a single soul went to him and begged him to come here. Who in the world died and made George Soros God? – no one at all.
If George Soros is anything he is pure evil, he is an anti-Christ. He stands for everything we abhor. The only thing that makes George Soros a public figure is his M O N E Y. Money that is so tainted by its source of collection.
What if a wealthy republican would help contaminated the Internet with sites whose names would not indicate the content or the origination ? Would it help to get our message in front of those individuals that have no real political interest but view web sites with implied names to their interests?
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what the Soros polluters have done.
So some billionaire republican puts up some seed money and 50 sites get started. And between now and the 2016 Presidential election we garnish some 1 million votes - Worth it? Certainly is!
To everything there is a time. And the time of the 1960 methodology of vote getting is over folks.
Can MoveOn.org be considered a truthful point of information? NO it can’t. This is a touchy subject. Those who strongly support the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might say that much of what MoveOn.org has printed or broadcast is true...or at least mostly true...or maybe, well, it supports their views so even if not completely truthful...well...it OUGHT to be true.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, MoveOn.org had a somewhat valid basis for coming into being back in 1998, in response to efforts to impeach and remove Bill Clinton -- its founders, husband and wife Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, felt that Congress should "censure Bill Clinton and MOVE ON." Then enters George Soros and his MONEY, and the whole game changed for MoveOn.
However, over the last 14 years, the tactics and ethics of MoveOn.org have become increasingly biased, questionable, and objectionable. They have often been forced to retract their more vicious attacks. They have produced many political advertisements (printed, on billboards, broadcast over network TV and radio, and distributed via the internet) that are so completely slanted and false, so ugly and offensive in their criticism of conservatives, that even many liberal Democrats have condemned them (especially the comparison of G. W. Bush to Hitler, and the nasty attacks on the integrity and loyalty of General David Patraeus).
To answer the question, "Is MoveOn.org a truthful organization?", I would have to say NO, absolutely not. They don't really SUPPORT any candidate; they just viciously attack those political figures with whom they disagree. And they disagree with all that is right of extreme leftist, socialistic view points on any given subject.
It is oh so easy to simply be against something. It is personally demanding to stand up for positions that are already under extreme fire from the “truth be damned’ crowd.
What if the UN and other peacekeeping forces in African came up with a new idea rather than just dividing fighting countries on an east-west or North-South axis. In 1970 there were nearly half as many countries as there are today (54-57 pick your number)
ReplyDeleteSimply dividing a country only gives more power to each entity.
Why not go in and actually help solve problems,
MoveOn.org (aka George Soros) sole aim is to divide and conquer. They are willing to throw out to the public anything imaginable knowing that the under informed citizens will match onto some of their radicle positions and run with them.
ReplyDeleteCitizens who are under informed are more likely to watch "Two Men and a Boy" type of TV rather than investigate the issues that are important. They scurry to the purveyors of "freebies" programs never figuring out that NOTHING is free ever. And when the bill comes due in the form of higher taxes they are amazed.
George Soros is one of those wonderments that exist in the world of politics. He has all the money to achieve some level of good. Yet all he wants to do is tear down, weaken, and in some extreme cases wipe out the institutions of uniqueness that we have built here in the United States.
ReplyDeleteSoros is certainly in a social class that few of us will ever experience. His wealth opens nearly every door that confronts him. Yet he cannot see any other route for change than complete destruction.
When Obama came to the presidency via Soros’s guidance and investment he (Obama) spoke of a more transparent government, a new form of government in Washington. But quickly it was all about tearing down what we cherish and creating a new government that has its class warfare foundation
An example night is ObamaCare. Maybe (and I’m not subscribing that this is a fact), but just maybe our world envied medical care delivery system needed to be “tweaked” in certain areas. So what does the Obama-Soros team do – well the totally dismantle what we had and give us an unworkable system that raised individual coast and created a series of web site (to the tune of nearly 1 Trillion dollars) that are to this day unworkable.
Modification and adjustments are one thing – but whole sale slaughter of a system is quite another. Soros only seems to understand destruction and ruin… not enhancement and enrichment. Soros totally destroys systems & governments so that what is raised in its place has his and only his name attached to it.
George Soros is an egomaniac, a narcissist.