In 2003, George Soros declared that defeating President Bush is the central focus of his life. Apparently his scorched earth approach also includes trying to tear down the basic pillars of our country.

He aggressively supported campaign finance reform under the guise of “reduc[ing] the corrupting influence of very large donors to political parties and candidates.” Then he drove a mack truck through the loopholes in that legislation and became one of the single, largest donors to political parties and candidates.

He uses his “Open Society Institute” to funnel cash from those “very large donors” (including himself) to groups designed to undermine the U.S. government…

Partnering with the Tides Foundation in 2004, Soros’ organization helped the Kerry campaign funnel money into a group of 9/11 widows who were campaigning against Bush.

He gave millions to Americans Coming Together, a group focused on committing election fraud.

He’s also thrown millions of dollars behind Moveon.org, a group focused on perpetuating lies about President Bush in the 2004 election and more recently publishing a full page ad in the New York Times calling a United States Military General a liar.

So what did Soros do when all the money he spent to undermine the elections went to waste? He started a new back channel of contributions designed at undermining the current U.S. administration.

And it’s hardly been the model of openness he and his organization claim to achieve.

Remember James Hansen, the “lonely NASA whistleblower standing up to the mighty U.S. government”? Looks like he wasn’t so lonely afterall.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute, which gave him “legal and media advice”?

That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly “censored” spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

And what about those big “spontaneous” immigration rallies around the country in 2006? Looks like they weren’t so spontaneous afterall.

Soros’ OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI’s glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI’s 2006 annual report.

And he’s spreading his financial backing beyond just trying to change the political landscape.

OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year’s Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called “Secure Flight,” which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?

It’s all part of the $74 million OSI spent on “U.S. Programs” in 2006 to “shape policy.”

So is Soros’ “Open Society Institute” really “open”?

Soros’ “shaping public policies,” as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it’s a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it’s old news.

That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.

Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.

The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an “open society.” His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn’t have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society’s political action.

But remember, Democrats are against “the wealthiest 1%”… unless he’s one of them.

UPDATE:
Consider this an exercise in “connecting the dots”… (hat tip: Bryan)

Soros gave $7.5 million to America Coming Together.

Last year, the FEC slapped America Coming Together with a near-record $775,000 fine for violating federal election laws during the 2004 election cycle.

Several America Coming Together officials now work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with consulting firms hired by it.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

UPDATE 2:
If you’re interested in seeing who all is tied to Soros money, click here.

Apparently Iranian scholars are pissed off about the reception Mahmoud got at Columbia University yesterday.

Iranians expressed dismay Tuesday at the tough reception given to their president in New York, saying his host was rude and only fueled the image of the United States as a bully…

The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger saying his “insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with … a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.”

They invited Bollinger to Iran, adding, “You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.”

I guess we just misinterpreted that whole storming of our embassy and holding Americans hostage for a year gesture.

What happens when you combine bogus MSM sensationalism with professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? You get a small town story of common thugs turned into an international circus based on lies and propaganda.

But the truth always has a way of getting out…

The so-called “white tree” at Jena High, often reported to be the domain of only white students, was nothing of the sort, according to teachers and school administrators; students of all races, they say, congregated under it at one time or another.

Two nooses — not three — were found dangling from the tree. Beyond being offensive to blacks, the nooses were cut down because black and white students “were playing with them, pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them,” according to a black teacher who witnessed the scene.

There was no connection between the September noose incident and December attack, according to Donald Washington, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department in western Louisiana, who investigated claims that these events might be race-related hate crimes.

The three youths accused of hanging the nooses were not suspended for just three days — they were isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks.

The only one of the six to be tried and convicted so far, Mychal Bell, 17, was widely reported to be an honor student with no criminal record. Though he kept a high grade-point average, Bell was on probation for at least two counts of battery and a count of criminal damage to property prior to the beating of Justin Barker last year.

The six-member jury that convicted Bell was, indeed, all white. However, only one in 10 people in LaSalle Parish is African American, and though black residents were selected randomly by computer and summoned for jury selection, none showed up.

But why bother with facts when they don’t fit your agenda?

It’s ironic how race-baiters like Al Sharpton can claim a crime has been committed by a white against a black when no such crime occured, and then claim a real crime committed by blacks against a white kid should go unpunished.

Columbia University continues to ban the U.S. military Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) from campus because “the U.S. military remains closed to openly gay personnel.”

But the same Columbia University is hosting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose country executes homosexuals.

UPDATE:
I admit I’m surprised with Columbia President Bollinger’s introduction of Mahmoud. It was refreshingly harsh towards the terrorist leader. I will try to find the transcript and post it.

Highlights of Bollinger’s intro

“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.”

Bollinger assailed Ahmadinejad’s “denying” of the Holocaust as “ridiculous” and “dangerous propaganda.” He called the Iranian leader either brazenly provocative “or astonishingly uneducated.”

He said he doubted Ahmadinejad would show the intellectual courage to answer the questions before him.

Ahmadinejad responded to this intro by whining like a child about respect and courtesy. Priceless.

More, see Update 3 below.

UPDATE 2:
It’s quite telling that liberals aren’t rushing the stage to prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking or tossing a pie in his face. I guess they don’t feel obliged to suppress his comments.

UPDATE 3:

Here’s the video of Bollinger’s intro:

Clip1

Clip 2

UPDATE 4:
Here’s my response to Mahmoud last year.

Looks like Canada is beginning to enjoy the exciting new world of undocumentation.

Over the past three weeks, 45 families and 31 individuals — approximately 200 people — entered Canada at the Detroit River crossings and applied in Windsor for shelter and social assistance after filing refugee claims with the Canada Border Services Agency. Municipal agencies dealing with the sudden influx of mainly Mexican refugee applicants are renting out hotel rooms and bracing for predicted thousands more to come.

Maybe they’re enticed by the “free” healthcare system. Surely a wonderful model of socialized medicine can handle the new “undocumented workers”.

“When there is a possibility of adding thousands to the local social assistance system as a result of refugee claimants crossing the border into Windsor, we will become overwhelmed and our current resources will not suffice,” Francis wrote in a letter sent Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“We don’t have the means, ability or capacity to deal with this additional cost. We are not able to deal with this potential crisis locally,” Francis wrote Harper.

Don’t think of it in terms of the cost to your society, think of it as a boost to your economy.

“This is a problem the U.S. has allowed to create. It’s really unfair for Canada to have to face this,” said MP Joe Comartin (NDP — Windsor-Tecumseh), his Party’s public safety and national security critic.

Hey, they’re just coming to do the jobs Canadians won’t do.

I guess you just thought this was going to be a U.S. problem since it’s our border that’s shared with Mexico. Well, guess what. We don’t really have a visible border with Mexico anymore, so when Mexicans look North for work, the first border they see now is yours.

Enjoy.

Some truths about the “Bush economy” that Greenspan failed to mention when advertising his new book.

The combined effects of recession and national emergency could have been devastating for America’s economy. Yet President Bush’s tax cuts–following through on a promise he had made to the voters–resulted in a shallower recession, a faster recovery, and a platform for growth that remains sturdy to this day. The fact is that in a time of unprecedented challenge, the United States has experienced nearly six years of uninterrupted economic growth and added more than eight million new jobs since August 2003–more than all other major industrialized nations combined.

The economic growth encouraged by the president’s tax cuts is now producing sharply increased federal tax receipts–up by nearly 15% in fiscal year 2005 alone, nearly 12% in fiscal year 2006, and projected to rise nearly 7% in the fiscal year that will end this month. That is the highest growth in tax receipts in consecutive years since 1981. As a result, tax revenue as a percentage of our economy is now above the 40-year historical average. Under the circumstances, it’s pretty hard for anyone to argue that the American people are under-taxed. Even at a lower rate of taxation, the hard work and productivity of Americans is generating more tax dollars than ever before.

and…

It’s worth noting, as well, that President Bush has committed significant resources to rebuilding our military after the draw-downs of the 1990s. In addition, this new era has also demanded far larger support for intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security. Our administration has met those urgent priorities. Yet we’ve also managed to bring this year’s projected deficit down to 1.5% of GDP–well below its historical average over the past four decades.

Alan has long argued, correctly, that fiscal discipline is a long-term obligation requiring honesty and a willingness to make tough choices. Here again, we agree. And on this measure, President Bush’s record is superb. He has proposed reforms in Medicare and Medicaid–and has repeatedly asked Congress to reform Social Security and place it on firm financial ground. Though Congress has failed to act, no other president has spent more time or political capital trying to avert a fiscal disaster that everyone knows is coming.

Not to be outdone by Sheryl Crow’s “one-square” initiative, Cate Blanchett is getting pissed about global warming… literally. (hat tip: Allah)

Green before it was hip—she cites Al Gore and David de Rothschild as heroes and believes that leaf blowers “sum up everything that is wrong with the human race”—the couple are trying to make the ecological footprint of the home as small as possible, installing solar panels and even a filtration system that will allow them to drink their own wastewater.

I’d be cautious if she offers to bring brownies to the next potluck…

Following on John Edwards’ unveiling of his socialized medicine platform, here comes Hillarycare, the sequel.

Thirteen years after her first effort at improving the nation’s health care was abandoned, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new approach that would require every American to have health insurance with federal assistance to help defray the cost.

Nothing like mandated “choice”.

“Insurance” is simply a contract one enters whereby the insurer guarantees to indemnify the insured against loss. We have the right to choose when and how we enter into contracts, but Democrats want to take that choice away… despite what they call it.

“But what about the mandate for drivers to carry insurance?”, they say…

The centerpiece of Clinton’s “American Health Choices Plan” is the so-called “individual mandate,” requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not.

States also require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance when practicing law. Doctors must carry malpractice insurance when practicing medicine. (Both to protect clients from malpractice) Mortgagors require homebuyers to carry private mortgage insurance if the downpayment is less than 20% of the mortgage (to protect the lendor against a borrower’s default).

But there are some big differences between health insurance and all the “mandated” types of insurance mentioned above. Health insurance is an inward-facing protection, where the others are outward-facing. This means that one purchases health insurance to hedge against a future out-of-pocket expense for his or her own (and family’s) care. Mandated insurance like auto, malpractice, mortgage, etc is designed to protect others from acts of the insured.

The other big difference is that those other types of insurance (including the auto insurance Hillary refers to) are also examples of “choice” despite being “mandated”. For instance, you only have to purchase auto insurance if you CHOOSE to drive a car. You only have to purchase mortgage insurance if you CHOOSE to take out a loan to buy a house with less than 20% down. You only have to purchase malpractice insurance if you CHOOSE a profession that requires it.

So what about those who don’t drive, buy a home, or practice law or medicine? Should they be forced to buy insurance for each activity anyway? Only then would Democrats’ comparison to auto insurance be relevant.

It’s true the Democrats’ plans are all about choice… so long as it’s their choice we’re talking about.

UPDATE:
So does HillaryCare 2.0 cover illegals? When her campaign was asked about it, they said they’ll have to get back to us on that.

Senior [Clinton] policy adviser Laurie Rubiner–-while acknowledging that undocumented immigrants are a “huge issue” in this country–-said, “That’s one we’re going to have to think through a little bit.”

“We have not dealt with every single detail with this plan,” Rubiner continued.

And it’s already at $110 billion? Imagine what this will cost when they do decide to get around to the details.

UPDATE 2:
It’s amazing that the same people claiming Bush’s administration is too intrusive in their personal lives would support this proposal:

[Hillary] said she could envision a day when “you have to show proof to your employer that you’re insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,” but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

UPDATE 3:
Apparently the socialized Canadian healthcare system is such a model of success, liberal members of Parliament are coming to the U.S. for healthcare.

Democrats are always claiming they want Republicans to be more bipartisan… which simply means Democrats want Republicans to give them whatever they ask for. If you doubt this, look at the reaction to Bush’s new AG choice, Judge Michael Mukasey.

Instead of nominating Ted Olson - who Democrats pre-emptively launched an attack against - Bush nominated a middle of the road guy.

Michael Mukasey, the man President Bush will nominate Monday morning to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, is not expected to prompt the confirmation battle that Senate Democrats threatened to wage if a more partisan nominee was chosen.
[…]
The New York native has received endorsements in the past from liberals, including one of the Senate’s most liberal Democrats. And while some legal conservatives have expressed reservations about his record on the federal bench, other conservatives are happy about the decision.

And is President Bush praised for making a bipartisan move? Of course not.

Bush critics contended the Mukasey nomination was evidence of Bush’s weakened political clout as he heads into the final 15 months of his presidency.

Because it’s all about them.

It’s always about Democrats’ opposition to anything Bush does. Just look at Chuck Schumer’s reaction to Bush picking Mukasey:

Chuck Schumer has begun his rapid retreat from his statements of support for Michael Mukasey. The New York Sun reports that Schumer, who had openly championed Mukasey as a “consensus candidate” to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, suddenly appears unsure of Mukasey after the White House reportedly settled on the retired New York judge for the nomination.

Uncle Chuck changed his mind? Just two years ago, Schumer pushed Mukasey as a contender for the William Rehnquist seat on the Supreme Court. The liberal group Alliance for Justice joined him in endorsing Mukasey as an alternative to John Roberts. Schumer called him a “consensus candidate”, and AJ said it would be a “conciliatory act”.

Suddenly, George Bush’s interest in Mukasey appears to have left a bad taste in Schumer’s mouth. Two years ago, he wanted Mukasey for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Now Chuck has to qualify his support when Bush wants Mukasey to run Justice for a whole 16 months. All that Mukasey has done from the bench since Schumer shopped him in 2005 is retire. Why all of the hesitation?

It’s like Democrats warning us for years about the dangers of Saddam and his WMDs until Bush takes action and suddenly those same people claim there was never really a threat.

I bet if Bush came out today and said he was a homosexual atheist who favored abortion, we’d see a stampede of Democrats rushing to proclaim their stance as straight, God-fearing, pro-lifers.

If you want to know what a Hillary Presidency would look like, take a look at who she’s got advising her in her campaign:

The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).

You read that right.

Her advisors include someone who negotiated a deal with North Korea to provide them nuclear fuel which they used to build weapons, someone who traded campaign donations for burial rights at Arlington National Cemetary from someone who never served in the military , and someone who pled guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents detailing the response to terror threats.

I wonder if she’ll nominate Alcee Hastings to the Supreme Court…