Reduced to layman’s terms this was the call of cut painter George Seurat. Painting in the manner of what has been called “Neo-impressionism” or “Pointillism,” Seurat created paintings composed of thousands of carefully colored points or dots. No one dot had any meaning. Taken by itself alone it was a single vivid point on the artist’s canvas. Only when the dots were seen in their entirety when one pulled back and looked at a Seurat painting as a whole could you suddenly see the entire pattern of dots forming a remarkable portrait.
The challenge: Is left-wing billionaire George Soros emerging as a political version of George Seurat? Are the political dots Soros has splashed on the beg of American politics points of vivid but solitary color forming a pattern that threatens the very affect by which Americans care their political system?
* Dot: July. 2000. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme act William Rehnquist receives a adjoin memo from the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with a second lengthier memo attached. The subject: “Apparent Partnership of Washington Post and Community Rights Counsel on Judges’ Travel and Recusal Questions.” The memo writer. Deputy Assistant Director of Public Affairs David Sellers specifically accuses the Washington Post and a Soros-funded assort known as The Community Rights Counsel of a relationship that “raises serious ethical and factual questions.” The core of the allegation: that the Soros-funded assort provided the Post with “a written analysis” of the CRC’s “findings” on the issue of jaunt by federal judges. The trade-off: The memo to Rehnquist states that “in transfer” for the Soros-funded CRC’s research “the paper has given him (the CRC director) a platform,” specifically a lie page story in the Post on June 30. 2000. It also cites previous stories run in 1998 and 1999. The memo concludes: “This form of journalism is highly unprofessional and adds to the perception that the reporter and the obtain undergo established a working relationship that goes beyond the acceptable norm.” Sellers tells the Chief Justice that “there appears to be a disturbing relationship that has developed between a special interest lobby and a Washington affix reporter.”
* Dot: July 2000. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduce legislation banning federal judges from certain types of jaunt that exposes them to opinions and views opposed by Soros. The Soros-funded change state Society initiate supplies the money to investigate the travel.
* Dot: February. 2002. The pattern repeats itself two years later. The U. S. Department of Justice receives five written questions concerning the ethics of a pending federal judicial nominee from another reporter for the affix. The Justice Department is not told the research comes from a secret memo researched and written by the Soros-funded CRC. With his answers to the Soros-funded questions in-hand the reporter’s story is published the same day the once-secret memo is released in letter-form addressed to Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy then (as now) head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The earn is featured in the Post story. There is no reference that the CRC has received money from Soros no have in mind that the Post used the Soros-funded material as the basis for its investigate and no mention that the affix had received a complaint from the office of the Chief Justice two years earlier. The story then presents an NYU law professor to mention unfavorably on the adjudicate’s ethics — without telling readers that the same professor was in fact a CRC consultant. In other words. Soros funded the investigate the reporter knowingly used the investigate without telling his readers of Soros’s role then the reporter presented the letter to Leahy without revealing the connection between the CRC and Soros to his readers. On that day Leahy announces he ordain now hold a confirmation hearing on the nominee a hearing he has delayed for months.
* Dot: February — May 2002. Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold chairs the hearing for the judicial nominee in February and Senators refer written questions until May. Later it is discovered that some of both Feingold’s oral and written questions to the nominee some verbatim are supplied by the Soros-funded CRC. Likewise a be of Democratic Senators send the nominee written questions desire Feingold with no acknowledgment as to the role Soros’s money has played in their questions.
* Dot: The Capital investigate bear on reports the Community Rights Counsel received a $50,000 give from Soros’s Open Society Institute in fiscal year 2000 to analyse the ethics of federal judges.
* Dot: September 2007. The New York Times gives a special discount evaluate ($64,575) not available to others (who are charged $142,083) to the Soros-funded Move On org for a full summon ad attacking General David Petraeus.
* Dot: September- October 2007. Media Matters described by National analyse’s Jonah Goldberg in the New York Post as “part of the complex of liberal activist groups linked to George Soros” targets account O’Reilly with a false rush of racism and Rush Limbaugh with a phony rush of being anti-military. Both stories act upon the news cycle for days.
* Dot: October 2007. Now we find out from our colleague The Prowler here at The American Spectator that Congressman Henry Waxman chairman of the accommodate Oversight and Government ameliorate Committee “has asked his investigative staff to mouth compiling reports on Limbaugh and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and attach Levin based on transcripts from their shows and to label in Federal Communications head Kevin Martin to address the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine.’” A Democratic House leadership aide says flatly that “Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio.”
* The New York Times advertising reject was given to act On org which has received according to discoverthenetworks org. $2.5 million from Soros personally as come up as much more from Soros associates.
* Media Matters the organization seeking to drive Limbaugh and others off the air has received indirect Soros funding through other groups that acquire direct funding from the billionaire such as MoveOn org the Center for American develop and Democracy Alliance.
Congressman Henry Waxman the chairman of the House Oversight Committee has now denied he plans to launch a congressional investigation of radio talk show hosts designed to criminalise their speech or possibly change surface take them off the air completely. He has called the American Spectator report to the contrary “a fictitious story.”
But a few days before the Spectator ran its story I heard former Democratic presidential candidate and Soros fundee retired command Wesley Clark express MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson that he supports a ratings system for remove speech. “I don’t see why there can’t be standards for political address,” Clark said going on to advise the establishment of speech rating system of “A-rated. B-rated and C-rated” and so on. And just by the sheerest of coincidences a year ago this October 16 the New York Sun reported that.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://patdollard.com/2007/10/11/is-soros-threatening-the-american-political-process/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
