The Soros Threat To Democracy

[GaryC 7]

The Soros Threat To Democracy

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

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.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. 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.

Meanwhile, 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." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?

OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism.

On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.

"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency — as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."

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.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A rich guy who uses his money and power to manipulate the media and public opinion?

Why does that sound so familiar? This story is as old as mankind itself.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I signed up with MoveOn.org back in early 2003, when it was still taking shape, but have since taken myself off their email list. I agree with you, Gary - it troubles me. But you know who is even more dangerous to democracy? Rubert Murdoch. You know why? He owns a very large portion of the media. The real rub here is power and keeping power in check. I think it would be inconsistent to take the stand that Murdoch is simply being a good businessmen while stating that Soros is a danger to democracy.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I signed up with MoveOn.org back in early 2003, when it was still taking shape, but have since taken myself off their email list. I agree with you, Gary - it troubles me. But you know who is even more dangerous to democracy? Rubert Murdoch. You know why? He owns a very large portion of the media. The real rub here is power and keeping power in check. I think it would be inconsistent to take the stand that Murdoch is simply being a good businessmen while stating that Soros is a danger to democracy.

in the same court with soros is the guy that owns progressive insurance.

[Cantankerous 0]

There is absolutely no way you can compare the business practices of Rupert Murdoch with those of George Soros.

George Soros is a threat to America as he most definitely wants and actively strides for a Global Open Society.

You will find Rupert Murdoch supporting America and conservative Republicans. His choices are America and a certain political party.

You will find George Soros smearing and attacking anyone he does not agree with. He pushes far left liberal endeavors so that one day his dream of knocking America off it’s pedestal comes true. He does not care about American values; he only wants to destroy America from within.

Sure, I’ll agree some of what his organizations push for make sense. I am not against helping people. What I will not stand for and I will not accept is that his ultimate goal is to drastically change America and then fold it into his view of a Global Open Society.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is absolutely no way you can compare the business practices of Rupert Murdoch with those of George Soros.

George Soros is a threat to America as he most definitely wants and actively strides for a Global Open Society.

You will find Rupert Murdoch supporting America and conservative Republicans. His choices are America and a certain political party.

You will find George Soros smearing and attacking anyone he does not agree with. He pushes far left liberal endeavors so that one day his dream of knocking America off it’s pedestal comes true. He does not care about American values; he only wants to destroy America from within.

Sure, I’ll agree some of what his organizations push for make sense. I am not against helping people. What I will not stand for and I will not accept is that his ultimate goal is to drastically change America and then fold it into his view of a Global Open Society.

Global Open Society??? I don't know anything about it, but unless it would contradict our Constitution, I say let him go for it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In the global open society, are we going to have to hold hands and sing kumbaya?

If so, count me out. I am not holding some strangers hands. Eww, cooties.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In the global open society, are we going to have to hold hands and sing kumbaya?

If so, count me out. I am not holding some strangers hands. Eww, cooties.

...and french kiss....you know, because that's what those froggy pacifists do in their spare time.

[GaryC 7]

There is absolutely no way you can compare the business practices of Rupert Murdoch with those of George Soros.

George Soros is a threat to America as he most definitely wants and actively strides for a Global Open Society.

You will find Rupert Murdoch supporting America and conservative Republicans. His choices are America and a certain political party.

You will find George Soros smearing and attacking anyone he does not agree with. He pushes far left liberal endeavors so that one day his dream of knocking America off it’s pedestal comes true. He does not care about American values; he only wants to destroy America from within.

Sure, I’ll agree some of what his organizations push for make sense. I am not against helping people. What I will not stand for and I will not accept is that his ultimate goal is to drastically change America and then fold it into his view of a Global Open Society.

Global Open Society??? I don't know anything about it, but unless it would contradict our Constitution, I say let him go for it.

In His Image: George Soros

The Global Open Society - A Contradiction of Terms?

© Juliette Riitters

May 10, 2007

George Soros, radical philosopher and billionaire, is intent on creating a global open society; a one-world government based on the tenet that it cannot succeed.

People are listening.

Important people; powerful people. The most frightening aspect of George Soros' agenda is that it is not motivated by his billions but by his philosophy. The man is accused of almost single-handedly destroying the economies of entire nations; he has subsidized uprisings and overthrown governments with his powerful control of the media and the financial ability to back whatever cause he chooses.

Most of what he professes to believe is diametrically opposed to itself, if that is possible. His one abiding vision is of what he calls a 'Global Open Society'. He admits that the term doesn't actually have any meaning; it is simply what is left after you shuck off all other alternatives.

His vision

To understand the irony, you must understand what the creation of a Global Open Society entails. An abolishment of national governments, one universal standard of judgment and the relinquishment of a belief in any Universal Truth. This is to be paired with complete individual freedom of choice in all matters moral, ethical or religious, as long as these are admitted to be 'choices', not 'truths'. Does he believe that the entire world can be brought into a harmonic 'society', forsaking personal interest for the common good of mankind? No. He admits this is an impossibility. In fact, he doesn't even believe the concept of a Global Open Society can be attained; but he is 'committed to the truth' of the idea (there being, of course, no actual truth).

The OSI and the OSF

In 1979, Soros founded the Open Society Fund (OSF), and the money was dedicated to opening 'closed society' countries: he avers that to have an open society, the nationals must be taught to think critically - although his social agendas play a great part in the 'educational' process. There are OSF foundations throughout twenty-five countries, all working together to further his philosophy. The Open Society Initiative(OSI) was founded in 1993, again a network of privately operated institutes involved in grant-making operations. The interests represented by this foundation include public health, independent media and education.

Soros the Philanthropist: Who Are the Beneficiaries?

In sync with Soros' intrinsic values are the PAC's and lobbying groups that receive the grants and donations. Moveon.org, a radical left-wing voter fund is one of his pet projects, as is the National Abortion Federation. Between 1998 and 2003 he donated $31 Million to non-profit pro-abortion groups; he credits his mother's membership in the Hemlock Society with his dedication to fighting for the right of people to legally kill themselves. Soros has supported the "Project on Death in America" (PDIA), whose director, Kathleen M. Foley, testified before congress on physician assisted suicide, and his foundation gives grants to "Death With Dignity, National Center", which defines itself as "...the premier educational organization dedicated to discussing physician aid in dying openly, seriously and with intellectual rigor."

Contradiction

A self-professed foe of the tenets of communism and fascism, Mr. Soros firmly holds the value of the 'common good' over individual rights and freedoms. In the Global Open Society model, citizens would be willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of society, even if they must compromise their systems of belief. He touts democracy with certain mechanisms in place to stabilize the market and redistribution of wealth. His world 'community' sounds remarkably like the Russian 'commune' ideal...

Soros' Non-Solution

Since his goal is unattainable, it will not be surprising to find that he has no 'blue-print' for this new world order (it would not be an open society if there was a blue-print is his mantra); he has never specified who, exactly would define the basic ethical and moral standard of his global enterprise or how (it being a democracy) the elected officials would be chosen.

Reading his theses is akin to watching a dragon swallowing its own tail. Everything he proposes is an impossibility; his solution to this paradox is that the Global Open Society is based on its fallibility. He has already saved himself and everyone else the trouble of argument - what we are going to do is impossible!

Ah, yes. His concept, he admits, is far too sophisticated for the 'primitive' minds of 'closed' society people. And so he continues; pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the media, into the politician's hand and the radical left-wing ideologues cause; each one dedicated to the eradication of truth. After all, as George himself put it, "...deception may be preferable to the truth..."

http://world-development-politics.suite101..._the_antichrist

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I see...you guys are unphased by a group such as the PNAC - which many of people in WH belong to and have quite a Manifesto, but shaking your knickers over this???

...Best to read what he has to say directly:

WHAT is the open society? Superficially, it is a way to describe the positive aspects of democracy: the greatest degree of freedom compatible with social justice. It is characterized by the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and minority opinions; the division of power; and a market economy. The principles of the open society are admirably put forth in the Declaration of Independence. But the Declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," whereas the principles of the open society are anything but self-evident; they need to be established by convincing arguments.

There is a strong epistemological argument, elaborated by Karl Popper, in favor of the open society: Our understanding is inherently imperfect; the ultimate truth, the perfect design for society, is beyond our reach. We must therefore content ourselves with the next best thing -- a form of social organization that falls short of perfection but holds itself open to improvement. That is the concept of the open society: a society open to improvement. The more conditions are changing -- and a global economy fosters change -- the more important the concept becomes.

But the idea of the open society is not widely accepted. On the contrary: the epistemological argument has not even been properly considered, and the idea of a global open society is often explicitly rejected. There are those, for instance, who argue that values are different in Asia. Of course they are different. The global society is characterized by diversity. But fallibility is a universal human condition; once we acknowledge it, we have found a common ground for the open society, which celebrates this diversity.

Recognition of our fallibility is necessary but not sufficient to establish the concept of the open society. We must combine it with some degree of altruism, some concern for our fellow human beings based on the principle of reciprocity.

Any variety of Asian, or other, values would fit into a global open society, provided that some universal values reflecting our fallibility and our concern for others -- such as the freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial -- were also respected. Western democracy is not the only form that an open society could take. In fact, that the open society should take a variety of forms follows from the epistemological argument. This is both the strength and the weakness of the idea: it provides a conceptual framework that needs to be filled with specific content. Each society, each historical period, must decide on the specifics.

As a conceptual framework, the open society is better than any blueprint, including the concept of perfect competition. Perfect competition presupposes a kind of knowledge that is beyond the reach of market participants. It describes an ideal world that has little resemblance to reality. Markets do not operate in a vacuum and do not tend toward equilibrium. They operate in a political setting, and they evolve in a reflexive fashion.

The open society is a more comprehensive framework. It recognizes the merits of the market mechanism without idealizing it, but it also recognizes the roles of other than market values in society. At the same time, it is a much vaguer, less determinate concept. It cannot define how the economic, political, social, and other spheres should be separated from and reconciled with one another. Opinions may differ on where the dividing line between competition and cooperation should be drawn. Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek, two champions of the open society, parted company over just this point.

Let me summarize my own views on the specific requirements of our global open society at this moment of history. We have a global economy that suffers from some deficiencies, the most glaring of which are the instability of financial markets, the asymmetry between center and periphery, and the difficulty in taxing capital. Fortunately, we have some international institutions to address these issues, but they will have to be strengthened and perhaps some new ones created. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has established capital-adequacy requirements for the international banking system, but these did not prevent the current banking crisis in Southeast Asia. There is no international regulatory authority for financial markets, and there is not enough international cooperation for the taxation of capital.

But the real deficiencies are outside the economic field. The state can no longer play the role it played previously. In many ways that is a blessing, but some of the state's functions remain unfulfilled. We do not have adequate international institutions for the protection of individual freedoms, human rights, and the environment, or for the promotion of social justice -- not to mention the preservation of peace. Most of the institutions we do have are associations of states, and states usually put their own interests ahead of the common interest. The United Nations is constitutionally incapable of fulfilling the promises contained in the preamble of its charter. Moreover, there is no consensus on the need for better international institutions.

What is to be done? We need to establish certain standards of behavior to contain corruption, enforce fair labor practices, and protect human rights. We have hardly begun to consider how to go about it.

As regards security and peace, the liberal democracies of the world ought to take the lead and forge a global network of alliances that could work with or without the United Nations. NATO is a case in point. The primary purpose of these alliances would be to preserve peace; but crisis prevention cannot start early enough. What goes on inside states is of consequence to their neighbors and to the world at large. The promotion of freedom and democracy in and around these alliances ought to become an important policy objective. For instance, a democratic and prosperous Russia would make a greater contribution to peace in the region than would any amount of military spending by NATO. Interfering in other countries' internal affairs is fraught with difficulties -- but not interfering can be even more dangerous.

Right now the global capitalist system is vigorously expanding in both scope and intensity. It exerts a tremendous attraction through the benefits it offers and, at the same time, it imposes tremendous penalties on those countries that try to withdraw from it. These conditions will not prevail indefinitely, but while they do, they offer a wonderful opportunity to lay the groundwork for a global open society.

With the passage of time the deficiencies are likely to make their effect felt, and the boom is likely to turn into a bust. But the ever-looming breakdown can be avoided if we recognize the flaws in time. What is imperfect can be improved. For the global capitalist system to survive, it needs a society that is constantly striving to correct its deficiencies: a global open society.

http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/gs3.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Copy and paste battle engaged!

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Copy and paste battle engaged!

[Cantankerous 0]

I see...you guys are unphased by a group such as the PNAC - which many of people in WH belong to and have quite a Manifesto, but shaking your knickers over this???

Twice I've written a reply, once last night and once this morning, and both times my ISP has chosen to fail during the posting... maybe I should take the hint...

You can still be a good Liberal or good Democrat or whatever and say that Soros is bad and that MoveOn and MediaMatters spew a bunch of ####### without having to turn in your card carrying membership (The one with the Big L on it).

I don't like the L or the R party much these days and I would rather have a M party... as soon as I think of a cool name I think I'll start one. (Open invitation to bash me with meaningless M words...)

Enjoy