Tag Archives: Soros

America’s Constitutional Government Targeted, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of efforts to ignore the Constitution.

Examining the actions of political parties is an essential aspect of understanding perspectives on the Constitution. However, only looking at party leaders diverts the discussion from the new centers of gravity in Progressive politics. The Washington Free Beacon reports that:

“Three liberal donor networks and foundations with ties to billionaire George Soros have joined forces to form a new fund to ‘resist’ President Donald Trump. The Emergent Fund…was established late last year to quickly fund groups to take direct, immediate action against Republicans. Since the fund’s formation, it has received little public attention. It has raised over half a million dollars to give to groups opposing Republicans, such as the Black Lives Matter Network. The fund has extensive ties to significant liberal networks and groups…The Solidaire Network, the Threshold Foundation, and the Women Donors Network, all San Francisco-based groups, mobilized to form the Emergent Fund. The Solidaire Network brings together wealthy progressive donors to foster protest and direct action movements. The donor network is comprised of individuals who can move $50,000 or more personally or through a family foundation. The group props up other donor communities on its website such as the…secretive George Soros-tied Democracy Alliance donor network, the largest liberal dark money group.”

Trevor Loudon, a New Zealander, is the producer of a new film entitled “America Under Siege,” which examines the unusual level of disruption following the 2016 election. In an interview with the Capital Research Organization, he points out that there are groups operating outside of the regular political process, engaging in activities of highly questionable legality which were shielded from prosecution by the Obama Administration. He states:

“One of the…groups involved in this, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, had 23 members of its group arrested in 2010 by the FBI for supporting terrorist groups in Palestine and Latin America.  They were raided, a whole bunch of stuff was confiscated, and Obama’s Justice Department did nothing with those cases for seven years.  But the fact that they were raided because the FBI had an informant inside their organization shows how dangerous these groups potentially are.  It also shows that the [Obama] government] had no willingness at all to go after them.”

Key influencers like the shadowy billionaire Soros, the terrorist Bill Ayers, and even party officials such as the radical Perez and the anti-Semite Ellison are not tied to the traditional practices and constraints of U.S. politics. They have introduced something new and unhealthy: a slash and burn mentality that cares little for practices vital to the survival of constitutional government, such as a peaceful transfer of power, a tolerance of opposing views, and the use of honest facts. As their influence and power has reached its zenith, the normal rational debate and competition of opposing political parties and different points of view have been replaced by the extremism, violence, and disruption that have been the earmarks of collapsing open governments.

Red State writes that The ultimate goal of the more radical Leftists is to create disorder to beget more disorder…These are the ones most likely to be wearing their tattered Che Guevara T-shirts and shouting communist slogans…Most of the violence committed is done…by the more radical elements of the protesters, or refugees from the anarchist Occupy Wall Street movement…”

Politics has always been a blood sport, but what has occurred since the 2016 election is unprecedented, amounting to little more than a repudiation of the peaceful transition of power that has been the consistent and laudable practice and tradition of American Constitutional government.

History has seen this type of environment before.  In her book, SPQR, author Mary Beard describes how Rome descended from a republic, however flawed, into a dictatorship:

“Looking back over the period, Roman historian regretted the gradual destruction of peaceful politics. Violence was increasingly taken for granted as a political tool. Traditional restraints and conventions broke down, one by one, until swords, clubs and rioting more or less replaced the ballot box. At the same time…a very few individuals of enormous power, wealth…came to dominate the state…when the story is stripped down to its barest and brutal essentials, it consists of a series of key moments and conflicts that led to the dissolution of the free state, a sequence of tipping points that marked the stages in the progressive degeneration of the political process…”

America’s Constitutional Government Targeted

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines the changing nature of American politics in this two-part series.

The target of the vehement protests, over-the-top opposition, and hyperbolic media criticism of the Trump Administration, is not the current occupant of the Oval Office. It is, instead, the Constitutional practice of government.

Little discussed is the odd level of verbal violence against a President who is most certainly not an ideologue. His major policy thrusts, both as a candidate and as an elected leader, include:

  • Replacing a health care policy which has demonstrably failed (the dirty little secret of the 2016 campaign was that no matter who got elected, Obamacare was going to have to drastically change.)
  • Restoring a military that had been dangerously and very obviously depleted, at a time when adversaries across the globe had dramatically strengthened theirs.
  • Encouraging American allies to pay a more equitable share of their own defense needs
  • restoring middle-income job growth.
  • reforming taxes and regulations so that more industry would remain within the U.S.
  • Enforcing already existing immigration laws.
  • Reducing regulations that hamper the creation or survival of businesses.

These could hardly be called arch-conservative.  If anything, Donald Trump both campaigned and, in the brief period he has been in office, governed as a pragmatist. Lately, his criticism has been focused as much on conservatives in Congress as on Democrats.

Trump came to office in the aftermath of a demonstrably failed presidency.

Under Obama, The U.S. essentially divested itself of its role as the world’s dominant superpower, leading to greater threats across the globe.  in Asia, China’s belligerence dramatically increased. in Eastern Europe, Russia engaged in the largest invasion since World War 2. Throughout the Islamic world, conditions deteriorated. ISIS rose to prominence due to Obama’s premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Libya descended into chaos following the still unexplained drive to oust Gaddafi. Iran’s power and influence expanded dramatically.  The Taliban was positioned to make a major comeback in Afghanistan. Terrorist attacks became commonplace occurrences throughout the world.

At home, Obama’s policies and actions led to an economy mired in the doldrums, racial animosity at a level not seen in decades, and a near doubling of the national debt with nothing gained after all those dollars spent, as well as the worse job participation rate in decades. The national infrastructure continued to crumble.

Stunning scandals took place.  Whole agencies of the government, especially the IRS, were unlawfully used for partisan purposes.  An American ambassador was killed without any attempt to rescue him or to punish the perpetrators. The U.S. Secretary of State’s family personally profited from the sale of uranium, the basic ingredient of atomic bombs, to Russia.

It was reasonable to assume that in the aftermath of those eight difficult years, the public mood would have been at least willing to give the new leader at least a brief honeymoon. But long before Trump even took office, a level of unprecedented and near-hysterical opposition was promoted by much of the media, academia, some Democrat Party leaders, and the financiers of hard-left causes.

One explanation for the unusual and extreme alteration in the nature of American politics has been the takeover of the Democrat Party by untraditional forces.  The party of Kennedy, Truman, indeed even FDR, no longer exists in a viable form.  Those types of leaders have been replaced by extremists such as former Obama Labor Department SecretaryTom Perez, the new DNC Chair, and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the deputy chair, and other individuals such as NYC Mayor Mike de Blasio.

Perez is an extremist who refused, while at the Department of Justice, to prosecute a clear-cut case of voter intimidation against those not identified as Obama voters. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Iain Murray, in a National Review article, notes that Perez’s “rewriting of U.S. labor law is probably the most fundamental attack on the free-enterprise system going on at present…If he has his way, we won’t just revert to the 1930s. We’ll do things that even Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t do, like eliminate vast numbers of independent-contractor jobs and unionize those that remain.”

Perez selected Keith Ellison as his deputy chair. Ellison was noted for his bizarre statements about the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that President Bush (43) used the terrorist assault to copy Adolph Hitler’s infamous Reichstag Fire strategy to destroy his opponents.  Ellison has also been tied to anti-Semitic positions. His 2010 comments about Israel led to a demand by the Anti-Defamation League that he be disqualified from being appointed to federal office.

NYC Mayor de Blasio was an ardent supporter of Nicaragua’s Marxist Sandinista government in the 1980s. He describes himself as an advocate of “democratic socialism” and was executive director of the New York branch of the pro-socialist New Party.

As party leaders, they are not far from the worrisome example set by President Obama.  Obama abused federal agencies for partisan purposes, stood U.S. foreign policy on its head, and took advice from individuals such as Bill Ayers, a founder of the internationally supported terrorist Weather Underground Organization.

Progressive politicians such as Perez, Ellison and de Blasio are at the forefront of replacing rational, peaceful political discourse with a new atmosphere that encourages continual street protests that erupt into violence, including those levied against college campus speakers that don’t agree with the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy.

The report concludes tomorrow.

Preferential Treatment for Leftists

There are profound questions about a number of vital undercurrents in American politics that have been thoroughly avoided by the popular media and political scientists.  However, the bizarre protests following the election of Donald Trump have uncovered and highlighted these fault lines to such a degree that an open examination of them can no longer be avoided.

Since 1971, increasingly stringent federal, state and local laws have been imposed—sometimes to the detriment of First Amendment rights—on the funding of political campaigns.

According to a CATO  study, “efforts over the past 25 years to reform campaign finance, primarily by limiting contributions to and spending by campaigns, have been exceptionally popular.”

There have been attempts, mostly by Left Wing interests, to go even further, and regulate political speech on the internet, and even in newsrooms. One example comes from Wisconsin. According to The Wall Street Journal “Democrats plan to introduce a bill…that would block candidates from coordinating with supposedly independent groups and regulate so-called “issue ads” in the run-up to an election…The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled such coordination was protected by the First Amendment…Federal law defines “electioneering communications” as any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office 30 days before a primary or 60 days before the general election, and is targeted to the relevant electorate.”

For all the enthusiasm of the Left to regulate free speech and other activities related to politics, however, there is an area which they not only ignore, but condone and indeed practice with vigor: the funding, assistance and advocacy of extremist positions by shadowy-funded organizations .

This has been revealed most clearly in the aftermath of the 2016 elections.  There is little doubt that the results were the direct antithesis of what Progressives hoped, combining the surprise victory of Donald Trump with the somewhat unexpected retention of the Senate (as well as the House of Representatives) by the GOP.

News reports have described the near-hysterical response by leftists, involving mass protests featuring violence against property and innocent bystanders in a number of cites,  as “spontaneous.” In fact, they are anything but.

Zero Hedge  reports that “contrary to USA Today’s claims that the anti-Trump protests across the nation are “spontaneous, involving people from all walks of life”, according to Wikileaks documents at least two of the people profiled by USA Today have a history of being professional agitators for the Democratic party, whose task is to stir up popular protests and – in extreme cases – unleash rioting, such as the following clip showing the latest day of violent protests in Portland revealed. As our reader notes, “I have a video of 5 city blocks on the West side of Chicago lined with busses from Wisconsin (Badger Bus Lines) bringing in protestors. The Sears tower is visible in the background.” The video was taken at 3:30pm on South Canal Street in Chicago on Saturday. As our reader points out, hundreds of the participants that took part in the downtown Chicago protests from November 12 were bused in using these vehicles. Other arrived by train.”

KGW, an NBC affiliate in Portland, Oregon reports that “More than 70 percent of the 112 anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn’t vote in Oregon, according to state election records. The other approximately 30 percent did cast a ballot in Oregon or in another state.”

Attempts to derail, first, Trump’s candidacy, and currently, his presidency, have been neither spontaneous nor the stuff of general adversarial politics.  Rather, they have been well funded “under the radar” by at least one billionaire backer, and assisted by academics who may have broken rules regarding the nonpartisan use of their teaching positions as well as regulations barring the use of their underage students for partisan purposes, as well as safety guidelines prohibiting the transportation of students without parental permission.

The Gateway Pundit found that an extreme leftist organization entitled Washington CAN! Has been paying people to protest, hiring individuals via ads on Craigslist.

The Daily Caller  found that “A left-wing charity organization with unknown sources of money is providing the funding for protests around the country…The Progress Unity Fund is a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization — the same classification as the Red Cross. The group’s mission is to ‘provide a progressive alternative to mainstream charities,’ according to its IRS filings. The fund provides the financial backing for Act Now To Stop War & End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition, a left-wing activist group that began organizing “emergency protests” immediately after Trump’s election. Cities where ANSWER held protests included: Chicago, New York, DC and San Francisco, among others.”

While the left opposes support from legitimate citizens organizations to the candidates of their choice, questionable groups that fund Progressive causes are wholly ignored. Human Events  notes that George Soros “has given more than $7 billion to a who’s who of left-wing groups.  This partial list of recipients of Soros’ money says it all: ACORN, Apollo Alliance, National Council of La Raza, Tides Foundation” and others.

In the case of Donald Trump, who has opposed attempts to undercut U.S. law and financial interests through international treaties a key part of his political message, the motivations for his opponents’ financing of the demonstrations are clear. Human Events quotes him as stressing that “Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.” Soro’s MoveOn.org is said to play a key part in the riots.

Some individuals at these preplanned and well financed “demonstrations” have even called for the assassination of Trump and Vice President-elect Pence.

While the regulation of political activity raises serious Constitutional questions, if it is to be done at all, it should be done fairly. The mass funding of extremist activities by George Soros and other billionaires has not been subjected to the same rules as other activities on the opposite side of the political divide.

Further, when the net focus of the activities of leftist organizations is to clearly undercut free elections and the rule of law, as clearly the current demonstrations against the Trump victory do, then appropriate legal scrutiny and action must be undertaken.