Conor, if you are against "foreign entities impacting our election"
then you must be against illegal immigrants being allowed to vote. Since the only way to prevent these "foreign entities" from manipulating our election is to require voter ID's to vote, I then must assume that you are for voter ID laws' correct?
Or are you selective in which foreign entities you want to allow to manipulate our election?
Replies to: Conor, if you are against "foreign entities impacting our election"
I'm more concerned about 2 "Americans" impacting our election process (long read)...
Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros radical vision of open-border world
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 20, 2016
Hillary Clinton has aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor left-wing financier George Soros, who talks of international governance, more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.
The phrase American exceptionalism is not part of his agenda. He wrote in 1998: The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.
We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy, Mr. Soros wrote.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, he said, Military power is of limited use in dealing with asymmetric threats such as terrorism.
The Clinton-Soros symbiosis came into clearer focus this month with WikiLeaks release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta, Mrs. Clintons campaign chairman. Mr. Soros name comes up nearly 60 times.
The Clinton-Soros symbiosis came into clearer focus this month with WikiLeaks release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta, Mrs. Clintons campaign chairman. Mr. Soros name comes up nearly 60 times.
The financial and ideological alliance is so complete that after Mr. Soros dined with Mrs. Clinton in 2014 and asked her to attend a liberal groups fundraiser, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, wrote in an email, I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy).
Rep. Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is co-chairman of Donald Trumps congressional leadership caucus, said a vote for Mrs. Clinton is a vote for the Soros agenda.
The fact that Hillary Clinton and her campaign are so closely aligned with George Soros and his radical agenda is serious cause for alarm, Mr. Hunter told The Washington Times. Publicly, its a relationship shes never really talked up, but communications at least now reveal how closely aligned they are, and Americans deserve to know that a Clinton presidency means even more direct influence from George Soros.
And as for an agenda, there probably wont be much daylight between the two, and Americans should be concerned that a vote for Clinton is no different than a vote for George Soros for president, Mr. Hunter said.
The Times reached out to the press offices for Mr. Soros and Mrs. Clinton but received no reply.
With a Forbes-pegged fortune of $24 billion, Mr. Soros is Americas and the worlds most prominent financial star in a constellation of liberal activist groups. They have funded anti-police protests, some of them violent; rhetorical attacks on conservatives and their media; open border initiatives; and efforts to control journalists reporting.
The Hungarian-born U.S. citizen grew even closer to Bill and Hillary Clinton after Mr. Clinton became president, all the while funneling millions of dollars to their campaigns and to those of other Democrats.
I do now have great access in [the Clinton] administration, Mr. Soros told PBS in 1995. There is no question about this. We actually work together as a team.
Mr. Soros has donated nearly $11 million to Hillary Clintons Democratic presidential campaign and three main super PACS USA Action, American Bridge 21st Century and Hillary for America, according to an analysis by The Washington Times.
His foundation has given up to $6 million to the Clinton Foundation, the global charity the Clintons set up that has proved to be a good networking tool to obtain paid speaking engagements. The Clintons have a personal net worth of $100 million to $150 million, most of it gained by giving speeches to bankers, corporations, colleges and trade associations.
Mr. Soros pumps money into a list of whos who on the American left. They include Media Matters; MoveOn.org, which organized aggressive protests at Trump rallies; and the Center for American Progress, founded by Mr. Podesta. Institutions that educate future journalists also take Mr. Soros money.
A review of Mrs. Clintons private and public comments shows she has very much absorbed Mr. Soros grand plan for the world, a blueprint that hangs under the title open societies. His New York-based Open Societies Foundation is at the center of his philanthropy and politics.
Mr. Soros has complained of national borders as an impediment to world ruling bodies.
He finances at least seven groups in the U.S. that promote open borders and mass immigration, according to the book Shadow Party by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.
WikiLeaks massive release of hacked campaign emails shows that in one of Mrs. Clintons paid speeches to bankers, she pledged to work for open borders. Her dream presumedly means that the southern U.S. border would be a conduit for untold numbers of immigrants.
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, she told a closed-door audience at Brazilian bank Banco Tau in May 2013.
Illustrating how far Mrs. Clinton has moved to the Soros position is a 2003 statement in which she said she was adamantly opposed to illegal immigrants.
Conservative bloggers say one of Mr. Podestas emails shows him explaining how illegal immigrants can vote by obtaining drivers licenses and attesting to U.S. citizenship at the polls. Non-citizen voting in federal elections is against U.S. law.
Muslim immigration
Mr. Soros is a big proponent of bringing more Muslims into Europe and, by extension, to America. He views Muslim immigrants as a savior for Europe because of the continents low birthrate.
He has funded private groups helping Muslims enter Germany and other countries, and he wants Europe to borrow billions of dollars to pay for resettling them. He wrote in the Australian newspaper last year that Europe should bring in 1 million Muslim refugees per year for the foreseeable future.
Hungary built walls to keep out Middle Eastern refugees, fearing they would turn the country from its Christian roots into an Islamic state.
This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other by [human rights] activists who support everything that weakens the nation-state, said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. This Western mindset and this activist network is perhaps best represented by George Soros.
Mr. Soros told Bloomberg News: Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.
Mrs. Clinton said on CBS Face the Nation that she wants to boost President Obamas mark of 10,000 Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S. in one year to 65,000 a 500 percent increase.
Anti-police protests
The Washington Times reported that groups that went to Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 and stirred up anger during protests of the police shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown were funded by one of Mr. Soros umbrella grant-makers.
One recipient was the Organization for Black Struggle, which established the Hands Up United coalition, which helped create the protest chant, Hands up, dont shoot. Brown never put his hands up and assaulted a white police officer in the fatal altercation, according to a Justice Department report.
Mrs. Clinton is clearly in their corner. She has made statements supporting Black Lives Matter, whose followers call for violence against police officers, and scolded police across the board.
Lets admit it: There is clear evidence that African-Americans are disproportionately killed in police incidents compared to any other group, she said in July.
And surely we can all agree thats deeply wrong and needs to change. And, yes, we do need to listen to those who say black lives matter, Mrs. Clinton said.
She said during the primary election season, There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. And that requires a very clear agenda for retraining police officers.
The nations largest police union has endorsed Mr. Trump.
American sovereignty
Mr. Soros says one of his pet peeves is that the U.S. launches military operations against other nations yet jealously guards its own self-determination.
We are willing to violate the sovereignty of other states in the name of universal principles, but we are unwilling to accept any infringement of our own sovereignty, he wrote in 1999 in The Washington Post. We need a new international authority that transcends the sovereignty of states to promote an open society.
Mr. Soros castigates the United States for not subjecting its deployed armed service members to international courts.
He wrote: We are willing to drop bombs on others from high altitudes, but we are reluctant to expose our own men to risk. We refuse to submit ourselves to any kind of international governance. We were one of seven countries that refused to subscribe to the International Criminal Court; the others were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. We do not even pay our dues to the United Nations. This kind of behavior does not lend much legitimacy to our claim to be the worlds leader.
In her private 2013 speech to Brazilian bankers, Mrs. Clinton said a dream of hers is to establish a hemispheric common market. Presumedly, this would be modeled after the European Union, which dictates economic policy to member countries. The U.S. would find itself obliged to follow the dictates of a bureaucracy made up of South and Central America, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.
The mission statement of Mr. Soros flagship operation the Open Societies Foundation is that it works to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.
One group Mr. Soros helped start with a $1 million-plus donation was MoveOn.org, which helped organize violent protests at Trump rallies last spring. It celebrated the cancellation of Mr. Trumps Chicago rally in March because of protesters and their attacks on Trump supporters.
Mr. Trump and the Republican leaders who support him and his hate-filled rhetoric should be on notice after tonights events, MoveOn said. To all of those who took to the streets of Chicago, we say thank you for standing up and saying enough is enough. To Donald Trump, and the GOP, we say, welcome to the general election.
Mr. Soros adamantly opposed President George W. Bushs war on terrorism. In a 2004 book blasting the Iraq War, The Bubble of American Supremacy, Mr. Soros described the 9/11 attacks this way:
Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular. The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center made a symbolic statement that reverberated around the word and the fact people could watch the event on their television sets endowed it with an emotional impact that no terrorist act had ever achieved.
Mr. Soros and his Soros Fund Management made his fortune by trading currencies. France indicted him on charges of insider trading in the 1980s and fined him $2.6 billion. Frances highest court upheld his conviction. In Britain, he dumped so many pounds into the currency market that the media said he broke the Bank of England.
Mrs. Clinton said in 2004, We need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.
Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, said: If she does win, she wont need Soros or anyone else anymore. She will be Crooked Hillary unchained and beholden to no one. She may do Soros bidding, but hes going to have to pay her to do it. She will service the left-wing ideological agenda to the extent she needs to maintain her voter base for 2020. But I see her focus being consolidation of power and money, or money and power.
Link: Globalism for a price...
It's good someone supports the Washington Times - every one needs a job
and surely the factionalist's there need employment too.
cute but non-responsive
(no message)
Like a hooker, eh?
(no message)
didn't know that jim was a hooker--thanks for the info
(no message)
Soros! Of course!
(no message)
Your sarcasm re: Soros allows you to dismiss a tremendous amount. How convenient for you.
(no message)
He is the right's bogeyman. The left has theirs (the Kochs).
Some people like to think that there is a giant malevolence behind the other side.
Undoubtedly, except that one of them has been given access to the power structure & one hasn't.
(no message)
The difference being that the Koch brothers refuse to back Trump w/$$$...
This from one of your "trusted" news sources...
DONALD TRUMP WONT BE GETTING KOCH BROTHERS MONEY
BY REUTERS ON 8/2/16 AT 1:35 PM- published by Newsweek
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - The billionaire industrialist Koch brothers rejected pressure over the weekend from dozens of big donors in their sprawling political network to back U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that their money was better spent trying to influence congressional races.
The rejection deprives Trump, a New York businessman who has never previously run for elected office, of a major source of fundraising and reflects how his unorthodox White House bid has sparked some disarray among fundraisers who would normally be squarely behind a Republican nominee.
The Kochs, with a nearly $300 million political warchest, have earned a reputation as powerful allies in Republican politics.
Charles Koch, the dominant player in his political partnership with brother David Koch, told attendees at a bi-annual donor retreat at a luxury resort in Colorado Springs, Colorado: At this point, I cant support either candidate for the White House.
He said networks mandate was to shore up the countrys financial future and eliminate corporate welfare," a reference to government subsidies provided to some industries.
"But since it appears that neither presidential candidate is likely to support us in these efforts, we are focused on maximizing the number of principled leaders in the House and Senate who will," he said.
Trump's protectionist stances and pledges to review free trade agreements and to get tough on immigration have clashed with the Kochs' free-market political philosophy. Charles Koch has described as a "a blood libel" the idea he would instead support Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee for the Nov. 8 election.
A group of wealthy Republican donors, who paid the minimum $100,000 per year to be members of the 700-strong Koch network, had been urging the brothers to step off the sidelines of the election and back Trump.
SEEKING FUTURE INFLUENCE
The donors argued that if Trump is elected, the Koch network would want to have influence on his emerging policies and cabinet picks, and to have access to a Trump administration.
Over cocktails on the patio overlooking the Rocky Mountains, in private meetings and on text message threads, some donors voiced their concern that if the Kochs alienate Trump, "it could hurt us down the road."
Some suggested that some donors could leave the Koch network over the decision not to back Trump. Oil magnate Harold Hamm, a leading candidate to serve as Trump's energy secretary, did not attend the weekend gathering.
Other donors who had been at the forefront of a movement to urge the Kochs to get on board with Trump, like billionaire broadcasting magnate Stanley Hubbard, said that in a private meeting with Charles, they had now been convinced that the Kochs were "doing the right thing."
Trump has shown no hesitation in spurning the Kochs.
On Friday, he tweeted that he had turned down an invitation to meet with the brothers. Koch insiders quickly disputed that characterization, saying an invite was never extended.
Nonetheless, the Koch brothers also did not act to stop Trump from beating 16 presidential rivals and winning the party nomination. During the primary contests, many Koch donors were urging the brothers to perform a "Trump Intervention," whereby the brothers would leverage their political operation to support Trump's rivals. The Kochs refused.
Trump officially accepted the Republican nomination in Cleveland last month, with a speech that painted a bleak picture of rising crime at home and increasing threats from overseas.
The top Koch official on criminal justice reform, Mark Holden, said the speech was inaccurate. "We are safer [now]," he said.
This is a far cry from Soros' overt manipulation of the Democratic Party to serve his personal agenda.
Link: Trump has shown no hesitation in spurning the Kochs.
True. But they have funded the modern conserative movement.
And they are the ones the left overestimates, just like the right is obsessed with Soros.
Not to mention the foreign donations to the Clintons.
There was a Dem talking head on TV yesterday saying that there was no reason for Hillary to return that money, because Hillary is "taking money from bad people, and putting it to good use." Brilliant.
Amazing how the Clintons have made $250 million selling a single product, influence.
If I were Trump's peeps, I'd run an ad listing all of the status quo fuck ups that have been perpetuated by both sides in the last 16 years, and say if you want more of the same, vote for her. On the other hand, even if you hate Trumps guts, this is the best chance to reverse that garbage by voting for him.
I still don't vote for him but it could be effective.
For the 1000th time, they make what all top people make for speeches
It is completely obscene what people will pay former presidents to speak at corporate dinners. But that is the going rate.
250 million worth? Just to hear them speak? Please tell me you don't believe that's why they were
paid. It was the primary payment mechanism but they were paid for influence.
A-listers get that kind of dough
I don't like it, but it's true. Their speaking fees are not out of the ordinary. Sorry.
More disturbing to me is Bill taking 16 million or so to be on the board of one of those horrid for-profit colleges.
For the infinity-th time, you have simply no idea how much they're being paid or why...
It's an exceptional money-laundering vehicle. Hats off to them. They can clearly count on your willful disinterest..
Please explain Bill Clinton's $18 million job as "Honorary Chancellor" of a for-profit college. Going rate?
The amounts are absurd.
Next will be arranging for Chelsea to attend a sit-down at an Italian restaurant and planting a gun for her in the bathroom so that she can take the next step forward in the family business...
I agree that he is probably cashing in all over the place
I mentioned the for-profit college thing in my post. Right there in the middle. Normal font.
I don't know why he didn't worry about the appearance of impropriety (that's all it is, for now - there is no evidence of this affecting US policy).
It's the thing that frustrates even the strongest Clinton supporter. And I am not that guy.
You mean this Bill Clinton...."3 CGI donors paid him" Bill Clinton. They are a disgrace.
And the guy says he could name about 500 other instances.
(no message)
Misses the point. They aren't paying him to hear him speak, just like the for profit college"......
wasn't paying him for any actual board work. They are all buying his influence in the system.
If you can't see that you are just willfully blind because you aren't dumb.
Looks like more WJC conflict of interest stuff is coming out in the latest wiki dump. That should be interesting.
What you are describing is essentially lobbying
Of course the board wants Clinton to open doors. That is why they pay him.
But the thing you apparently can't grasp is that there is a whole class of people who command enormous speaking fees, in and out of the government. The fees of the Clintons were not out-of-the-ordinary for A-listers. It is obscene, but it is not unusual, and not indicative of corruption.
I look forward to posting this twelve more times, at least.
Their fees were at the top and the number of bookings, ginormous. All to purchase influence.
Not saying that others haven't been paid for speeches and board memberships and given gifts like the Clintons for those reasons. No one though comes close to them in the scale of the amounts they have made since 2000. That's not lobbying. That's buying influence.
Why do you think so many not just on the right, but also Bernie peeps think the system is so corrupt? Because of people like them.
An illegal immigrant is not a foreign entity/power/sovereign.
In your orbit, I suppose an illegal immigrant is not a person, but a "them" or "some bad hombres" or one in the same with "Islamic terrorists."
In my orbit, the illegal immigrant is 90% of the time a hardworking family guy, who pays taxes, goes to church, and shares the same values and dreams our families did when they came to Ellis Island.
No, a non citizen ought not be able to vote. Voter ID laws are code for voter suppression. The right and ability to vote is not designed to be more demanding than the application and screening process you underwent to join your country club.
My query deals with organized cyber espionage perpetrated by a foreign sovereign or entity or terrorist group, unlawfully hacking our private communications, and then disseminating (possibly doctoring the content) to the public at large, for the purpose of hijacking an election.
When the media and candidates introduce the tainted information in the political process, they become accomplices, perpetuating the underlying breach and espionage. In effect, we are feeding the monster by disseminating the Wikileaks hacked information.
So, you're drawing a distinction about WHICH foreign influences are acceptable to our election.
Just the ones that help your cause. i see.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, and i doubt that you realized it.
Nice try trying to smear me with the "I don't look at illegal immigrants as people" BTW.
Take your ass whooping like a man, and have a good weekend.
(no message)
said the unruly brat as the teacher put him in the corner. And you have a good weekend as well!
(no message)
I was being Trump like. Will follow up later tonite/tomorrow re wikileaks conversation.
(no message)
That's a long way of saying you agree that illegal aliens should not vote.
I was with you until you said, "Voter ID laws are code for voter suppression." unless you meant illegal voting suppression.
The whole anti-ID thing is just nonsense. It makes zero sense to say that illegals shouldn't vote, but we shouldn't take the most basic and simple step to keep them from voting.
And, if you think minorities are incapable of navigating the lines at their local license bureaus, well, isn't that a little racist of you? I, for one, have confidence in minorities that they can do that. I hink anyone with an IQ above 70 can do it. Those below 70 who can't...well, maybe they shouldn't be voting?...just sayin'. Maybe that's a little intelligentist of me.
The one thing we should all be confident in is, there is massive voter fraud in each election.
Millions of votes are cast fraudulently and it's proved each year after the millions of convictions we see post election. Millions of "illegals" are sentenced to jail terms through those proceedings; we know because voting is so centrally coordinated across the nation making voter fraud a big problem - oh wait, voting is not centrally coordinated, it's a precinct by precinct production
you are stupid
look at the Loretta Sanchez case in California.
In that case the court found that if you are registered to vote, you are legal to vote.
Even though thousands of illegals voted.
So how did they do that--get registered?
It's simple just look at the requirements. (to get registered)
I know what they are--but it is best that you look them up.
I don't know what you're talking about and more important, neither do you.
(no message)
of course you don't, that's what makes you stupid.
I do
And you have difinitive proof that "illegals" are being allowed to vote in our elections?
(no message)
just read above
I say stupid, because stupid people say stupid things.
Just because he doesn't know the facts you conclude that he is wrong and you are right.
You never considered that you both are wrong. or
that the evidence is being surprised by the guilty parties, for political reasons and other reasons.
At least as much prrof as you have that the Russians are behind the Wikileaks.
(no message)
Ah, I forgot you're a Putin guy like the Donald.
Well, Gov't espionage is something we all know goes on and we do know the DNC was hacked - as far as "illegals" voting, that has got to be one of the most lame conspiracies ginned up by you people. One, voting fraud is pretty much nonexistent therefore it's unlikely there is a major movement coordinated by the "illegals" to alter the vote by voting illegally. It's just not happening. Two, it's more likely there are Aliens' from Outer Space voting.
BOOM
(no message)
Re: BOOM
With the BYE week, enjoy the weekend in your basement--
(no message)