George Soros

Guess Who Obamas Minister of Truth Is? Husband of Gal Who Helped Make MoveOn.orgs~General Betray Us~Ad

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ministry of Truth? Hmmmm…. seems like I heard that somewhere before…. oh, yeah:

The Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue, in Newspeak) is one of the four ministries that govern Oceania in George Orwell‘s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. As with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves an opposing purpose to that which its name would imply, being responsible for the falsification of historical events; and yet is aptly named in a deeper sense, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the newspeak sense of the word.

(click poster for larger-fuller version of it)

BigGovernment has this on who this Minister of Truth is:

This week President Obama revealed his latest attempt to control the media, the Internet, and the information revealed to the people of the United States by creating a new “press” office of sorts, an Obama ministry of truth, if you will. Obama’s grandiose name for this new office is the Progressive Media & Online Response department. Also named was its new director, Jesse Lee. Lee, it turns out, has an interesting connection to one of the most outrageous anti-American, anti-military media efforts in recent memory.

Jesse Lee, you see, is married to Nita Chaudhary, one of the people responsible for the 2007 MoveOn.org newspaper ad that maligned General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

That’s right, the guy that President Obama has chosen to “correct” the Internet and media and to relay the president’s “truth” is connected to one of the most anti-American, anti-military, left-wing activist groups in America. Lee and his wife are typical, hardcore, leftist extremists yet now they are in the People’s House with Lee responsible to “correct” the people themselves when they dare to question The One.

As David Steinberg notes, “Lee’s relationship with Chaudhary was not a negative for his White House career.” On the contrary, the man married to the woman that helped head an attack on the very general Obama himself has given greater duties has found her baleful influence to have either helped him reach a position inside the White House, or at the very least been a non-factor.

Shouldn’t it have been a factor, though? Shouldn’t Obama have shied away from hiring a man for his ministry of truth who is cozy with someone who stands against the very country he leads? One would think that being married to someone who belongs to one of the leading anti-American activist groups in the country would be a draw back. Apparently, Obama sees it as a plus. And need we be reminded that Moveon.org is funded by George Soros? Now we have a guy who can be directly influenced by George Soros in a new position right in the White House.

The Washington Post critiqued the ad by MoveOn.org, saying this:

However, MoveOn.org does not provide adequate factual support for its larger assertion that Petraeus is “constantly at war with the facts” and is “cooking the books” for the White House. In the absence of fresh evidence, we award MoveOn.org three Pinocchios [out of four].


 

And to catch those up on this controversy — if you hadn’t known about it — this deceitful ad was removed from MoveOn’s site after Obama appointed Petraeus to a position. Newsbusters reported this, then:

In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial “General Betray Us” ad from its website.

For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March’s troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn.

Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune.

With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn’s website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers:

It was there the last time Google cache took a screen shot of it (June 18th), so it was scrubbed sometime between then and today. If you try the link now (http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.htm) it goes to MoveOn’s default page.

I guess MoveOn couldn’t possibly bash this General now that he’s working for Obama.

To give readers an idea of the firestorm this created at the time, here are some NewsBusters articles published after this ad hit:

With Petraeus now part of the Obama administration, it’s going to be fascinating watching all of the media members and outlets that supported MoveOn’s ad now backtrack and gush over the General they once despised.

The Architect of Obamas Libya Policy is a: Quesi-Marxist; Fan of Noam Chomsky; World-government-loving United Nations Junkie; anti-American; anti-Israeli

Published by Papa Giorgio

Samantha Power is the architect of Obama’s Libyan “war” policy. Which is at odds with her previous views considering she is a huge fan of Noam Chomsky, who talks incessantly about America’s hegemonic attitude towards the world. In a review of one of Chomsky’s books, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project), where she states that,

With the United States increasingly suspect around the world — a recent Gallup poll found that 55 percent of citizens in Britain thought the United States ”posed a threat to peace,” while a June BBC survey found that 60 percent of Indonesians, 71 percent of Jordanians and even 25 percent of Canadians viewed the United States as a greater threat than Al Qaeda…. ‘Hegemony or Survival” is a raging and often meandering assault on United States foreign policy and the elites who shape it. Drawing upon case after historical case of violent meddling (Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Kosovo, etc.), Chomsky argues that the Bush administration’s war on terrorism builds upon a long tradition of foreign interventions carried out in the name of ”liberation” or ”counterterror,” of special interests run amok and of disdain for international institutions that dare to challenge American hegemony.

…(read more)…

It is interesting that Chomsky and other leftists (like Samantha) do not want the U.S. to be involved in world affairs for natyional security reasons like terror or energy, rather — as Stanley Kurtz explains — these leftists expect to dabble in world affairs for the following reason:

Superficially, Power’s chief concern is to put a stop to genocide and “crimes against humanity.” More deeply, her goal is to use our shared horror at the worst that human beings can do in order to institute an ever-broadening regime of redistributive transnational governance.

What a sentence! “Fundamentally, our Libyan operation is a humanitarian action, with no clear or inevitable military-strategic purpose beyond that.” Powers is known by the Belt-Way writers to be the architect:

Liberal foreign-policy expert Steve Clemons actually calls Power “the primary architect” of our Libyan intervention. The New York Times has gone so far as to characterize our humanitarian action as “something of a personal triumph” for Power.

How can these elitists say one thing and then change their tune in just a couple of years. It seems that the major difference between Republicans and Democrats in their foreign policy is that Republicans act militarily and as a leader in regards to national security (Constitutional). Democrats seem to act only with humanitarian offenses happen while giving away command and control to other nations and bodies (not Constitutional). In regards to this humanitarian intervention, she says that we must “must forswear up front . . . commercial or strategic interests in the region.” While we do not get much oil from Libya, our coalition does, which leads Kurtz to point out that:

Arguments that Power developed to support past interventions are proving a poor fit for our Libyan operation. She dismissed claims that the Rwandan genocide was merely a case of “civil war” or “tribal violence.” Now her critics argue that Libya is not a Rwanda-style genocide, and that Power’s eagerness for a humanitarian showcase has led us to intervene in what really is a tribal civil war.

And what of her stringent conditions? In practice, she seems to have stretched her own standards of “large-scale crimes against humanity” to produce a specimen case, in an effort to entrench her favored doctrines in international law. Who knows if more people will now be casualties in the extended civil war enabled by our intervention than would have been killed in Benghazi last month? Power worried just after 9/11 that an America soon to be militarily overstretched might give up on humanitarian interventions. Now she has helped to entangle us in an expensive and open-ended adventure at a time when we truly are at our limits — and at a time when dangers continue to spread in countries far more strategically significant than Libya.

And why should we be scared to death of Powers?

A long conversation with Power in 2003 convinced 1960s revolutionary Tom Hayden that she was a fellow-traveler of sorts, even if Power was not as systematically suspicious of American military force as a true Sixties-vintage radical would be. In Hayden’s assessment, Power’s originality was “to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” Hayden was right. The important thing about Power is not that she favors humanitarian intervention, but that she seeks to use such military actions to transform America by undoing its sovereignty and immobilizing it, Gulliver-style, in an unfriendly international system.

Power’s aforementioned second book, Chasing the Flame, celebrates the life of a United Nations diplomat, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who died in a terrorist attack in Iraq in 2003. Vieira de Mello was a Sixties radical of international scope. Hailing from Brazil, he became a committed Marxist while studying at the Sorbonne. He was among the violent protesters arrested during the student uprising in Paris in 1968. His first published work was a defense of his actions.

Vieira de Mello went from student radicalism straight to a job with the U.N. in 1969, and brought his intense anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism with him. Later he became a bitter critic of Israel. A United Nations “patriot,” he carried around a well-worn copy of the U.N. Charter the way an American senator or Supreme Court justice might take a copy of the U.S. Constitution wherever he went. Vieira de Mello’s colleagues used to say that his blood ran U.N. blue. As the U.N.’s most charismatic and effective diplomat (said to be “a cross between James Bond and Bobby Kennedy”), Vieira de Mello is the hero around whom Power attempts to build a following for her ideals of global governance.

Power explains that Vieira de Mello never really surrendered his Sixties ideals, even as he transformed himself from a passionate ideologue into a “ruthless pragmatist.” The young America-hating Vieira de Mello grew into a mature diplomat who could charm Pres. George W. Bush, even while lecturing the commander-in-chief on the follies of Guantanamo Bay. In other words, Vieira de Mello learned to manage his public persona, appealing to American leaders with arguments (allegedly) based on American national interest.

This is clearly Power’s ideal for herself. In fact, she tells us in her acknowledgments that the point of the book is also “the point of my career.” Power even cites the uncanny resemblance between Vieira de Mello and Obama. Of course, Obama’s Alinskyite training stressed the need for community organizers to advance their quietly held leftist ideological goals through “pragmatic” appeals to the public’s “self-interest.” (For more on that, see my study of Obama.)

I highly recommend Kurtz’s article, it is a must read! Andf if any of this concerns you, remember, she was hired by our Commander n’ Chief.

Marvin Olasky is Interviewed (Q & A Style) In regards to Jim Wallis/Sojourners taking money from George Soros

Published by Papa Giorgio

World Magazine h/t ~ and ~ Townhall.com h/t:

Jim Wallis has been the subject of some recent blogosphere humor. Hugh Hewitt wrote, “Most folks who receive donations from billionaires tend not to forget them, so pray for Jim Wallis’s memory.” Scholar William Voegeli wondered whether Sojourners “is drowning in money,” since Wallis didn’t remember that megabucks leftist George Soros gave $325,000 to his organization. With Jim’s denial appearing Clintonian, Baylor’s Francis Beckwith imagined Wallis saying, I did not have financial relations with that Soros.

This all grew out of my mention halfway through a July 17 WORLD column that Soros gave money to Sojourners. It didn’t seem like a big deal. Of course, Soros would find the religious left useful in drawing evangelical votes from conservatives and electing candidates who support abortion, same-sex marriage, socialism, and other unbiblical causes. Nor was it surprising that Jim, trying to keep his organization afloat, would take the cash. Yet Jim last month told an interviewer twice, “We don’t receive money from George Soros.”

It’s almost an axiom of politics that denials of evidence raise more questions than the original accusation—if the evidence still exists in one form or another. Other people besides myself had seen grants to Sojourners listed on pages in online reports from Soros’ Open Society Institute. Jay Richards wrote in National Review Online, “I have physical copies of these pages, which is good, because these pages seem to have disappeared from the OSI website (I’m sure that’s just a coincidence).”

The pages had disappeared—an OSI spokeswoman eventually said, “We are overhauling our website”—and that was disappointing, because I wanted people to be able to see for themselves proof of the Soros-Sojourners yoking. What to do? I examined on the Foundation Center website IRS Form 990s filed by Sojourners—but nonprofit groups merely have to list revenue from grants, not spell out their origins.

A stalemate? No, wait—OSI online grant pages were gone, but what about OSI’s Form 990 for 2004? (Grantmakers typically list their donations, and IRS forms cannot be so readily scrubbed, right?) Let’s look—wow, 283 pages, lots of income statements, various reports, no mention of Sojourners. But then . . . Grants to U.S. Public Charities . . . Yes! On page 225: Sojourners, 2401 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20009. “To support the Messaging and Mobilization Project: Engaging Christians on the Importance of Civic Involvement.” October 2004: $200,000.

George Soros and the NWO-Which should your fear: more or less government? (Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio

“Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States” ~ Soros

Take note that i do not believe that there is a huge conspiracy to create a New World Order. The Left is full of socialists/Marxists that want to extend government to as much of the world as possible. This is very important because the most recent people we are putting in office are people who want less government. The people who support the current Democratic majority/administration want more government.

Jim Wallis (Liberal Christianity) Admits Lie Under Marvin Olasky’s Pressure (Conservative Christianity)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a BIGGOV Import:

There is an old saying that politics make strange bedfellows. A great example of this is seen in the union of a George Soros, Jewish born billionaire who collaborated with the Nazis and was convicted of insider trading, funding the organization of Jim Wallis Christian writer and political activist, founder and editor of Sojourners magazine, leader of the Progressive evangelical movement, Obama adviser and advocate for “social justice.”

The original charge was made Marvin Olasky in the Christian Magazine, The World. Olasky reported that Soros had been giving money to Sojourners since 2004.

[Soros] bankrolled Sojourners with a $200,000 grant in 2004. A year later, here’s how Jim rebutted a criticism of “religious progressives” for being allied with Soros and MoveOn.org: “I know of no connections to those liberal funds and groups that are as direct as the Religious Right’s ties to right-wing funders.”

Since then Sojourners has received at least two more grants from Soros organizations. Sojourners revenues have more than tripled—from $1,601,171 in 2001-2002 to 5,283,650 in 2008-2009—as secular leftists have learned to use the religious left to elect Obama and others.

Maybe he was surprised by the charges, because the “man of God,” Walis lied about the Soros funding claiming that Olasky was trying to imitate Glenn Beck:

It’s not hyperbole or overstatement to say that Glenn Beck lies for a living. I’m sad to see Marvin Olasky doing the same thing. No, we don’t receive money from Soros. Given the financial crisis of nonprofits, maybe Marvin should call Soros and ask him to send us money.

So, no, we don’t receive money from George Soros. Our books are totally open, always have been. Our money comes from Christians who support us and who read Sojourners. That’s where it comes from. In fact, we’ve had funding blocked, this year and last, by liberal foundations who didn’t like our stance on abortion. Other liberal groups were happy to point out to them that our stance wasn’t kosher on abortion, so our funding was blocked.

So tell Marvin he should check his facts, and not imitate Glenn Beck.

Wallis got one part correct, Olasky did imitate Beck, both the TV commentator and the Christian writer both use facts and evidence to build their cases.

After starting with a lie (or maybe because the evidence was dug up) Wallis relented. Faced with his group’s tax returns which show donations from Soros, he fessed up to a partnership with the Democratic Party’s “sugar daddy.”

Recently, I participated in an interview about the future of Evangelicalism. The interviewer asked about a blog post in which an author made accusations about Sojourners’ funding. I should have declined to comment until I was able to review the blog post in question and consulted with our staff on the details of our funding over the past several years. Instead, I answered in the spirit of the accusation and did not recall the details of our funding over the decade in question. The spirit of the accusation was that Sojourners is beholden to funders on the political left, which is false. The allegation concerned three grants received over 10 years from the Open Society Institute that made up the tiniest fraction of Sojourners’ funding during that decade — so small that I hadn’t remembered them. Sojourners doesn’t belong to the political left or right. Sojourners receives funding from individuals and organizations across a broad spectrum who are committed to our mission of “biblical social justice.”

Holy Cow, Sojourners must raise lots of money to consider over $7 Million Dollars from one person a “tiniest fraction.” Or maybe Wallis is suffering from some sort of memory lost because the group’s total revenue in 2008 for example, was only $4.6 million, a person with a normal memory who ran an organization the size of Sojourners would remember a donation the size of Soros’ and wouldn’t describe it as a “tiniest fraction.”

[….]

Wallis has shown that he is a liar and considering his false charges of Olasky lying, he is also someone who disregards the commandment about bearing false witness. There is nothing wrong with Wallis having his religious beliefs even if I disagree with them. What is wrong is that the Obama adviser misrepresents those beliefs and their political nature, even to the point of lying about them.

Wallis claims his group is non-partisan. One of his favorite lines is

“We’ve seen religion made partisan. When I talk, I talk about a moral center. I want us to go deeper, not left or right.” He advises Obama while claiming he is “nonpartisan evangelical minister.

…(read it all)…

Yeah right! non-partisen my ass!

A blogger in New Zealand has a great post on Obama and Jim Wallis. I will excerpt from it here , but for the more in-depth person – you should read it in its entirety:

Obama File 100 Obama’s “Faith Adviser” Jim Wallis Mixes With Socialists, Radicals and “Truthers” (h/t – Exposing Liberal Lies)

…President Barack Obama spent 20 years under the ministry of Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Chicago’s South Side.

Wright is a Marxist and admirer of the founder of “Black Liberation Theology”, James Cone – who wrote in 1969 “All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.'”

In June 1998 Wright attended the Black Radical Congress in Chicago where he shared a panel with Cornel West and and former parishioner Michael Eric DysonDemocratic Socialists of America Religion and Socialism Commission, plus a former Communist Party member from his own Trinity United Church of Christ named Kevin Tyson…. of the

[….]

Today President Obama gets his spiritual nourishment from another source, a leader of American “progressive” Christianity, named Jim Wallis.

Jim Wallis is white and oh so smooth and reasonable. He is no firebrand like Jeremiah Wright. He is a registered Democrat and the respectable face of the Christian left.

Rev. Wallis has served on Obama’s White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, or “Faith Council” since 2008, but the relationship is personal and goes back at least a dozen years.

[….]

Jim Wallis was raised in a devout Plymouth Brethren household, but broke with the Church at fourteen over its failure to commit to political causes.

Wallis went on to join and then lead the militant Students for a Democratic Society, at Michigan State University.

After College Wallis went on to attend Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois where he joined with other young seminarians in establishing the community that eventually became Sojourner. In 1979, Time magazine named Wallis one of the “50 Faces for America’s Future.

In 1977 Wallis moved his radical Sojourner community, to Washington D.C., specifically to a small district named Columbia Heights, only a mile from the White House.

Meanwhile, many of Wallis’ old SDS comrades had founded a new Marxist organization with some older Communist Party veterans , patriotically named, the New American Movement. In 1982, NAM, in turn, merged with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee to form Democratic Socialists of America.

The new organization took penetration of organized religion very seriously, immediately forming a Religion and Socialism Commission.

[To the right] is [a] clipping from a July 1982 DSA newsletter, listing the three Religion and Socialism Commission co-chairs.

After pointing out that the name is spelled a bit different and making the point that the address is similar to the area Wallis lived and that this is most likely a typo, New Zeal continues:

….Is the President’s “spiritual advisor” cut from the same cloth?

Jim Wallis, is socialist, a fervent believer in the state redistribution of wealth. He is connected to some of the most radical people in America.

Wallis works hard to portray himself as moderate and a “bridge-builder”. He is a Bible scholar and comes across as sincere and as trustworthy as the President himself.

But maybe the millions of Christians and Jews who voted for Obama, should remind themselves that it is not only men of God who can quote the Scriptures to suit their purpose.

The New Zeal throws another bone for the reader, entitled, “Obama File 101 Who’s Been Fibbing Then? Evidence That Obama Was Deeply Involved in Socialist New Party ‘Sister Organization'” I have to say that churches and Christians vary on lots of items and beliefs. Whether you believe Jim Wallis is kosher or not is not a salvonic issue. But for Christians to not want to engage even in a look at whom they voted for and his ties to all these organizations that are rabidly anti-Christian and wish to supplant the Gospel with a secularist/multi-cultural/politically correct version of religion, is, well, dangerous. It smacks of anti scholastic thought and shows how people are ripe for watering down the history of the Christian message and its power.