This part will expose the deep-rooted connections of the Democratic Party to the Shadow Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and other anti-United States-thinking organizations. These connections reflect a Party that does not have the real intentions to help the poor, but to make more people poor and force the United States into total failure. That simple fact can be born out by showing conclusively that the Democratic Party has been against helping the poor since 1856.
We left off with the following last paragraph;
We left off with the following last paragraph;
We will show more in a third article about the connections between the Socialist and Communist Parties in the Democratic Party. For now read this, pass it on, keep it in mind, and watch for the third article on this, where we will show connections to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and how that, along with a few more, aligns the Democratic Party away from the normal people and close to a dictatorship.
Also note the most interesting person connected to the Nazi-Sympathizer George Soros, one Hillary Clinton.
Wonder why the “Shadow Party” was developed when we already had the Democratic Party? It seems that the “Shadow Party” was created in order to circumvent a law that kept big money out of elections.
“How the Ground work for the Shadow Party Had Been Laid: "Campaign Finance Reform"
George Soros had quietly laid the groundwork for the Shadow Party apparatus from 1994 to 2002. During that period, the billionaire spent millions of dollars promoting the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act, which was ultimately signed into law in November 2002 by President Bush. Soros began working on this issue shortly after the 1994 midterm elections, when for the first time in nearly half a century, Republicans had won strong majorities in both houses of Congress.
Political analysts at the time attributed the huge Republican gains in large part to the effectiveness of television advertising, most notably the “Harry and Louise” series (which cost $14 million to produce and air) where a fictional suburban couple exposed the many hidden, and distasteful, details of Hillary Clinton's proposals for a more socialized national health-care system.
Soros was angry that such advertisements were capable of overriding the influence of the major print and broadcast news media, which, because they were overwhelmingly sympathetic to Democrat agendas, had given Hillary's plan a great deal of free, positive publicity for months. Three weeks after the 1994 elections, Soros announced that he intended to “do something” about “the distortion of our electoral process by the excessive use of TV advertising.” That “something” would be campaign-finance reform.
Starting in 1994, Soros's Open Society Institute and a few other leftist foundations began bankrolling front groups and so-called “experts” whose aim was to persuade Congress to swallow the fiction that millions of Americans were clamoring for “campaign-finance reform.” This deceptive strategy was the brainchild of Sean Treglia, a former program officer with the Pew Charitable Trusts. Between 1994 and 2004, some $140 million of foundation cash was used to promote campaign-finance reform. Nearly 90 percent of this amount derived from just eight foundations, one of which was the Open Society Institute, which contributed $12.6 million to the cause. Among the major recipients of these OSI funds were such pro-reform organizations as the Alliance For Better Campaigns ($650,000); the Brennan Center for Justice (more than $3.3 million); the Center For Public Integrity ($1.7 million); the Center For Responsive Politics ($75,000); Common Cause ($625,000); Democracy 21 ($300,000); Public Campaign ($1.3 million); and Public Citizen ($275,000).
The "research" which these groups produced in order to make a case on behalf of campaign-finance reform was largely bogus and contrived. For instance, Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno had clearly admitted in his February 19, 1999 grant proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of the proposed study was political, not scholarly, and that the project would be axed if it failed to yield the desired results:
"The purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward. Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement."
Among the issues highlighted at the Shadow Conventions were racism, class inequality, marijuana legalization, and campaign-finance reform. Most speakers and delegates pushed a hard-left line, accompanied by "Free Mumia" chants from the crowd and an incendiary tirade by Jesse Jackson. A former conservative, Huffington told reporters: "I have become radicalized."
The Shadow Conventions were purely symbolic affairs; they fielded no candidates for office. However, many of Soros' activities during the 2000 campaign went beyond symbolism. It was during the 2000 election that Soros first experimented with raising campaign funds through Section 527 groups. In preparation for the 2000 election, Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issues -- gun control and marijuana legalization. Their donations greatly exceeded the limits on political contributions stipulated by campaign-finance laws. Soros therefore laundered their contributions through Section 527 groups -- dubbed "stealth PACs," by the media of that time.
One of Soros' stealth PACs was an anti-gun group called Campaign for a Progressive Future (CPF). This group sought to neutralize the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) by targeting for defeat any political candidate, at any level, whom the NRA endorsed. Soros personally seeded CPF with $500,000. During the 2000 election season, CPF funded political ads and direct-mail campaigns in support of state initiatives favoring background checks at gun shows.
Soros similarly used other 527s to agitate in favor of pro-marijuana initiatives which appeared on the ballot in various states that year. Donors to Soros' stealth PACs during the 2000 election cycle included insurance mogul Peter B. Lewis and InfoSeek founder Steven Kirsch, both of whom would turn up as major contributors to Soros' Shadow Party during the 2004 election season.
If you wish to see how this “Shadow Party” is connected to the present Democratic presidential candidate, see here.
This morning I read an article in the Friends of Liberty, In the article it explained the difference between a Socialist, Communist, and a Democracy, the three forms of government according to the writer. What concerned me the most was the explanation of a Democracy. Let me explain my concerns. Once again, even the writer of the article is a little misguided, The word Democracy has been thrown around so much that, even the most educated, informed people don't understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, You see we are not a democracy, we were not meant to be a democracy, The United States was founded as a Republic, with a democratic form of government. The difference is, in a democracy, the majority makes the rules, In a Republic, we have a form of government which keeps the majority from making the rules, we have a guideline called the Constitution which protects all people. The minority as well as the majority, In a democracy the minorities would not be protected at all. In most democracies the governments dwarf into a dictatorship form of government. In a Republic, our laws and Constitution are supposed to keep a dictatorial form of government from ever happening. People no longer understand the difference. Every politician today deliberately throw out the word Democracy to confuse even the most educated, informed voter. We have morphed over the years into a democracy because our educational system no longer teaches the difference. Let me give you and example you can understand. In a democracy, where the majority rules, Let's say you own two cars, your neighbor doesn't own a car at all, Now in a democracy, the majority can rule that you don't need two cars and you must give one of those cars to your neighbor. If you don't give the car to your neighbor then the majority rule can come and take your car and give it to your neighbor and there is nothing you can o about it. Eventually a democracy turns into a mob rules for of government. In a Republic, this can't happen. I would suggest that people do their research and learn the difference before it's too late. We are a Republic, We were founded as a Republic, not a Democracy.
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.