You've probably played the game--shah mat--as it was originally called in ancient Persia and you've probably thought of it as a game between two opponents.
I think of Chess as a game between two team masterminds--coaches, if you will--said teams consisting of players possessing relative strengths and weaknesses that are exploited by their masters. And their opponents.
Over the last few years a team coached by the barely visible hand of the ghost of Lenin has, with enormous financial resources, placed the pieces on the board that would give H.R.C. an almost inevitable position to lead our nation and the free world into a brave new era of international socialism.
Hillary Ensnared in Bloggergate
Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:41 AM
By: Richard Lawrence Poe
Call it "Bloggergate" — the subversion of the blogosphere by Democrat money.
To be more precise, Bloggergate is the subsidizing of left-wing bloggers with illegal Democrat campaign contributions, laundered through ostensibly “non-partisan” non-profit groups.
At a convention of left-wing bloggers last summer, Hillary Clinton announced, “We are . . . putting together a network in the blogosphere.”
Her remarks became public only three weeks ago, on Oct. 2, when an anonymous person posted a shaky, hand-held videotape of her speech on YouTube. In it, Hillary bragged that she had helped create “institutions” which had produced a left-wing “network in the blogosphere” capable of “matching” the alleged “advantage of the other side.”
Hillary’s claim raises troubling questions. On a practical level, just how exactly does a U.S. senator go about exerting her power to stack the blogosphere in her favor?
One obvious method is to buy favorable coverage. Hillary's boast carries a strong implication that she has subsidized bloggers.
The first evidence of Bloggergate emerged in January 2005 when the two most prominent left-wing bloggers on the Internet — Jerome “The Blogfather” Armstrong of MyDD and DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuñiga — both admitted to getting cash from Howard Dean's presidential campaign.
The scandal heated up in October 2006, when Republican blogger Michael B. Brodkorb of Minnesota, assailed by piranha-like swarms of leftist bloggers, revealed that his tormentors were on the take; that is, that they had been getting generous cash "fellowships" from an outfit called the Center for Independent Media (CIM). At that time, CIM was working from an office in Washington, DC owned by the Democrat front group Media Matters for America, Brodkorb discovered.
Curiously, it turns out that the co-founders of CIM, David S. Bennahum and Alexandra Savino, are both Media Matters alumni. Mr. Bennahum helped found Media Matters, serving as one of its original senior fellows. Miss Savino worked for Media Matters as a blogosphere analyst.
Clinton Claims
Now Bloggergate has spun into overdrive with Hillary Clinton's revelation, from her own lips, that she helped "start" and "support" Media Matters.
After all these years, can it be that we have finally identified the source of the Bloggergate money stream? Can it be that leaders of the leftwing blogosphere suck their nourishment directly from the swollen teat of Senator Clinton's pendulous fundraising apparatus?
Hillary made her admission at the Aug. 4, 2006 YearlyKos Convention in Chicago. Here is what she said on the now-infamous YouTube video: “I would wish that we had this active and fighting a blogosphere about 15 years ago, because we have certainly suffered over the last years from a real imbalance in the political world in our country, but we are righting that balance — or lefting that balance — I’m not sure which, and certainly are better prepared and more focused on taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely and really putting together a network in the blogosphere.
"In a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress, we’re beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side.”
In plain English, Hillary is saying that she "helped start and support" certain institutions tasked with correcting an alleged "imbalance" between right-wing and left-wing media. These institutions form a part of what Hillary calls "a new progressive infrastructure." According to Hillary, the "infrastructure" she "helped" build has given rise to a left-wing "network in the blogosphere" capable of "matching" the "advantage of the other side."
In this regard, she names two institutions specifically; Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress.
My co-author David Horowitz and I described the peculiar relationship between these two groups in our book "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party."
We noted that the Center for American Progress was founded in July 2003 by billionaire Democratic donor George Soros, working closely with Morton Halperin, director of U.S. advocacy for Soros’ Open Society Institute. The two men appointed former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta to be president and CEO of the Center, and brought in Harold Ickes — chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House — to help organize it.
Noting the heavy involvement of Clintonites with the Center for American Progress, leftist writer Robert Dreyfuss remarked in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "In looking at Podesta's center there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile — or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.”
Eerily foreshadowing her later comments on YouTube, Hillary told The Nation's Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void."
In 2004, the Center for American Progress launched a new organization called Media Matters for America, headed by David Brock, a former conservative journalist who had turned to the left. The stated mission of Media Matters was to serve as a “watchdog” for conservative bias in media. The New York Times reported on May 3, 2004: "Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress . . . Podesta has loaned office space in the past to Mr. Brock and introduced him to potential donors.
“Mr. Brock . . . has also spoken with Senator Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota and former vice president Al Gore about his project . . .”
Push to Ban Rush
No sooner had Media Matters opened for business, than Brock began pressuring Congress to ban Rush Limbaugh from American Forces Radio and Television Service — an effort which continues to this day.
Much like a yeast colony, in which each bud of yeast sprouts new buds, which in turn sprout buds of their own, the Center for American Progress spawned Media Matters, which has now begun spawning offshoots of its own. One of these offshoots is the Center for Independent Media (CIM). Launched in April 2006, it initially worked from an office owned by Media Matters at 1625 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington DC.
Through a system of media “fellowships," CIM recruits, trains, directs and finances a veritable army of leftwing bloggers, all subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer, thanks to the Center's 501(c)(3) tax-free status.
According to the Center’s “New Journalist” fellowship application, CIM offers bloggers a three-month, renewable fellowship which includes such perks as “a stipend of $4,500 to be paid over three months,” “editorial mentorship from experts in the field of blogging and/or journalism,” access to expensive databases such as LexisNexis, as well as free legal advice, training, and technical support.
Because CIM fellowships expire after three months, CIM "fellows" are always on the hot seat. If CIM is satisfied with the blogger's performance, it will renew his fellowship. Otherwise, it will not. Plainly, CIM bloggers have much to gain if they toe the party line — and much to lose if they fail to satisfy their benefactors.
CIM does not publish a full list of its bloggers. We can only speculate on their number. However, the CIM Web site does provide a "select" list of some of its more prominent "fellows."
Federal law prohibits national political candidates such as Hillary Clinton from using 501(c)3 tax-free, non-profit organizations such as the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America and the Center for Independent Media as vehicles for campaign propaganda.
In this, as in so many other matters, Sen. Clinton has conducted herself as if she is above the law. And perhaps she is.
It remains to be seen whether the IRS and the Federal Election Commission will blow the whistle on Hillary’s army of paid bloggers. Who knows? They just might. But I'm not holding my breath.
* * *
Richard Lawrence Poe is a contributing editor to Newsmax, an award-winning journalist and a New York Times best-selling author. His latest book is "The Shadow Party," co-written with David Horowitz.
© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
900+ confidential FBI files. Who knows how many have much to lose if they do not inhibit legitimate investigations? Leverage in the Roman manner.
From Investors' Business Daily
So if I understand this rightly the 'investigative reporting' that blossomed to fruition in the 1970's by Woodward and Goldstein is in crisis and the dyke that will hold back the sea of mis/disinformation needs to be buttressed by the moral authority of the Soros and Peter (Progressive Insurance) Lewis backed Sandlers.Mr. Sandler's Media
Posted 10/18/2007
Media: Could a couple of left-wing billionaires really be sincere about creating a "nonpartisan," "non-ideological" center for investigative reporting? Or is the pair just paying more to drive the media agenda further left?
On Monday, the announcement of a new nonprofit news project, to be led by former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul E. Steiger and scheduled for launch in 2008, was met with adoring press reviews.
Funded with an initial $10 million donation from banking magnates Herbert and Marion Sandler (and smaller cash from three foundations), ProPublica will crank out investigative reporting with "moral force," supposedly in the wake of falling news budgets and layoffs.
One problem: The Sandlers fund both leftist causes and the Democratic Party. In fact, they rank in the top tier of donors. In 2004 they gave MoveOn.org $2.5 million, or as much money as their philanthropic ally, George Soros.
Along with Soros and billionaire Peter Lewis, the Sandlers fund some of the most important players of what is now known as the "progressive" left. In 2003, the three together funded about a third of the Center for American Progress think tank, which has close staff ties to Hillary Clinton.
Now if this enterprise were called a "progressive" nonprofit, as other projects are, it wouldn't be news. But given the chairmanship of Herbert Sandler, and Steiger's claim that ProPublica will be run according to the "strictest standards of journalistic impartiality and fairness," there's reason to wonder if this isn't a new bid to drive the political agenda leftward under media disguise.
After all, MoveOn.org is now discredited after it tried to smear Gen. David Petraeus in a Sept. 10 New York Times ad and is probably of limited use to power players now. Suddenly, ProPublica goes online at the beginning of a campaign cycle, and we're supposed to believe its only aim is to save investigative reporting?
Steiger says ProPublica won't rule out investigations of leftist redoubts such as unions, media outlets or foundations. But ProPublica says that politics and business will be the main targets.
"We will look hard at the critical functions of business and government, the two biggest centers of power, in areas ranging from product safety to securities fraud, from flaws in our system of criminal justice to practices that undermine fair elections," its Web site says.
The first two are favorite targets of Steiger's Wall Street Journal, and the rest are favored causes of CAP and the Soros crowd.
Unlike other investigative-reporting nonprofits, a big voice seems to be important. ProPublica intends to distribute its work for free and will aggressively spread its influence through "regularly contacting reporters, editors and bloggers," the site says.
According to Steiger, seven or eight mainstream outlets have shown interest, so ProPublica is not likely to sink like a stone. The effort is very similar to CAP's in seeking to spread ideas.
Not that marrying foundation cash to the news business isn't synergistic. Foundations and news organizations are notorious for claiming they act only in the public good in a nonpartisan way.Neither, however, has been shy about supporting progressive causes.
Which brings up the real reason investigative reporting has declined as newsrooms cut back and circulations fall: a pervasive leftward bias.
Sandler himself blames "corporatization" of the media rather than tired leftist content that predictably targets profitable businesses, proves they "exploit" the little people, trots out disgruntled employees and customers, adds lots of color to maximize the emotional impact and interviews social engineers seeking new regulations.
Steiger, meanwhile, amid evidence that a reaction is building to this formula in new media platforms, says there's too much opinion out there and not enough facts.
Does that explain why the mainstream media have missed so many investigative stories? Does it explain why bloggers proved that CBS used falsified military documents in Dan Rather's bid to smear President Bush during the last election? Or that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was having an affair with a reporter? Or that Reuters doctored news photos?
With left-wing foundation cash yoked to investigative reporting, the potential for mischief in the coming election year should not be underestimated.
This project may be well-intended, but the sources of its funding and its premise about the state of the media raise questions. Let it be known by its product.
Copyright 2000-2007 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
There are victories to give us hope.
The 'General Betray Us' ad clearly backfired and one of the primary organs of the left, the New York Times, has had its stock dumped by Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. That's US 2 / Salzberger 0.
Rush Limbaugh seized the opportunity handed him by an ill-advised Harry Reid-sponsored Senate motion to deliver a 'smack-down' to Reid and 40 other leftist senators. And it's given Limbaugh an even greater platform from which to expose Hillary's lack of qualifications for even a dogcatcher position.
Useful tool Graeme Frost and family are exposed as public tit-suckers living a government sponsored life.
Just one week after Oslo awarded the Goracle with an ill-deserved Nobel Peace Prize lie-buster John Stossel devoted a segment of MSM ABC's 20/20 exposing the conspiracy to end any debate over anthroprogenic causes of global
Even Dems are starting to censor each other for going 'over the top'.
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked a fellow San Francisco Bay-area liberal Friday for what she said were "inappropriate" comments about Iraq during a congressional debate.Sweeeeet.
During a debate on children's health care Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
While the spin cycle of the Hillary brain-washing machine is determined to proclaim victory by inevitable fiat, truth is inching slowly into the debate and the threads on the Clinton shroud of lies are coming loose. And visible.
For this is indeed Oz.
This is a turnpost
1 comment:
Peter (Progressive Insurance) Lewis getting busy:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/10/now-i-know-why-they-call-it-progressive.html#readfurther
Post a Comment