The Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupiers and the MSM (Part 1)
Nov 15, 2011
While Occupy protesters continue to rant in select cities around the country, I'm wondering who is shadier: corporate Wall Street or corporate media?
Of course, there's no surprise or secret in saying that the mainstream media (MSM) are biased. Even when the CBS producer inadvertently sent an anti-Michele Bachmann email to one of her own staff members during last Saturday night's GOP debates, her campaign manager confessed it was another evidence of "what every conservative already knows -- the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message."
But have you noticed the particularly rapid acceleration of progressive MSM news reports in the last decade? Even for veteran news viewers, it is sometimes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. But how fair is that augmented bias for most trusting and unsuspecting Americans who turn to news for objectivity and comprehensive reporting?
Like many of you, my wife Gena and I are avid watchers of local, national and global news. Though we have our own preferences, we try to acquire a broad understanding of the big issues. But for quite some time, if we want to obtain the "complete news," we often have to go to multiple sources. And we feel for other hardworking people (including homemakers) who don't have the time to read and research like we do.
Gone are the days when broadcasters like Walter Cronkite attempted to convey objective and unbiased news. Propaganda seems to be at the heart of most national news.
Passions, preferences and political persuasions permeate nearly all the news. Opine is ubiquitous and made obvious alone by many broadcasters' tone of voice or facial expressions.
As reported by NewsBusters (www.newsbusters.org), consider in a single day last week how the MSM angled their reporting in ways to manipulate public opinion and align it with their corporate media (supporters) bias, which ironically (or maybe not so) parallels White House prejudice.
-- "Networks Hit Cain With 117 Stories; ABC: Accusers Seek 'Safety in Numbers' From Cain."
-- "NBC Uses Penn State Scandal to Slam Catholic Church."
-- "NPR Asks Bill Clinton: Obama's Seen As Liberal, 'How'd That Happen'?"
-- "New York Times Spikes Fast & Furious Hearing in Print, Omits Eric Holder's Admission Completely."
-- "CNN to Perry: Convince Us Your Campaign Isn't Finished."
-- "New York Times Twice Omits Obama From Headline to Embarrassing Insults of Netanyahu."
-- "Newt Mocks (CNBC journalist's) 'Funny' Defense of the Liberal Media."
-- "CNN Spins Elections as Republican Setback."
-- "ABC and CBS Spike Ohioans Rejection of ObamaCare Mandate, NBC Sees Voter Call for 'Restraint."
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs even confessed that big business monies funneled via the MSM molds and directs the public's social and political viewpoints: "The summits of American business now control or powerfully influence the major media that create American public opinion."
The fact is that the primary networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- and their smaller cable channels are owned and financed by an interlocking network of corporate conglomerates and controlled by progressive and politically biased proprietors. Billionaire moguls like George Soros are using millions and millions of dollars not to ensure the second coming or election of President Obama but also to carry out a greater goal of chipping away the very foundations of our republic.
Just a few months ago, Media Research Center's Dan Gainor exposed globalist George Soros' financial connections to MSM and his funding of $52 million to influence and direct journalism in the national networks. Or do you think it's merely a coincidence that Soros has ties to over 30 major news organizations, including The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Washington Post, NBC and ABC, and yet no one hears anything from those networks about his behind-the-scenes finagling and financing?
It fascinates me that Occupiers hate the rich cats unless they help finance their cause or rally at their sides, like George Soros and Michael Moore.
It prompts one to wonder: Why haven't such power relations been reported by the MSM? And would they be so silent if the correlations were between such agents of control and the tea party?
For example, even with its liberal bent, Snopes.com just verified last Thursday that Vice President Joe Biden's attorney son, Robert Hunter Biden, was retained for years to "undertake some lobbying efforts on behalf of Brookfield Office Properties," which just happens to own Zuccotti Park in New York, where the Occupiers rally their national movement.
Snopes.com also verified that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's live-in girlfriend, Diana L. Taylor, is on the board of directors of Brookfield Office Properties.
And just two months ago in September, the federal government's Department of Energy guaranteed a stimulus "loan" of $168.9 million to Brookfield Asset Management, which is a parent company of Brookfield Office Properties.
But I'm sure those local and Washington governmental associations with Occupy Wall Street are all just coincidental and inconsequential, right?
(In Part 2, during Thanksgiving week, I'll detail George Soros' most recent covert "investment" in the 2012 Obama presidential campaign and detail much further his collective goal and master plan with the MSM and the White House itself.)
The Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupiers and the MSM (Part 2 of 3)
Last week, I discussed how Occupy protesters are being directly aided by the mainstream media and indirectly aided by White House stimulus money, as well as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's and even Vice President Joe Biden's households. I also detailed how the mainstream media are accelerating their progressive blitz not only to hasten the second coming, or election, of President Barack Obama but also to help him and other progressives in reaching their final goal of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
I believe the MSM are also bent to coronate a particular GOP candidate whom they feel could be beaten most easily by Obama. I believe that candidate is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, for the sole fact that the powers behind the MSM believe his presidential run would fracture the Republican Party and cause a third-party candidate to run, dividing the conservative vote, just as Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996.
With still two months before the Iowa caucuses and three top-tier candidates vying for the GOP nomination, should Romney become the GOP nominee, as the MSM and the White House believe? I pray that what they believe will not be the case.
Obama himself is only a pawn in the parade of progressivism. And behind the White House and MSM curtains are progressive billionaire power brokers and globalists, such as George Soros, who are wielding their finances and pulling the strings in more than 30 major puppet networks, including The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Washington Post, NBC and ABC.
And those progressive agents are at it again right now in the series of GOP presidential debates. Does anyone really believe questions coming from MSM moderators aren't ultimately asked to trip up the candidates and then elevate and orchestrate the re-election of their furor? The entire debate system should be derailed from the MSM and played out exclusively on C-SPAN with questions being fed in via the Internet from people around the 50 states.
Soros is spreading his dominion to control states' voting processes, too. Bubbling up in the progressive boiler for months has been the state of Wisconsin, which The New York Times called "a swing state in more ways than one." Snopes.com researchers actually just confessed a week ago that they couldn't verify the report that Soros holds a "significant ownership stake" in the companies that are tabulating the electronic votes in Wisconsin, but what about a "partial" ownership stake?
What we can document for certain is that Media Trackers, a "non-profit, non-partisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government across Wisconsin," discovered that Soros and his Open Society Foundations are financing the new Wisconsin section of the website MapLight, allegedly designed to draw "back the curtain on how money influences legislation around the issues that people care most about." Right. Draw back the curtain? Meaning a voting curtain? Interesting terminology. MapLight is the 15th organization in Wisconsin financed by Soros' grants.
But those progressive political connections are all just coincidental, conspiratorial and inconsequential, right? And I suppose Soros' five visits to the White House were only to hang out in the Rose Garden and sip Obama's new beer? More likely, they were talking about the implementation of Agenda 21, a United Nations program launched in 1992 for the nebulous purpose of reaching global "sustainable development" but which actually promotes a European socialist system that would chip away our freedoms, liberties and rights.
At the heart of that global and social change agenda is the use of nongovernmental organizations, civil resistance movements and class warfare protests, such as Occupy's "Day of Action" last week in New York. One Occupy website even embraces Agenda 21 as the agenda for the movement.
Indeed, the MSM have fueled the Occupy movement by broadcasting its every move for thousands of hours, exaggerating its expansion and even condoning and minimizing the violent acts of the protesters. For example, though at least 12 New York police officers were injured last week during the protest, the MSM insinuated law enforcement exaggeration, noting that they were merely "reported injured." MSNBC even jumbled the number of injured law officers, appearing to place a numerical emphasis on injured protesters: "Seven police officers and 10 protesters were injured. Five other officers were treated after being hit in the face with stinging liquid."
Bottom line, these Occupy protests are nothing short of plays taken straight from the playbook of another Chicago progressive, Saul Alinsky, who pioneered civil disobedience in his "Rules for Radicals." In it, Alinsky plotted: "The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a 'dangerous enemy.' ... The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression." But do Americans really want to get their social marching orders from a book that was dedicated to the "first radical" himself, Lucifer? No joke.
You've got to hand it to progressives for their success in erecting their kingdom and implementing their plan: Take over the institutions of higher education, and indoctrinate our youth; then commission them into key areas -- such as journalism, government and teaching -- where they can feed the progressive machine via media networks, politics and public schools, creating minions for the next generation.
(In Part 3, I will address not only exactly what the meaning and goal are of progressives' "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" but also what I believe we can do to stop that onslaught from overturning our republic.)
PART 3 TO COME!
Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.