Politics

George Soros: Demagoat

[This article was originally published as the cover story for the March 28th issue of HUMAN EVENTS newspaper.]

While the liberal and mainstream media get in a tizzy about who they deem as conspiratorial figures on the right such as Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and, most recently, the Koch Brothers, they often ignore a more shadowy figure who seems to have his tentacles in nearly every progressive organization and cause that seeks to undermine the American way of life.

Indeed, George Soros has given millions of dollars to leftist causes, including Moveon.org, which ran an ad that mockingly referred to General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us,” National Public Radio, which in recent years ran programming mocking the Tea Party movement and made light of Michelle Malkin’s missing cousin. Soros also funds Media Matters, an organization that tries to find a right-wing boogeyman in every word uttered by the center-right; he also funds the Center For American Progress, which is the hub of often left-wing, statist policies advanced by the Obama Administration, and America Coming Together (ACT), a liberal 527 organization that seeks to get liberals to the polls.

HUMAN EVENTS conducted a poll during the week of March 14 to select the ultimate Demagoat — the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country and our readers chose George Soros. HUMAN EVENTS solicited comments during the week of March 21 and used those comments to put together our first truly user-generated story, which is below:

George Soros is the most dangerous man in the world because, just like the crazy megalomaniacs in old fifties movies, he is deceiving everybody into believing that he is altruistic, when in fact, he is using his Open Society/Shadow Party to undermine the very fabric of American society.

Soros is the Puppet Master that funds many Progressive groups.

And while Soros can continue to spend his money on these organizations, he should not use money Americans pay in taxes to fund this pseudo-intellectual nonsense. To do so is irresponsible.

For example, National Public Radio (NPR), which he funds, is just considered by many to be “important news for important people.” To elites like Soros, all those other outfits, like Fox, are for “non-essential” people, like backwoods hillbillies who drive pick-ups, go to church, and vote Republican. Media Matters proves with each passing day that media *doesn’t matter*. But the upshot is, they’re probably single-handedly responsible for the birth of the blogosphere.

These organizations include Moveon.org, which needs to move on and Americans Coming Together which should be referred to as “Alinsky Cutting Throats, of conservatives.”

Some people say Soros’s dollars do not matter because no one pays any attention to any of the groups he funds. Soros cannot fund these groups forever, and natural selection will see these organizations fail when it comes to consumer choice. Quality will eventually conquer propaganda. Do the words “Air America” ring any bells?”

“Self-Deluded Megalomaniac”

Another interesting note: Soros has a lot invested in Brazilian oil production. His puppet, Obama announced that the U.S. would be investing and trading in Brazil’s oil development. Of course, Obama doesn’t want to drill here in the U.S. The connection is very clear.

Since Soros is out to destroy the USA like he has other countries, all of the organizations he funds are nothing but puppets for him, just like Obama. Obama went to Brazil to protect the Soros investment there in Petrobras.

Soros is a supranational force, who feels he’s beyond the concerns of mere mortals. So long as he can feed his ever increasing need for money and power our republic and way of life are not safe, especially with the soulless minions who do his bidding. Vast sums of money create a lot of loyalty, but popular opposition may eventually derail his greed and crackpot ideology, and consign him to prison and oblivion.

The most effective way to blunt Soros and his mis-guided funding is to fight fire with fire–get out and picket every organization he donates money to, put out endless articles highlighting criminal practices his organizations are engaged in (even if they are just allegations), smear every organization that accepts funding from Soros (as the left is doing with the Koch brothers), highlight violence and incivility of Soros funded organizations, keep them completely on the defensive fighting allegations and lawsuits.

For instance, governors should announce that from now on every organization willingly takes money from Soros will be shut down for collaborating with the enemy.

Indeed, the best cleanser is sunlight, so Soros should never be allowed to do anything in the dark.

Soros took the opportunity that America gives everyone and is now using it to destroy the opportunity for everyone in the future. Talk about biting the hand that fed him.

Soros has laid waste to countries by betting against their monetary structures. He made his fortune on other peoples misfortune and in fact helped to destroy them for his gain! His end game is to do the same to the United States, and that is why Soros stinks.

In the end, this guy is a self-deluded megalomaniac that wants the power of these wanna-be policy makers that really are only hate mongers with nothing better to do than allow legal abuse on a grand scale.

Without the millions Soros pours into progressive organizations and causes, such organizations could never be as organized as they produce their annoying army of rabble rousers who are hell-bent on making up for their insecurities by attacking conservatives and trying to destroy the conservative movement.

Story put together by comments on HumanEvents.com and Facebook from (In order by paragraph): Brooke Lucky, Maxwell Friedlander, Jo Kerr, Anna M. Peck Herrera, Veronica DiNapoli, Jared Gollnitz, Christina Molander Pasterz, Vonda Buckhart, Peggy Hall, Kevin Tikkler, Bob Repub, Chuck Tilbury, George Titsworth, John De Nicolo, Val Murphy Ditton, Cesar Kavlich.

Sign Up
  • Ed_USA

    Here’s a compendium of all major forms of citation http://www2.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citation.htm

    I’d like to see the one that allows multiple sources in a single cite.

    The key seems to be the “Cp.” that separates the two different articles cited. I can’t find any such abbreviation described anywhere.

  • Ed_USA

    “YOU are the one that said it was wrong. PROVE it is wrong.”No, I said it was “odd”. You said it was wrong. You decided that “odd” means “forbidden” or “impossible”. As I’ve said, I’ve yet to see one example of such a bib ref in any of the major standards docs. There are also online tools now that the students use to create their bibs. Do those tools support such a multi-ref form? Also, what of the mysterious “Cp.” abbreviation. What good is an abbreviation if it’s nowhere documented what it abbreviates? Why don’t you just give this a rest? Do you live to contend every possible trivial and irrelevant side-issue? The one time we had a non-contentious discussion you quickly lost interest and signed off. It’s nice that you have this hobby of arguing irrelevancies, but I’ve got better things to do. This thread has gotten entirely too far from the original point. If you want lessons in proper citation then why not enroll in middle school?

  • reddarin

    >No, I said it was “odd”.

    Yeah. Odd.

    So odd you thought that they hadn’t made it through middle school and didn’t know how to cite sources.

    Well, that doesn’t sound like you are calling it wrong at all. Just ‘odd’.

    ‘Odd’ enough to say I was uneducated for not knowing it was wrong ‘odd’.

    >I’ve yet to see one example of such a bib ref in any of the major standards docs

    Well. There you go. If the All Knowing Oz hasn’t seen it then it must not exist.

    >Do you live to contend every possible trivial and irrelevant side-issue?

    You just defined your entire debate strategy and simultaneously take me to task for it. Hmmm.

    >The one time we had a non-contentious discussion you quickly lost interest and signed off

    Uh. When was that or what was it about? I know you are not characterizing the same-sex thing as me loosing interest when you broke down and threw a tantrum and called me a bigot.

    >If you want lessons in proper citation then why not enroll in middle school?

    Right. You make an assertion about how sources should be cited and call me stupid because you were too simple minded to see both sources in the footnote. When I call you on it suddenly this is too trivial and I am belaboring the point.

  • Ed_USA

    “you were too simple minded to see both sources in the footnote.”Ah, you’ve really got me there. I checked the second one and thought they were attributing things that were not there. But when I went back and checked the first source, I found that they were outright lying. That source says that cohabitating women assault each other only half as often as heterosexual cohabitating couples. It seems that the FCR misrepresented lesbians as vicious abusers. I thought they were just attributing something that wasn’t there, but they were actually telling the very opposite of the truth. Gee, sorry, my mistake.

  • reddarin

    >So I guess your expertly reasoned argument carries the day. I stand corrected

    Whew!! That was a whole lot of blather just to make the point that not only are you an ass when you think you are winning but more so when you lose.

    >s you say, I can’t point to any rule that says you can’t have two things

    And your poor response is that because citations are not restricted to one source an absurd ad infinitum is supposed to highlight how poor it is to have more than one. Uh huh. Fail.

    >As for following up my citation, that’s your problem

    Hey, if you are unhappy with the FRC you should contact them directly instead of being a jerk to me. You are the one that brought them into this and you are the one that failed to pay attention to what you were doing.

    And don’t get mad at me if you are wrong about something. How childish. You drug your feet like it was some major deal to admit your error but you were quick as lightening to call me stupid when you were making your error.

  • reddarin

    >, I found that they were outright lying.

    Well. So you say.

  • Ed_USA

    Wow, you lack both an education and a sense of humor.

  • Ed_USA

    Oh, and you lack the reasoning ability to detect the bit of truth beneath the mocking. Clearly more references stuffed into a single biblio entry makes that entry harder to verify. Taken to the absurd extreme, such as the entire Library of Congress, it becomes impossible. Does that give you a clue about why biblio entries point to one source? If you want to point to multiple sources for one point, you use multiple footnotes at the site, and they point to biblio entries that each reference one source. Check the standards. Oh, and try to grow a sense of humor.

  • Ed_USA

    “absurd ad infinitum”

    I think you mean “reductio ad absurdum”.

    “Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.”

    You see, unlike what you do, it’s actually a valid form of argument.

  • reddarin

    >I think you mean “reductio ad absurdum”.

    You’d be wrong. I meant absurd ad infinitum:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+infinitum
    “To infinity; having no end.”

    >You see, unlike what you do, it’s actually a valid form of argument

    You see, unlike what you do, I think about what I am saying before I say it.

    By the way, while reductio ad absurdum is certainly a valid form of argument it is not an applicable form or argument for all situations.

    For example. “I eat a hamburger sometimes two” cannot be a victim of that argument because it doesn’t make any sense to apply it. Much like most of your posts.

  • reddarin

    >Oh, and you lack the reasoning ability to detect the bit of truth beneath the mocking.

    lol

    You really bring the words pompous ass to life. Of course the more sources noted increases the amount of work you have to do if you wish to investigate the citation. Duh. Saying so isn’t an indicator of anything other than your limited abilities.

    >Clearly more references stuffed into a single biblio entry makes that entry harder to verify.

    Yes?

    I guess you need to take that up with whoever sets those standards instead of browbeating me about your limits or your beliefs about what is best for footnoting.

    >Does that give you a clue about why biblio entries point to one source?

    It gives me a clue about your attention span.

    >Check the standards

    Uh huh. We’ve been through this a zillion times. I am very interested in your proof that more than one source per citation is somehow a crime against humanity.

    >Oh, and try to grow a sense of humor.

    Your inability to make a funny must be my failing to recognize it.

  • reddarin

    >Wow, you lack both an education and a sense of humor.

    Yeah. Your inability to prove what you post and your lame excuses for humor are a failing on my part.

    Typical Ed post.

  • Ed_USA

    The concept of one source per entry is so basic that one has to go to sixth grade instructions to find it explicitly stated.

    http://www.hobbyhorsebooks.com/bibliography6.html

    Beyond that it’s expected to be understood from the purpose of the bibliography and all of the examples given in the standards, none of which have multiple sources in one biblio entry.

  • reddarin

    >he concept of one source per entry is so basic that one has to go to sixth grade instructions to find it explicitly stated.

    Dang. Ed you have once again provided the source that refutes your own position:

    For each source listed, begin first line at margin and indent each line that follows.”

    Arrange all sources in one list, alphabetically by first word, which will generally be either the author’s last name or the first important word of the title.”

    Okay dummy. Please explain why you need to list each source alphabetically if ONLY ONE SOURCE per note is used?

    Notes are always done numerically so if only ONE SOURCE is used why the hell would they be saying it needs to be done alphabetically?

    I don’t mind debating stupid people but willfully stupid challenges even my patience.

    I take it that you didn’t even make it to the 6th grade?

    Funny how the dolt that keeps impugning my education can’t seem to find his butt with both hands.

  • reddarin

    >The concept of one source per entry is so basic

    Apparently the concept of deriving new information from two or more sources is so complicated that it requires an IQ of over moron level to comprehend.

    In Ed’s little world of washable crayon markers each idea can only refer back to one idea and there can be no thought that relies on examining two or more related ideas.

    Jeez Ed. Are you shooting for some sort of Imbecile Award?

  • reddarin

    >all of the examples given in the standards, none of which have multiple sources in one biblio entry.

    Uh. The page you refer to shows multiple sources in 6 of the 9 examples listed.

  • reddarin

    Ed once you get away from leftist dogma you are immediately on shaky ground.

    Best you stay red in the face with spit flying while you regurgitate your indoctrination.

  • reddarin

    >go to sixth grade

    You are unaware that in some school districts grade school is from 1-6, middle is from 7-9 and HS is 10-12.

    I said something about grade school several posts ago and you took great pains to point out it was middle school and up.

    Great pains to say you don’t know much outside your own little sphere.