To quote the great El Rushbo: "Richard Mellon Scaife is a piker, compared to George Soros."

Also, Scaife's financial support to anti-Clinton groups was out in the open; Soros is "secretly" funding several causes.

Why not be open and honest, George? This isn't WWII Hungary; this is America!!!

With the amount of cash floating around out there and the plethora of liberal interest groups (of which groups like MoveOn are just the best known) to funnel money through, it will take years of investigation just to unravel it all

Mark, the web of deceit is so intricate that I doubt you or anyone else will ever unravel it. Earlier this year (or late last year, I don't remember), I posted a long comment about the organizations behind the Climate/Global Warming blog, RealClimate.org. Although I didn't mention it at the time, Soros is part of that maze of interrelated groups that launder and funnel money for a myriad of left-wing causes -- groups like Environmental Media Services, Fenton Communications, The Tides Foundation and Tides Center. As keefer notes, they really do make Conservative groups look like pikers.

The solution, as you say, is transparency. Sun light is still the best disinfectant. But one of the main reasons these groups exist is to circumvent transparency and stay out of the sun light.

”Why not be open and honest, George?”

Of course you already know why keefer. As Mark alluded, evil cannot stand the bright light.

Mark,

I don't know as much about George Soros as you seem to. Please explain to me what makes him "bent on evil" and what makes his worldview "sick". Because your three paragraphs above did not explain anything to me other than he has a lot of money and he uses it to create and fund groups that are consistent with his political leanings.

Also, just throwing in Hsu's name to your diatribe without any sourcing was reminiscent of Dennis Hastert just throwing out there, "Soros' money COULD come from drugs".

mark wrote - "That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program."

reminds one of stem cell research.

it's deplorable on the left & right.

to thy own self be true.

Have you guys seen this: Hillary Exposed.

If what is contained in this video is true, she should be behind bars, not out on the campaign trail. Between Soros, Paul, and Hsu, the Clinton Campaign has set new records in corruption, deceit, sleeze, and manipulation.

Of course, we can't count on the MSM to shed light on her corruption. Even though there are clips from the MSM on the video, the story hasn't gotten any traction. Just how much pressure is she, and her henchmen (Soros), putting on the MSM to deep-six the story? And why does the MSM worship the Clintons? Besides being ruthless politicians, what do they have going for them?

BC has been accused of rape, sexual harassment, and various other sex crimes.

BC has been found guilty of lying to a Grand Jury and was disbarred.

BC was impeached by the US House of Representatives.

BC and HC were involved in a land scheme that resulted in over 40 felony convictions for their partners.

BC and HC have been accused of abuse of power relating to Filegate, Travelgate, and the whole Monica coverup.

HC is an enabler of a sexual predator.

BC and HC have ties to fundraisers who are fronts for the Communist Chinese.

HC has been a Seantor for over 6 years, but has no significant legislative iniatives to her credit.

BC committed acts of war against Iraq and Kosovo without authorization of Congress.

BC and HC have been proven to be pathological liars: HC was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, although he wasn't famous at the time; "I never had sexual relations with that woman"; etc.

HC turned a $1000 investment into $100,000 in just a few months. The odds of doing that legally: about 250,000,000 to 1.

Over 80 individuals related to the various Clinton scandals, their security details, witnesses, investigators, linked to Mena, or were their "friends" or associates have died, been killed in "accidents", or have been murdered.

With a track record like the Clintons', you would think the MSM would be covering each scandal in depth, rather than helping with the coverups. You would also think the Democrat Party would be disavowing them and avoiding them like the plague. Instead, they are treated like royalty. I just don't get it. If a Republican had a track record resembling the Clintons' their political futures would gone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6951872,00.html

OT MEDIA BIAS part ?

After countless stories about the 'corrupt' Tom Delay, buried on page 6 of the Dallas Morning News and found in Guardian UK. I expect the same when Joe Wilson and 'secret agent' Valerie are exposed as liars.

A-10, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Mr. Paul's body shows up prior to the trial with a couple "self-inflicted" shotgun wounds to the back.

Mark (quoting the Investor's Business Daily): How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

Is there any independent verification of this? Nasa Watch appears to be skeptical. They went through the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report and found this entry: "Scientist Protests NASA's Censorship Attempts - James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen's defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy."

If that's the situation it doesn't sound all that sinister to me.

Oh, the hissy fits of Republicans as a minority party should be the cause of embarassment.

Mark-

I'm surprised that you would fault Soros with donating money to causes with which he agrees... I mean... Would you really want to curtail his right to free speech (money in the form of contributions to candidates and organizations has been ruled tantamount to free speech by SCOTUS)? I guess that free speech is fine when you agree with it...

I was initially tempted to respond to Mark's "dual purpose of undermining America and electing Democrats" comment, but then I read A-10's silly, silly list. Virtually nothing on that list means anything, except for the one or two factual statements (BC has been found guilty of lying to a Grand Jury and was disbarred). The rest is hearsay or worse.

Most of the list is speculation -- full of "accused of', "involved with" and "ties to." It's as meaningless as can be. After five years and $60 million on Whitewater without anything, I'd think you guys would let it go. But what the hell, an innuendo is as good as a conviction for you people, right?

But don't listen to me. In the last year, five people with ties to to me have died suddenly, two of them violently. I'm probably just another murderer.

Moron.

John,

How apropos that you signed your post "moron".

Mark,

I'd like to second Martin's question. There's no doubt that Soros is funding groups and causes that you are opposed to and perhaps we could use some more transparency on that - but where do you get the idea that Soros is "bent on evil"?

Wasn't this the guy who revealed the Bush Administration was censoring science that didn't fit in with its own agenda? Isn't Ari Fleisher at Freedom Watch being funded the exact same way? Didn't the partisan loyalist who censored Hanen resign in discrace? Was anything Hansen said about the Bush Administration's War on Inconvenient Science untrue? Anything at all?

Since no sane person would consider exposing a massive conspiracy by the federal government to censor vital scientific findings that affect the entire planet to be evil and sick, the real concern here seems to be that Bush took a hit and liberals won a round. Feigned outrage has proven to be a successful distraction though, and conservatives are experts at changing the subject when their lies and hypocrisy are exposed and they've nothing of substance to say.

...and conservatives are experts at changing the subject when their lies and hypocrisy are exposed and they've nothing of substance to say.

Pot, meet kettle...

Rana Quijotesca,

The issue is a government employee receiving $720,000 from one political orgainzation and $200,000+ from another and it appears that he has manipulated his data to fit the political desires of his benefactors.

Further, government employees DO NOT have the freedom of speech. They can be censored. It is not unusual for all media contact to be coordinated through the public affairs office. Unless, of course, they are acting under the "Whistleblower Act". In this case, he is not uncovering corruption or illegal activities by the government. In fact, it appears that he is the one who is corrupt. He has received nearly $1,000,000 from organizations who are claiming humans are causing Global Warming, then it is discovered that he has been manipulating the data to support their agenda. The guy ought to be fired.

Jon the Moron,

Actually, just about everything I posted is based on fact:

BC was impeached. BC was found guily and disbarred. BC was accused of sex crimes. BC and HC were involved with the Whitewater Development and 14 of their associates were found guilty of 40 crimes. BC did launch Cruise Missiles into Iraq and commit troops to Kosovo (where they are still) without Congressional Authorization. HC turned a $1000 investment into $100,000 in just a few months.

But as a obvious worshipper of the Clintons, you miss the point. If a pair of Republicans had been involved in so many shady shenagians, the MSM would be all over them and their aspirations for elected office would be over. Not so for the Clintons. They get a pass.

Sure, the Impeachment was covered in great detail, but the MSM could hardly ignore it, even if they wanted to.

Do you ever hear President Clinton referred to as "Impeached President William Clinton"? I didn't think so. Was Richard Nixon ever referred to as "President Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace"? All the time. Was Richard Nixon guilty of a coverup? Yes, and he did the right thing by resigning.

Was William Clinton guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and a coverup? Yes. He lied to a Grand Jury, committed Perjury, suborned Perjury, and committed ADULTERY IN THE OVAL OFFICE, for God's sake. Then he had the audacity to lie to the entire country about it.

Please explain to me what makes him "bent on evil" and what makes his worldview "sick".

He disagrees with Mark. That's pretty much all it takes. Notice the howls and screams that come from people of his ilk when you point out that Scaife--who pretty much singlehandedly funds the entire wingnut welfare machine, from the Heritage Foundation and conservative magazines (that lose money hand over fist, by the way) all the way down to these little astroturf 527s--could be described in the exact same way.

Again, logic, and consistency are foreign concepts to wingnuts.

This is going to Hurt,

"Wasn't this the guy who revealed the Bush Administration was censoring science that didn't fit in with its own agenda?"

No, this was the guy who was revealed to have been changing data that didn't fit in with his agenda and the agenda of those political organizations who gave him almost $1,000,000.

"Isn't Ari Fleisher at Freedom Watch being funded the exact same way?"

Maybe. But the last time I checked, Ari Fleisher is not on the US Government payroll. Dr. Hansen is.

"Didn't the partisan loyalist who censored Hanen resign in discrace?"

No. He as an intern who was disgusted with Dr. Hansen's behavior, and resigned.

"Was anything Hansen said about the Bush Administration's War on Inconvenient Science untrue? Anything at all?"

Yes. The data that he was using to make the determination that 1998 was the warmest year on record has been proved to have been manipulated by Dr. Hansen. This revelation blows a giant hole in the entire Manmade Global Warming myth.

The "Inconvenient Truth" about the "Inconvenient Science" is that the truth is that Global Warming may be ocurring (its hard to actually know when the government scientists are manipulating the data to show an increase in average temperature). If it is ocurring, it is probably naturally ocurring as periods of global warming and cooling have ocurred for billions of years. The forces of nature and climate are so complex, that it is impossible for even the most powerful computer to predict what the climate will be like next year, the year after, or five, ten, or twenty years into the future. As proof, I present the following evidence: In the 70's, scientists were predicting global cooling. It never happened. Now they are predicting global warming. Which is it? Global Cooling or Global Warming? We're all going to be covered by a sheet of ice, or the oceans will rise and flood us all?

"Since no sane person would consider exposing a massive conspiracy by the federal government to censor vital scientific findings that affect the entire planet to be evil and sick, the real concern here seems to be that Bush took a hit and liberals won a round."

Actually, if you paid any attention to the news, you would see that the President has said that he believes that Global Warming is ocurring and that humans may be a factor. I agree 100%. The data appears to shows a slight increase over the past 100 years or so. Just as there have been slight increases in the past (all directly linked to increased solar activity, which also explains the shrinking icecaps on Mars). Humans may also be a factor. But both the President and I do not claim that humans are the cause of Global Warming, as the GW alarmists are. It is all speculation. And we don't need to cripple our and the world's economy based on speculation.

"Feigned outrage has proven to be a successful distraction though, and conservatives are experts at changing the subject when their lies and hypocrisy are exposed and they've nothing of substance to say."

True, but you have it backwards. Dr. Hansen's "feigned outrage" over being "censored" had proven to be a successful distraction from the fact that he fabricated data to fit his agenda. An agenda that Soros and Ms. Kerry paid almost $1,000,000 to Dr. Hansen to advance.

Aren't you outraged that he has lied to you? Aren't you outraged that Dr. Hansen, the Goracel, Soros, Kerry and the rest of Global Warming kooks are hypocrites? Aren't you outraged that Al Gore is buying "Carbon Offset Credits" from himself? Aren't you outraged that all these advocates are trying to pass off a consensus of opinion as scientific fact? Aren't you outraged that they got it wrong in the 70's and are probably getting it wrong again? Aren't you outraged at yourself for falling for their lies, distortion, and half-truths?

Sorry if that hurt, but the truth sometimes hurts.

A-10:

Good Posts, but the Lemmings for the Clintons will
continue to try to minimize these two liars, and don't care what immoral, sinister or illegal acts these two commit. They will give them a pass, just as the MSM has done/will continue to do so.
It is unbelievable that even the video of Peter Paul/Stan Lee, has NOT gotten picked up, and the two were held up as crooks, but NOT the Clinton's
who lied about it being a fundraiser. WHAT is it
going to take, to expose these two Power/Money Mongers, More people thrown "under the bus", killed, or personally ruined, so they can continue
to satisfy their personal lust for money/power?
They are both "Political Whores", and the media needs to look into their involvement in MoveOn, and George Soros(another slimy character) who has stated, that "We own the Democrat Party". Nice, huh? Hsu, and the Chinese donors, with very shady
pasts, mean NOTHING to the Clinton's, since they
would Say and Do ANYTHING TO RETURN TO THEIR REIGN
OF POWER. THEY HAVE PROVEN THIS, IN THE MANY, MANY PEOPLE WHOM THEY HAVE 'THROWN UNER THE BUS, IN THEIR QUEST FOR POWER'. WHEN WILL THE IDIOTS WHO CONTINUE TO PROTECT THESE TWO LIARS GOING TO WAKE UP, AND REALIZE THEY TOO, ARE BEING USED BY THESE TWO PHONIES?

DAVID GEFFEN OF HOLLYWOOD, WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE COURAGE TO CALL IT LIKE IT WAS WITH THE CLINTONS-"LIARS, AND THE BEST AT IT".

THE LEMMINGS NEED TO STOP MAKING EXCUSE AFTER EXCUSE FOR THESE TWO CRIMINALS, AND FAKES.

A-10-

I wasn't talking about the NASA guy having freedom of speech... I was talking about Soros having freedom of speech, and the last time I checked... Soros wasn't a government employee.

Even if a person is a government employee, government employees are entitled to express their opinions as individuals. They just can't do so as a representative of their office... they have to do it as an individual.