by Bill Levinson

We previously described how Hillary Clinton accepted campaign contributions from the shadowy international financier and convicted inside trader George Soros, who is morally albeit not legally a domestic enemy of the United States. Soros is the individual who uses his enormous wealth (some allegedly acquired through collaboration with genuine Nazis during the Second World War, see below) to denounce the United States as a menace to world peace while saying that Israel causes anti-Semitism.

It now turns out that Hillary Clinton has also accepted campaign contributions from Jane Fonda, who once posed in a North Vietnamese gun emplacement. Every Vietnam veteran needs to be aware that Hanoi Jane Fonda is funding Hillary Clinton’s political career, and that Hillary Clinton is knowingly and willfully accepting Fonda’s support. Hillary Clinton has also taken money from filmmaker Michael Moore, who has praised the terrorists who are murdering our men and women in uniform while cutting the heads off helpless prisoners like Margaret Hassan “Minutemen.” In combination with Bill Clinton’s credibly-alleged acceptance of illegal campaign contributions from a hostile foreign power (China), Hillary Clinton must be regarded as a security risk to the United States.

Story continues below…

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/ provides a convenient way of finding out who is taking money from whom, and it is quite instructive.

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/George_Soros.php
shows that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ned Lamont (the opponent of “Jew Lieberman” as MoveOn.org calls him), Barbara Boxer, and numerous other prominent left-wing Democrats have recently accepted campaign funds from George Soros. The same goes for Joseph Biden, who recently praised Barack Obama as a credit to his race (mighty white of Biden for doing that, eh?).

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Jane_Fonda.php
shows that Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and MoveOn.org (a tentacle of the Soros-Occupied Government) have also accepted money from Hanoi Jane Fonda.

Next we come to Jabba the Moore. Hillary Clinton, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Edward (Ned) Lamont are on record as accepting this individual’s money. For the record, this is what Moore said about the terrorists who have murdered more than two thousand of our soldiers in Iraq:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

More recently, Moore posted the following at his Web site:

Wednesday, November 29th, 2006
Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do …a letter from Michael Moore

…So I don’t want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or “redeploying” them, or waiting four months to begin the “phase-out.” There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don’t want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done.

…This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can’t win. We’ve lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

We seem to recall that Lord Haw-Haw was hanged as a traitor for broadcasting this kind of thing during wartime. It is one matter to criticize the war or the manner in which it is being waged, and there is plenty to criticize. It is another to express a wish for the enemy’s victory as Michael Moore has done, praise terrorists as “Minutemen” as Michael Moore has done, and encourage the enemy as Michael Moore has done above. No matter what Hillary Clinton says about supporting our troops, her acceptance of Michael Moore’s money shows that this is really what she stands for. Meanwhile, we remind Jabba the Moore that Hillary Clinton was just as jingoistic as President Bush in agitating for this war, along with John Kerry and other prominent MoveOn.org Democrats.

Maybe Hillary Clinton, despite her efforts to reinvent herself as pro-military for political advantage, also thinks the terrorists are “Minutemen.” Now on to the character and ethics of her other political sugar daddy, George Soros:

On December 20, 1998, there appeared this exchange between Soros and Steve Kroft on “60 Minutes”:

Kroft: “You’re a Hungarian Jew …”

Soros: “Mm-hmm.”

Kroft: “… who escaped the Holocaust …”

Soros: “Mm-hmm.”

Kroft: “… by posing as a Christian.”

Soros: “Right.”

….Kroft: “My understanding is that you went … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”

Soros: “Yes, that’s right. Yes.”

Kroft: “I mean, that’s—that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”

Soros: “Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t … you don’t see the connection. But it was—it created no—no problem at all.”

Kroft: “No feeling of guilt?”

Soros: “No.” … I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was—well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in the markets—that is I weren’t there—of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would—would—would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the—I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.“

These are the ethics of a common thief: “If I hadn’t stolen it, someone else would have.” Soros’ argument that he did what he had to do to survive breaks down in light of the fact that, once the danger was over, he never made the slightest effort to return the property (or its equivalent in money) to the people from whom it was taken, or their families. If Soros really thinks the United States requires “de-Nazification,” his renunciation of his U.S. citizenship and his immediate departure for some other country–maybe Argentina–would be a good start.

Finally, let us not forget very credible allegations that Bill Clinton accepted illegal campaign contributions from a hostile foreign power, and allegedly gave that hostile foreign power technology with military applications in exchange. In most countries, this would be defined as treason. The U.S. Constitution, however, defines treason as either levying war against the United States or aiding its enemies during time of war.

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 23) — Republicans are keeping up the pressure on President Bill Clinton to explain questions about possible links between 1996 Democratic campaign contributions and decisions to share U.S. satellite technology with the Chinese government.

…”How did it come about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president ignore the national security experts who counseled against this deal? What damage has been done to our national security?” Goss asked.

“We know that Chinese officials chose to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1996 re-election of the Clinton administration. What we don’t know is what they expected to gain from that investment,” Goss said.

We don’t know what America-haters George Soros, Jane Fonda, and Michael Moore expect to gain from their investment in Hillary Clinton, and the voters had better make damned sure that we never find out.

---

---

Related: Elections

---