Propaganda | The Complete Takeover of the Democratic Party by The Ememy

While watching the below-mentioned program, my mind was swimming with the similarities of the present day situation in the Middle East, specifically, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel, and Lebanon.

The use of propaganda by the enemy to confound and confuse the American populace, with the aid of Americans such as John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Fonda, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and Sean Penn, to name a few, is astounding.

Each and every time a terrorist has released a video of their "policy", which is to remove the United States completely from the Middle East, the Democrats agree and beat their drum to the same exact tune of the terrorists.

Just recently, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the third most powerful political figure in the United States, lied to the President and to the American people when she defied the President and went to Syria to have a chit chat with Syria's president. She said she was not deviating from the President's foreign policy, yet, a member of her team (Lantos) stated Pelosi, et al, went to Syria with an "alternate, Democratic foreign policy".

That sums it up nicely. Alternate Democratic Foreign Policy.

Why isn't Pelosi being investigated? Why aren't her e-mails being poured over and dissected? Why aren't her relationships with other politicians (that are also terrorist-sympathetic) being reviewed? Why is she allowed to get away with such egregious and unpatriotic behavior?

When reading the below information about the use of guerrilla warfare since VietNam, notice the glaring similarities to today's struggle in the Middle East. The use of the same propaganda tactics being employed by the enemy and the sheer, unadulterated willingness of the present-day Democrats to gobble it all up as their version of truth.

From The Military Channel | Battleplan | Guerrilla Warfare

In VietNam, once Saigon falls in April 1975, the country is united under the Communist flag.

In Afghanistan, fourteen years later, the warlords have won the guerrilla war without going through the traditional phase of guerrilla to conventional warfare.

But the victory of the Afghan guerrillas against the Soviet invader is not followed by takeover and a period of peace and unity. The guerrilla leaders succeed in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, but now, they are unable to consolidate their victory by taking over the government and establishing an effective control over the entire country.

Instead, the evacuation of the Soviet forces was followed by a new civil war in which various guerrilla groups, including groups that had been allied to each other, now fought each other for various forms of control and supremacy.

Objectives

In Vietnam, General Giap had a clear objective, unite the country under a Communist flag.

Westmoreland also had a clear military objective, stop the spread of Communism, but no long-term political strategy.

In Afghanistan, the Soviet commanders had a clear objective to expand and cement Soviet control.

And the Mujaheddin leaders also had a clear objective, throw out an invader.

Civil Support

In Vietnam, Giap built up a system for winning over the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese population.

Westmoreland took certain limited measures in an attempt to achieve this, but preferred conventional military methods to hearts and minds.

In Afghanistan, the Soviets also tried limited hearts and minds, but failed.

The Mujaheddin leaders didn't even have to try because they already had the support of the rural population.

Build Up

In Vietnam, Giap had his regular North Vietnamese Army and his South Vietnamese VietCong insurgents.

Westmoreland had his own American forces plus the army of the South VietNam.

In Afghanistan, the Soviet built up a massive army of men and weapons.

The Mujaheddin started with little, but were increasingly equipped and resupplied, especially by the United States.

Attrition

In VietNam, Giap sought to wear down the Americans in the attritional phase of his war plan with the object of making them withdraw.

Westmoreland's definition of attrition was different - kill as many North Vietnamese and VietCong as possible.

In Afghanistan, initially, the Soviets appeared to be winning this requirement, partly because their helicopters gave them more mobility and penetration.

As soon as the Mujaheddin began to acquire new arms however; most especially US-made and supplied shoulder-launched Stinger missiles, they began to win.

Transition

In VietNam, General Giap almost threw away the war by seeking to move from insurgent to conventional warfare too quickly.

In the last days, after the withdrawal of the the Americans, transition was rapid with the South Vietnamese Army providing little effective resistance.

In Afghanistan, the Mujaheddin had no need to change from being a guerrilla force into a conventional army.

Takeover

In VietNam, the country was immediately united under the Communist flag.

In Afghanistan, rather than seek unity or resolution, triumphant Mujaheddin leaders reverted to the old system of inter-tribal rivalries and conflicts which set the country on the road to the Taliban and the likes of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The record of Kerry and fellow pro-Communist North Vietnam comrades was cited by General Vo Nguyen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese forces, in his 1985 memoir. Giap wrote that, "if it were not for the disunity created by... stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered."

For his valiant service on behalf of the Communist Vietnamese government, Kerry was awarded a special commendation as a "Hero" of communist victory in 1983 when he was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. Kerry earned the award, having aided and abetted the enemy, helped to prolong the war, and create more American casualties.

Why Soros Thinks He's the New Messiah, Newsmax.com, 20May2004

Soros Shadow Party Stalks DeLay, by Richard Poe, FrontPageMagazine.com, 11April2005

Soros administers his network through a core group of seven non-profit organizations, which we named the Seven Sisters. They are, in alphabetical order: America Coming Together; America Votes; Center for American Progress; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; The Media Fund; MoveOn.org; and the Thunder Road Group.

Through these Seven Sisters, Soros and his team convey money, information and marching orders down the line to a much larger network encompassing radical public employee unions, leftwing foundations and street-level activist groups.

The network has emerged as a veritable shadow government, wielding the power to make or break politicians at the highest level.

With DeLay neutralized, Democrats will be free to pursue another priority goal of George Soros — to spend the next three years packing our federal courts with leftwing extremists, right up to the U.S. Supreme Court. They will fill the benches with corrupt, radical judges cut from the same cloth as those who sent Terri Schiavo to her grave.

In the 2004 election cycle, Soros donated about $27 million of his personal funds to anti-Bush forces — the largest political contribution from a single individual in U.S. history. More importantly, the Shadow Party Soros created raised more than $300 million for the cause.

John Kerry may have lost the election, but the Shadow Party emerged triumphant. The Democrats can no longer function without Shadow Party cash.

Regarding the Democratic Party, MoveOn PAC director and Soros operative Eli Pariser boasted, "Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it."

The Making of the Terror Myth, The Guardian, Andy Beckett, 15Oct2004: "In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

"...Anti-Americanism, however, is not comprised only of idealists. Ramsey Clark and his army of bedraggled students are paid by foreign government hostile to the United States to engage in rallies and demonstrations. It was hardly surprising that before the first U.S. bomb hit Baghdad, there were already hundreds of demonstrators in Union Square Park and the Washington Mall with placards denouncing the United States as the Evil Empire. Answer - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism - is merely one of several professional anti-American organizations poised to express its antipathy to national policies and the nation itself.

Of course the major source of anti-American hostility can be found abroad. The last, best hope for mankind, the model for constitutional republics, has been converted into a caricature by west Europeans who reflexively detest any action taken by the United States. Remarkably the French accuse Americans of arrogance. But what these detractors appear to be saying is that they are dismayed by U.S. military superiority and the role history has granted it as the balance-wheel in international affairs...."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/London20030811.shtml

European Election Observers To Check Battleground States, Betsy Pisik, The Washington Times, 21Oct2004

The State Department reluctantly extended an invitation to the OSCE this summer, after a dozen Democratic members of Congress requested observers from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

We now know of Soros' involvement with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Marc Rich, John Kerry, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, and Barack Obama.

Did the Sandy Burger classified documents fiasco have anything to do with Soros' Plan through Bill Clinton? Maybe. Perhaps that is why Burger destroyed the documents. We will never know. And this leads to a completely different subject of the inability of people to do their jobs correctly (The National Archives personnel, who, to this day, have not been punished for their inept handling of the matter).

We heard tell that Barack Obama had accepted funds from George Soros. Then we heard he didn't. Well, which is it? Did he? Did he give the funds back? Why would Obama even consider meeting with George Soros, especially after the fallout and exposure of Soros and his agenda in 2004? Is Obama that easily swayed by power and greed? It seems so. I do not trust anyone that has dialog with George Soros to further their cause. Simply - it is sleeping with the enemy. Willingly.

The Democrats and George Soros (via MoveOn.org) are infecting the American populace with lies every day.

Be aware.