The Shadow Party Hillary Clinton’s Connection to the Shadow Party Leon Puissegur

What is the Shadow Party? Once again, we go to to find out what this “party” entails. We find that, of all people, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, along with many others, are part of the Shadow Party, which works inside of our government to destroy our freedom with all sorts of Marxist/Communist/Socialist ideas, many of which would have been an open door for jail time; and the names associated with this Shadow Party come from all over the spectrum. “No one knows for certain who first coined the term “Shadow Party.” In the November 5, 2002 Washington Post, writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote of “shadow organizations” that were springing up to circumvent McCain-Feingold’s soft-money ban (which is discussed at length below). Journalist Lorraine Woellert first called the Democrat network a “shadow party” in a September 15, 2003 Business Week article titled “The Evolution of Campaign Finance?” Other journalists soon followed suit. Here, the term “Shadow Party” is used specifically to refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initatives — to advance Democratic Party agendas, elect Democratic candidates, and guide the Democratic Party ever-further towards the left. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left. (For a list of some of the Shadow Party’s major players, click here.)” The Shadow Party was first disclosed by the Washington Post on November 5, 2002. Yet, for years, when someone states they have a “Shadow Party” working within our government at the highest levels, many people look at him as if he is crazy. But the joke is on them because little do they know that one of the main players in organizing the Shadow Party is today running for President of the United States! Yes, Hillary Clinton is one of the main people who decided to organize a Shadow Party within the government. Yes, Hillary Clinton and her dear friend the Nazi Sympathizer, George Soros, and Harold Ickes Conceived and Organized the Shadow Party. They used the Government Unions, and the former organization ACORN. Members of this elite group have names which many associate with people who seem to hate the United States—people like, but not limited to, David Brock, Jane Fonda, Terry McAuliffe, John Podesta, Andrew Stern, and Richard Trumka. Now why on earth would these people want to have their own Shadow Party? Maybe it is because of their ideologies? Or is it because they do not like the Constitution and the freedoms that come with it? Well, this Shadow Party is, in essence, a “party” more closely linked to Communism and Socialism. George Soros came up with the idea, and Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes brought it into a real working idea. Let us continue to show this “Shadow Party” and the link to Hillary Clinton, who is running for President of our great nation. “George Soros had quietly laid the groundwork for the Shadow Party apparatus from 1994 to 2002. During that period, the billionaire spent millions of dollars promoting the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act better known as the McCain-Feingold Act [1] which was ultimately signed into law in November 2002 by President Bush. Soros began working on this issue shortly after the 1994 midterm elections, when for the first time in nearly half a century, Republicans had won strong majorities in both houses of Congress. Political analysts at the time attributed the huge Republican gains in large part to the effectiveness of television advertising most notably the “Harry and Louise” series (which cost $14 million to produce and air) where a fictional suburban couple exposed the many hidden, and distasteful, details of Hillary Clinton’s proposals for a more socialized national health-care system. Soros was angry that such advertisements were capable of overriding the influence of the major print and broadcast news media, which, because they were overwhelmingly sympathetic to Democrat agendas, had given Hillary’s plan a great deal of free, positive publicity for months. Three weeks after the 1994 elections, Soros announced that he intended to “do something” about “the distortion of our electoral process by the excessive use of TV advertising.”[2] That “something” would be campaign-finance reform.” The reason George Soros wanted this “Shadow Party” was to control the outcome of elections by stifling the freedom of expression during the election campaigns, especially since they were hurting his “Democratic” party that he envisioned as being the way of the future. One has to wonder where he got the idea to silence his opponents like that, but all one has to do is go back in Soros’s history to see he worked with the German Nazi Party and, in doing so, learned that, to control the outcome of elections, the “Party” had to control the media. George Soros developed the “Open Society Institute” based upon an individual who thought the world should be one huge “Open Society.” Hillary Clinton joined this Anti-United States ideology and supported the Shadow Party. “Starting in 1994, Soros’s Open Society Institute and a few other leftist foundations began bankrolling front groups and so-called “experts” whose aim was to persuade Congress to swallow the fiction that millions of Americans were clamoring for “campaign-finance reform.” This deceptive strategy was the brainchild of Sean Treglia, a former program officer with the Pew Charitable Trusts.[3] Between 1994 and 2004, some $140 million of foundation cash was used to promote campaign-finance reform. Nearly 90 percent of this amount derived from just eight foundations, one of which was the Open Society Institute, which contributed $12.6 million to the cause.[4] Among the major recipients of these OSI funds were such pro-reform organizations as Common Cause ($625,000); Public Campaign ($1.3 million); Democracy 21 ($300,000); the Alliance For Better Campaigns ($650,000); the Center For Public Integrity ($1.7 million); the Center For Responsive Politics ($75,000); Public Citizen ($275,000); and the Brennan Center for Justice (more than $3.3 million).[5]” Millions upon millions of dollars were pumped into an idea that was not what it seemed to be, but what leftists, who are aligned deeply with Socialists, Communists, and Marxists, used to get what they wanted done without allowing the people to see. In simple words, they lied to get what they wanted, at the expense of the Constitution and freedom—much like the Nazis did during their way into control. But what they did here was just the beginning, and Hillary Clinton was up to her eyeballs with their ideas. Let that sink in, be sure to show that to people who have the dumb idea that Hillary Clinton is out to help poor people. “The “research” which these groups produced in order to make a case on behalf of campaign-finance reform was largely bogus and contrived. For instance, Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno had clearly admitted in his February 19, 1999 grant proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of the proposed study was political, not scholarly, and that the project would be axed if it failed to yield the desired results: “The purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward. Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement.” The stated purpose of McCain-Feingold was to purge politics of corruption by: (a) putting restrictions on paid advertising during the weeks just prior to political elections, and (b) tightly regulating the amount of money that political parties and candidates could accept from donors. Vis à vis the former of those two provisions, the new legislation barred private organizations including unions, corporations, and citizen activist groups from advertising for or against any candidate for federal office on television or radio during the 60 days preceding an election, and during the 30 days preceding a primary. During these blackout periods, only official political parties would be permitted to engage in “express advocacy” advertising i.e., political ads that explicitly urged voters to “vote for” or “vote against” a specified candidate. Equally important, major media networks were exempted from McCain-Feingold’s constraints; thus they were free to speak about candidates in any manner they wished during their regular programming and news broadcasts. This would inevitably be a positive development for Democrats, who enjoyed the near-universal support of America’s leading media outlets.[6] In addition to its limits on pre-election political advertising, McCain-Feingold also placed onerous new restrictions on the types of donations which candidates, parties, and political action committees (PACs) could now accept. Previously, they had been permitted to take two types of contributions. One of these was “hard money,” which referred to funds earmarked for the purpose of express advocacy. Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations stipulated that in a single calendar year, no hard-money donor could give more than $1,000 to any particular candidate, no more than $5,000 to a PAC, and no more than $20,000 to any political party. [7] The other category of pre-McCain-Feingold donations was “soft-money,” which donors were permitted to give directly to a political party in amounts unlimited by law. But to qualify for designation as “soft money,” a donation could not be used to fund “express advocacy” ads on behalf of any particular candidate. Rather, it had to be used to pay for such things as “voter-education” ads or “issue-oriented” ads political messages that carefully refrained from making explicit calls to “vote for” or “vote against” any specific candidate. So long as an ad steered clear of uttering such forbidden instructions, there was no limit as to how much soft money could be spent on its production and dissemination.” The entire act about McCain-Feingold was nothing more than an elaborate way to get money and make people believe they had created reform. This is a glaring example of how the Shadow Party uses deceit and lies to get what the extreme left wants, and it also shows why Hillary Clinton is not afraid to lie to get what she wants. Remember, the Shadow Party was mainly organized by Hillary Clinton and her dear friend, George Soros. Today, this Shadow Party is deeply rooted in the “Democratic Party,” and they do not help the poor people: they abuse them for their own objectives, keeping them poor but promising them anything they wish to hear. Please feel free to pass this on so people will see that the Democratic Party is really now a Shadow Party! “In addition to its seven core members, the Shadow Party also came to include at least another 30 well-established leftwing activist groups and labor unions that participated in the America Votes coalition. Among the better-known of these were ACORN; the AFL-CIO; the AFSCME; the American Federation of Teachers; the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund; EMILY’s List; the Human Rights Campaign; the League of Conservation Voters; the NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America; the National Education Association; People for the American Way; Planned Parenthood; the Service Employees International Union; and the Sierra Club.[60]” NOTES: 1. Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets vs. Bush,” The Washington Post (November 11, 2003) 2. David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 131-136 3.