While George Soros was busy bankrolling his battalion of established activist groups and launching a few new ones of his own, he quite naturally looked toward the upcoming presidential election of 2008 with great anticipation, eagerly awaiting the day when George W. Bush would finally leave office. The question was, who would replace him? In recent years, all indications had been that Soros favored Hillary Clinton above most, if not all, other potential Democratic candidates for President. But now there was a new face on the scene¯a young, charismatic U.S. senator from Illinois named Barack Obama¯who seemed not only to share virtually all of Soros’s values and agendas, but also appeared to be a highly skilled politician who stood a good chance of getting elected to the nation’s highest office.
In December of 2006, Soros, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 Senate campaign, met with Obama in Soros’s New York office. Just a few weeks later¯on January 16, 2007¯Obama announced that he would form a presidential exploratory committee and was contemplating a run for the White House. Within hours, Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign-finance laws. Later that week, the New York Daily News reported that Soros would support Obama rather than Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, though Soros pledged to back the New York senator were she to emerge as the nominee.1 But it was clear that Soros considered Obama to be the more electable candidate of the two. Most importantly, Obama’s economic and political prescriptions for America were wholly accordant with those of Soros.
Obama’s anti-capitalist background and views are well documented: His father was a communist; his mother was a communist sympathizer;2 in his youth he was mentored by the communist Frank Marshall Davis; he sought out Marxist friends and professors at Occidental College; he attended Socialist Scholars Conferencesin New York; he was trained in the community-organizing methods of Saul Alinsky, a communist fellow traveler; he developed close ties to the pro-socialist community organization ACORN; he developed close personal and political ties to the infamous Marxists (and former domestic terrorists) Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; he was hand-picked for his first political office by Alice Palmer, a pro-Soviet figure in Illinois; in the 1990s he became a member of the New Party, a socialist political coalition; he had close connections to theMidwest Academy, a radical training ground which author Stanley Kurtz has described as a “crypto-socialist organization”;3 and he spent twenty years attending the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preaches the Marxist doctrines of liberation theology. As President, Obama appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International as his “environment czar”;4 he employed a White House communications director (Anita Dunn) who cited Mao Zedong as one of her “favorite political philosophers”;5he appointed a “science czar,” John Holdren, who views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment;6 he appointed Van Jones, a longtime revolutionary communist, as his “green jobs czar”;7and he strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders. The list, of course, could go on and on.
George Soros, too, harbors many negative views about capitalism and free markets. “The entire edifice of global financial markets has been erected on the false premise that markets can be left to their own devices,” says Soros. “We must find a new paradigm and rebuild from the ground up.”8 According to Soros, the capitalist “belief that everybody pursuing his self-interest will maximize the common interest … is a false idea.”9 Calling the global capitalist system “deeply flawed,” Soros maintains that “as long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations.”10 As Soros sees things, capitalism “is today a greater threat than any totalitarian ideology.”11 Lamenting that “the richest 1 percent of the world’s population receive as much as the poorest 57 percent,”12 Soros suggests that only by reining in “global capitalism” can that gap be narrowed. He further complains that global capitalism, by encouraging the free flow of money across international borders, reduces the vital “ability of the state to provide Social Security to its citizens.”13 “The globalization of financial markets has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete,” Soros explains, “because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can.”14
Soros’s proposed remedy for this problem is a worldwide war on poverty that would transform the entire planet into a global welfare state, a sort of open-society alliance where “a kind of international central bank” could redistribute wealth from rich populations to poor ones.15 Toward this end, Soros announced in September 2006 that he would donate $50 million to the United Nations Millennium Project, a massive redistributive scheme calling for the governments of wealthy countries to commit 0.7% of their GNP to promoting “the economic development and welfare of developing countries.”16 Heading this Project (from 2002-2006) was Jeffrey Sachs, the economist who had worked with Soros in Russia during the Bill Clintonadministration. As evidenced by his participation in the Millennium Project,17 Sachs has radically altered his former pro-capitalist positions. Indeed, in recent times he has praised socialists as “both the heirs and the leaders of the world’s most important and most successful political path”; he has lauded their “strong commitment to universalist ethical principles and fiscal re-distribution”; and he has voiced regret that America’s lack of “commitment to re-distribution” has “enabled a massive underclass to develop.”18
Similarly, George Soros sees “the global capitalist system in its present form” as “a distortion of what ought to be a global open society.”19 He suggests that if the “market fundamentalism in America” were “eliminated,” then “the public interest would be better served” by way of “a more equal distribution of wealth.”20
In a November 2008 interview, Soros was asked whether he supported programs falling under the rubric of “big-government” or “European-style ‘socialism.’” He replied, “That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful—but also very harmful to our society.”21
In October 2009, Soros told a Central European University audience that “there is a deep-seated conflict between capitalism and open society.” He observed, moreover, that “Karl Marx['s] proposition” of communist redistributionism “was a very attractive idea” that might well have succeeded if not for the unfortunate fact that “the communist rulers put their own interests ahead of the interests of the people.”22“The failure of the central planning model did not prove the validity of the free enterprise model,” says Soros. “… There is a better way of looking at the world. It is based on the postulate of radical fallibility, according to which all our constructs are flawed in one way or another. Specifically, both models—Communism and free enterprise, or market fundamentalism, as I have rechristened it—are deficient; the deficiency in each one can be cured only by taking some elements from the other.”23
The Call for Global Government
Soros’s desire for a worldwide welfare structure is consistent with his general preference for some form of global government. In 1998 he wrote that “insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.” “The greatest opposition to this idea,” he added somberly, “is coming from the United States.”24
Soros has continued to espouse this perspective ever since. At a 2003 event, a questioner asked Soros whether he and his foundations could “help to bring more foreign influence into the United States instead of relying on what is essentially a balance between Democrats and conservative Republicans, which hasn’t worked and is not about to start working.” Soros replied:
“I think you put your finger on a very important flaw in the current world order. And that is that only Americans have a vote in Congress. And yet it is the United States that basically determines policy for the world. That is a flaw in the current setup. I don’t think you can correct it by giving the Chinese government a vote in Congress. But it is a flaw, and I think this is where American leadership is needed, to take into account and respect the interests of others as well, in order to retain the dominant position we currently enjoy.”25
This call for increased “foreign influence” in American political life is congruent with President Obama’s position on the matter. In March 2009, for instance, Obama appointed Harold Koh, the dean of Yale Law School, as legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. Koh is an advocate of transnationalism, a concept arguing in favor of “global governance” as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states. This perspective holds that the world’s most challenging problems are too complex and deep-rooted for any single country to address effectively on its own. The solution, says Koh, is for all members of the international community to recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides those of any particular government.26
In March 2007, Koh chastised the U.S. for having “unwisely disengaged from various institutions that promote fundamental human rights, chief among them the International Criminal Court [which would subordinate American criminal-justice procedures in certain cases to those of an international tribunal] and the newly established Human Rights Council” of the United Nations¯a Council whose membership includes a number of nations known for their unrestrained anti-Semitism and human-rights abuses.27 President Obama ultimately announced, in 2009, that the U.S. would join the Council for the first time.28 In November 2010, this Council made headlines when it harshly berated America for its alleged discrimination against Muslims, its barbaric police practices, its use of torture against enemies abroad, and its religious intolerance.29
Another Obama official¯Eric P. Schwartz, the administration’s assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration¯formerly served as director of the U.S. Connect Fund, a Soros-financed organization that promotes global governance.30
Just a few days after Barack Obama was elected President, George Soros stated: “I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets¯because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion-dollar range….”31
Soon thereafter, as one of the first priorities of his presidency, Obama pressured Congress to pass a monumental $787 billion economic-stimulus bill whose text was 1,071 pages long¯and which few, if any, legislators read before voting on it. Obama stressed the urgency of passing this bill at the earliest possible moment, so as to forestall any further harm to the U.S. economy. Notably, the legislation repealed numerous essentials of the 1996 welfare-reform bill against which George Soros had so strongly rebelled.32 According to a Heritage Foundation report, 32 percent of the new stimulus bill—or an average of $6,700 in “new means-tested welfare spending” for every poor person in the U.S.—was earmarked for social-welfare programs.33 Such unprecedented levels of spending did not at all trouble Soros, who said: “At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable.”34 In December 2009, Obama concurred again—outlining a set of new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals while explaining that America must continue to “spend our way out of this recession.”35
In a 2008 interview with Bill Moyers, George Soros derided wealthy Americans who wished to have their tax burden lightened. According to Soros, such people were selfishly eager to “enjo[y] the fruits” of their affluence even as they viewed the act of “paying taxes” as “an absolute no-no”—indeed something veritably “unpatriotic.”36
By Soros’s telling, taxes are inherently desirable in good times and bad alike. In 2010, for instance, he stated that although the U.S. economy was in the midst of a prolonged downturn, it would be imprudent for lawmakers to extend the Bush-era tax cuts which were due to expire on January 1, 2011; such a course of action, he warned, would be “the wrong policy” and would cause the recession to deepen further.37 Soros proposed, instead, that the existing tax rates be permitted to return to their previous, higher levels, and that whatever extra revenue those elevated rates might generate should be used to finance yet another federal “stimulus” program.38 This suggestion was consistent with the funding priorities Soros has long pursued through his Open Society Institute. A substantial percentage of the organizations bankrolled by OSI favor high taxes to fill the coffers of an ever-expanding, government-run welfare state.
Likewise, Barack Obama’s long track record in support of high income taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate taxes for “the wealthy” is well documented.39 Thus it was not surprising that Obama, through most of his early presidency, adamantly opposed any extension of the Bush tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration date. But as the economy foundered and the President’s popularity waned—to say nothing of the historic losses suffered by congressional Democrats in the midterm elections—Obama began to restrict his calls for a tax hike only to those in the highest income brackets.40 In the end, the President, recognizing that the electorate fiercely opposed higher taxes for anyone, pragmatically agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two more years—a move that displeased George Soros greatly.41
Soros’s public stance in favor of higher tax rates for the wealthy is nothing short of remarkable, in light of the fact that he himself has taken some noteworthy measures to avoid paying taxes of his own. Consider, for instance, that his multi-billion-dollar Quantum Fund is actually incorporated on the tiny island of Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles, located in the Caribbean. As such, Soros avoids paying U.S. taxes on it. Americans who invest in his Fund likewise escape the tax man entirely. Their interest, dividends, and capital-gains earnings are taxed only if they are brought into the United States.42 And these investors are precisely the types of high earners who, according to Soros, should be willing to do their “patriotic” duty and pay the taxes that they can well afford; the minimum investment for the Quantum Fund is $100,000.43
By no means has the Quantum Fund been Soros’s only foray into tax-avoiding, offshore business enterprises. Indeed, Soros’s real-estate company, Mapeley Steps, is headquartered in yet another tax haven, Bermuda. In 2001 this firm purchased more than 600 buildings from Inland Revenue (Britain’s equivalent of the IRS) and then leased them to the British government for a princely sum—but paid no taxes, thanks to the Bermuda address.44
Just as Soros has spoken out against calls to reduce income taxes, so has he consistently sided against proposals to lower or eliminate the estate tax (a.k.a. “death tax”), calling it “a valuable taxation” because it “does not interfere with wealth creation” and it “increases social equality.”45 In 2003, Soros and some fellow billionaires went so far as to sign a public letter stating that a repeal of the estate tax “would enrich the heirs of America’s millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet.”46 Yet Soros has creatively found a way for his own heirs to avoid paying any estate taxes, as he once explained:
Environmental and Energy Policy
George Soros is an avid proponent of cap-and-trade,48 a tax-based policy proposal designed to reduce Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—and to speed up the nation’s transition to alternate forms of energy such as wind and solar power. The idea of cap-and-trade is founded on the planted axiom that the carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions generated by human industrial activity create a greenhouse effect that is causing the earth’s climate to grow dangerously warm. Under cap-and-trade regulations, companies would be subject to taxes or fees if they exceed their government-imposed limit for CO2 emissions. Economists predict that such legislation, if enacted, would impose colossal costs on businesses¯costs that would be passed on to consumers, who in turn would pay anywhere from several hundred to several thousand extra dollars each year in energy costs.49 But to Soros, such a policy is well worth the price. “Dealing with global warming will require a lot of investment” and thus “will be painful,” he acknowledges, but “at least” it will enable humankind to “survive and not cook.” When asked in 2008 whether he was proposing energy policies that would “create a whole new paradigm for the economic model of the country, of the world,” Soros replied succinctly, “Yes.”50 By Soros’s reckoning, America today has “a great opportunity,” through cap-and-trade, “to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence.”51
In 2009, Soros announced that he intended to spend $10 million over a ten-year period to fund the formation of a new Climate Policy Initiative, designed to address global warming by “help[ing] nations achieve low-carbon development” in “the new energy economy.”52 In remarks he made at a January 2010 Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the United Nations, Soros impugned the U.S. as “the laggard” that, by not endorsing the initiatives which that been proposed a month earlier at an international climate-change conference in Copenhagen, had failed to provide adequate leadership with regard to environmental policy.53
Barack Obama, like Soros, is an unwavering backer of cap-and-trade. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “[U]nder my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations.”54
The principal motive underlying the cap-and-trade policies that Obama and Soros support has been articulated by Obama’s “regulation czar,” Cass Sunstein, a longtime proponent of “distributive justice” whereby America would transfer much of its own wealth to poorer nations as compensation for the harm that U.S. environmental transgressions have allegedly caused in those countries. Sunstein speculates that “desirable redistribution” can be “accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”55
Transforming America Through Immigration
In the spring of 2006 and again a year later, television viewers were treated to innumerable images of massive throngs of demonstrators flooding the streets of cities all across the United States, as they protested America’s allegedly unjust and punitive immigration policies. The participants in these rallies demanded such things as amnesty for illegals, paths to citizenship, expanded guest-worker programs, loosened border controls, an end to workplace immigration raids, and a generalized expansion of rights and privileges for illegal immigrants in the United States. These grievance-filled spectacles generated considerable public anxiety; in their size, scope, and execution, they were reminiscent of the “velvet revolution” demonstrations that Soros had bankrolled in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The following groups — all heavily funded by, or otherwise affiliated with, George Soros and his Open Society Institute — were among the key organizers of the “immigrant-rights” demonstrations: ACORN, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Community Change, theLeague of United Latin American Citizens, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and theGamaliel Foundation.56
The immigration-related agendas of Barack Obama fit hand-in-glove with those of the foregoing Soros-affiliated activist groups. Indeed, the President has repeatedly called for “comprehensive immigration reform” — a euphemism for incremental amnesty. This is but an extension of the voting record that Obama compiled in the U.S. Senate, where he opposed workplace immigration raids; favored a “path to citizenship” so as to “bring people out of the shadows”; advocated laws that would permit illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses; supported the DREAM Act, which would allow illegals to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents; and opposed a Senate amendment calling for the withdrawal of federal assistance to “sanctuary cities” that flout federal immigration laws.57
In 2007 and 2008, Obama was a featured speaker at the annual conventions of the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens. He lauded those in attendance for having worked so hard to “strengthe[n] America together.” “It’s been the work of this organization for four decades,” Obama said, “lifting up families and transforming communities across America. And for that, I honor you, I congratulate you, I thank you, and I wish you another forty years as extraordinary as your last.”58
While generally adorned with carefully crafted rhetoric of human rights and “family reunification,” there is in fact a more politically sinister motive underlying Obama’s and Soros’s support for groups that would not only transform illegals into U.S. citizens, but would also open the floodgates to further mass immigration from impoverished countries below America’s southern border. Obama and Soros alike are well aware that the vast majority of first-generation Hispanic immigrants, once naturalized, tend heavily to vote Democrat. Thus there is a great imperative to import, naturalize, and register as many of these voters as possible in the most expedient practicable manner.59 The ultimate, long-term objective is to establish a permanent Democratic voting bloc in the U.S. for generations to come.
A “Living” Constitution
With fidelity to his “open society” tenet that truth is an ever-evolving and ever-elusive concept, George Soros firmly rejects the notion that the U.S. Constitution is a document of unique or unrivaled merit¯or, by logical extension, that its original intent must be permanently revered and adhered to, rather than deconstructed or reinterpreted as the changing needs and preferences of the times may dictate. In April 2005, Soros’s Open Society Institute was a leading financial sponsor of a Yale Law School conference called “The Constitution in 2020,” promoted as an effort to produce “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.” Other major sponsors of the event included the American Constitution Society and the Center for American Progress¯both major recipients of Soros funding.60 Speakers at the conference repeatedly stressed the “evolutionary character of constitutional law”¯a premise crucial to the work of anyone who, like Soros, seeks to fundamentally transform a society.61
Barack Obama, who himself has openly vowed to “fundamentally transform” the United States, shares precisely this same view of the Constitution. In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Moreover, he asserted that, if elected to the White House, he would not appoint a strict constructionist — one who seeks to apply the Constitution’s text as it is written and without further inference — to the Supreme Court.62 True to his word, President Obama has thus far appointed two Supreme Court Justices – Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – both of whom reject strict constructionism.
Sotomayor, for her part, is an advocate of legal realism, which the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) describes as a judicial philosophy that is “diametrically opposed to the concept of strict construction/originalism as advocated by conservative legal thinkers and judges.” TVC adds that according to legal realism: “[J]udges should do more than interpret the law or look to the original intent of the writers of the law or the Constitution. Judges should bring in outside influences from social sciences, psychology and politics, plus their own views, to craft the law….” Suggesting that the public wrongly expects “the law to be static and predictable,” Sotomayor contends that courts and lawyers are “constantly overhauling the laws and adapting it [sic] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”63 Meanwhile, Elena Kagan has approvingly cited former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s assertion that the Constitution, “as originally drafted and conceived,” was “defective.”64
Promoting Socialized Medicine in the United States
As noted earlier, George Soros has long favored a greater role for government in the American healthcare system. During the political debate over “Obamacare” in 2009 and 2010, one of the most influential pro-reform coalitions was Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a vast network of organizations supporting, ideally, a “single-payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.65 HCAN’s strategy was to try to achieve such a system incrementally, first by implementing a “public option”—i.e., a government insurance agency to “compete” with private insurers, so that Americans would be “no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.”66Because such an agency would not need to show a profit in order to remain in business, and because it could tax and regulate its private competitors in whatever fashion it pleased, this “public option” would inevitably force private insurers out of the industry.
In August 2009, Soros pledged to give HCAN $5 million to promote its campaign for reform.67 HCAN’s organizational members include a host of Soros-affiliated organizations, among which are such stalwarts as the ACLU, ACORN, the AFL-CIO, the AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Center for Community Change, the Gamaliel Foundation, the League of United Latin American Citizens, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the National Abortion Federation, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, the Progressive States Network, and USAction.68 Many of these member groups regularly receive large amounts of Soros funding directly from the Open Society Institute. Some of that money was undoubtedly used to bankroll the healthcare reform crusade, thus we can say with certainty that Soros’s real contributions to the cause far exceeded the $5 million he gave to HCAN.
Terrorism As a Criminal Matter, Rather Than an Act of War
Ever since the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, George Soros has emphasized that it is “more appropriate” for the U.S. government to treat such events as “crimes against humanity” rather than acts of war, and that a proper response thus involves “police work, not military action.”69 Numerous Soros-funded organizations espouse this view as well, as evidenced by their efforts to ensure that suspected terrorists are tried in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals.70 The latter venues, where military officers serve as the judges and jurors, are designed specifically to deal with offenses committed in the context of warfare. Significantly, they permit prosecutors to use secret evidence that may have been obtained by means of enhanced interrogation methods, whereas civilian courts forbid the admittance of such evidence. Among the Soros-funded groups that look with strong disfavor upon military tribunals are the American Constitution Society,71 the Center for Constitutional Rights,72 the American Civil Liberties Union,73 and Human Rights Watch.74
Their perspective is very much in line with that of Barack Obama. Immediately following his inauguration, in fact, Obama’s first act as U.S. President was to order the suspension of all military tribunals that had been established to adjudicate the cases of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which continued to house more than 200 al Qaeda and Taliban combatants captured by the American military during its post-9/11 wars in the Mideast.75 Obama, like Soros, favors a criminal-justice-oriented approach to terrorism and thus would prefer to try the perpetrators in civilian court¯where they would enjoy the enhanced rights and protections that such courts afford to all defendants.
This approach to terrorism has set the tone for every member of the Obama administration. In March 2009, for instance, Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano broke with her agency’s traditional practice of warning the American public about potential “terrorist” threats, and instead began referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”76 Two months later the Obama Justice Department¯again demonstrating its preference for treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue rather than as a military matter¯ordered the FBI to read Miranda warnings to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.77 In November, the Obama administration announced that it planned to try five Guantanamo detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy in a civilian court.78
Then, on Christmas Day of 2009, a Nigerian al Qaeda operative boarded a Northwest Airlines flight (from Amsterdam to Detroit) and attempted, without success, to blow up the plane in midair with a powerful chemical bomb. In public remarks soon after the incident, President Obama referred to the man as an “isolated extremist” rather than as a terrorist or a jihadist. In subsequent days the administration announced that it would offer the perpetrator a plea agreement to persuade him to reveal what he knew about al Qaeda operations in Yemen; if such an arrangement could not be worked out, the government planned to try him in federal civilian court.79
In November 2010, al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani¯responsible for the deaths of 224 people in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania¯became the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in civilian court and was acquitted on all but one of the charges against him.80
In March 2011, President Obama, without consulting Congress, authorized the involvement of the U.S. military in imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya, to prevent President Moammar Qaddafi’s forces from bombing rebels who were challenging his regime. On March 21, the White House announced the initiation of “a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”
According to reports, Samantha Power, Obama’s National Security Council special adviser on human rights, was instrumental in persuading Obama to take this action against Libya. Power is a longtime advocate of the doctrine known as the “Responsibility to Protect,” which encourages the international community to intervene in a particular country’s internal affairs — with military force if necessary — in order to thwart genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, which is the world’s leading advocate of this doctrine, is funded by the Open Society Institute. In a 2004Foreign Policy magazine article, George Soros himself discussed the fundamentals of the Responsibility to Protect, writing:
By way of the many hundreds of pro-Obama groups that George Soros funds on a regular basis, there are literally thousands of political and financial ties that exist between Soros and the President. A comprehensive discussion of these connections could more than fill the pages of a large book. Nevertheless, a few key entities that serve as vital contact points in the Obama-Soros relationship are well worth noting here.
The Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) may well have more influence on the Obama presidency than any other organization in existence. This left-wing think tank formulates policy for the administration and supplies the White House with a steady stream of talking points designed to make that policy palatable to the public. In fact, as of December 2008, before then-President-elect Obama had even taken his oath of office, he had already pledged his intent to fulfill some of CAP’s chief policy recommendations. These included the Center’s call for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq coupled with a buildup of forces in Afghanistan, a plan to implement universal health coverage, and a plan to create “green jobs” designed to combat “global warming.”81 According to Bloomberg.com, CAP “has become … an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the … Obama administration.”82
Emblematic of this was the synergy that Obama and CAP displayed in dealing with the disastrous BP oil spillin the Gulf of Mexico in the spring of 2010.83 In May and June of that year, when the crisis was at its height,84 Obama took his cue from the Center on a number of important occasions. For example:
On virtually every policy matter—health-care reform, fiscal policy, civil rights, immigration, housing, labor, national security, foreign policy, media, energy, or the environment—CAP’s recommendations fit hand-in-glove with the Obama administration’s values and agendas. In many cases, as in the examples cited above, the administration actually follows CAP’s instructions. In a very real sense, George Soros dictates his policy recommendations to the Obama White House through the Center for American Progress.
One of the more significant beneficiaries of George Soros’s funding is the International Crisis Group (ICG), a nonprofit organization that makes policy recommendations ostensibly designed to foster goodwill among nations.86 In 2008, the Open Society Institute gave a whopping $5 million to this entity,87 on whoseexecutive committee Soros himself sits.88 One of ICG’s leading figures is its Mideast director, Robert Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer who in 2007 was named as a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign.
Obama has long held Malley, who formerly served in the Clinton administration, in high regard as a policy analyst. Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.89 These views are of a piece with George Soros’s “open society” ideal, whose moral relativism leads inescapably to the conclusion that one man’s terrorist is indeed another man’s freedom fighter¯and, by logical extension, that no nation should be so proud as to be unwilling to conduct diplomacy with its foes. In mid-2008, however, the Obama campaign severed its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that the ICG official had quietly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.90
Notwithstanding Malley’s fall from grace, Barack Obama’s foreign policies have been, from the outset of his presidency, very much in line with the recommendations of the Soros-funded ICG. For one, Obama has often emphasized his willingness to negotiate with even the most unyielding enemies of the United States, and has sought to persuade Israel to take that same approach. Six days after his inauguration, for instance, Obama granted his first television interview as U.S. President to Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based network, where hestated: “[A]ll too often the United States starts by dictating … and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” He subsequently called on Israel to drop its “preconceptions” and negotiate for peace with Hamas, the terrorist organization whose founding charter remains irrevocably committed to the permanent destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews. Obama further signaled an eagerness to conduct “unconditional talks” on nuclear matters with Iran91¯even as that nation was actively supplying high-tech weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah, and even after its president had repeatedly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”92 Not long thereafter, the Obama administration announced its desire to negotiate with Taliban “moderates,” with the aim of bringing the war in Afghanistan to a close.93
J Street was founded in 2008 “to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli … conflicts peacefully and diplomatically.” Key to achieving this objective, says the organization, will be the development of “a new direction for American policy in the Middle East,” a direction that recognizes “the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own”—where Palestine and Israel exist “side-by-side in peace and security.”94 Toward this end, J Street supports “diplomatic solutions over military ones,” “multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution,” and “dialogue over confrontation.”95 Israel’s partner in such a dialogue would necessarily be Hamas, which holds the reins of political power in Gaza and steadfastly denies Israel’s right to exist. Yet J Street has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter “has been the government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections in January 2006 and especially since June 2007 when it took complete control.”96 In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.”97
The foregoing positions are largely indistinguishable from those of President Obama, who likewise favors atwo-state solution whereby Israel and “a sovereign Palestine” would live “side by side—in peace.”98 To achieve such a resolution, he says, initiatives to construct additional Israeli settlements in the West Bank “have to be stopped.”99 In October 2009, Obama signaled his support for J Street’s agendas when he sent national security advisor James Jones to deliver the keynote address at a J Street conference.100
Another avid supporter of J Street is George Soros, though the billionaire initially tried to conceal that support from the public—for fear that his controversial reputation might scare off other potential backers. But in September 2010 The Washington Times revealed that from 2008-2010, Soros and his two children—Jonathan and Andrea—had given a total of $750,000 to the organization.101 It is worth noting, moreover, that J Street’s Advisory Council includes a number of individuals with very close ties to Soros.102 Among them are the following:
Soros shares J Street’s belief that Israel should recognize, and negotiate with, the Hamas-led Palestinian government. In the April 12, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros penned an article titled “On Israel, America and AIPAC,”103 wherein he derided the Bush administration for “committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East” by “supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, which the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization.” In Soros’ calculus, “This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a conflagration in the greater Middle East.” Added Soros:
By no means is Hamas the only Islamic terrorist organization which Soros views as a legitimate political entity and a suitable negotiating partner for Israel. Indeed, in early February 2011 he cast Hamas’s ideological comrade, the Muslim Brotherhood,105 in much the same light. At the time, a massive wave of violent riotswere taking place in Egypt—ostensibly triggered by public discontent over Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic rule, governmental corruption, and the country’s widespread poverty.106 Meanwhile, there was much speculation that if Mubarak were to be forced out of office, the Brotherhood was likely to fill the power vacuum. Said Soros:
Soros made that assertion even though:
(a) The Muslim Brotherhood—a supporter of Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad108—had made it explicitly clear that it favored the dissolution of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
(b) The Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, had stated that his organization has never recognized Israel and never will, adding: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine. If they want their own state, our only option is to object.”109
(c) Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”110
Notwithstanding the Brotherhood’s unequivocal contempt for Israel and the Jews, Soros lamented that “the main stumbling block” likely to prevent that organization from becoming part of a new “democracy” in Egypt “is Israel.”111 “In reality,” said Soros, “Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him.”112
As Aaron Klein reported in WorldNetDaily on February 6, 2011, the Middle East and North Africa Initiative of the Open Society Institute had recently provided “numerous grants to a wide range of projects that promote so-called democratic issues across the region, including in Egypt.”113 Some four months before the rioting started, OSI was seeking to expand its work in Egypt by hiring a new project manager for its Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, which was run in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative.114 OSI had also bankrolled the main opposition voice in Tunisia, Radio Kalima,115 a leading promoter of the January 2011 riots that forced Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to resign on January 14.116
Heavily funded by the Open Society Institute, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is a Washington, DC-based think tank that seeks to push American jurisprudence ever-further to the left politically.â€¨In June 2008, ACS board member Eric Holder, whom president-elect Barack Obama would name as his choice for Attorney General five months later, spoke at an ACS convention. Predicting an Obama victory in the November election, Holder told his audience that the U.S. soon would be “run by progressives”¯of whom a “substantial number” were likely to be ACS members.117 By December 2008, several major ACS figures already had secured positions in the forthcoming Obama administration.118 That very month, in fact, one particularly influential former member of the ACS board of advisors, Hillary Clinton, was chosen to serve as Obama’s secretary of state.
Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern writes that the Shadow Party member-group ACORN, while professing its dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact “promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor”¯pushing for “ever more government control of the economy” and “anti-capitalist redistributionism.”119 ACORN’s Independent Advisory Council has featured such Soros-affiliated luminaries as Andrew Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, and John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress.120
Obama, for his part, was the attorney for ACORN’s lead election-law cases before joining the Illinois legislature.121 Also in the early to mid-1990s, he helped train ACORN’s staff in the art of radical community organizing.122 In 1995 Obama sued, on behalf of ACORN, for the implementation of an Illinois motor-voter law which ultimately would become a breeding ground for voter fraud.123 He also served for several years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which awarded a number of sizable grants to ACORN.124When ACORN officially endorsed Obama for U.S. President in February 2008, the candidate welcomed the endorsement and told an audience of ACORN workers and supporters: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career.”125 That same year, Obama’s presidential campaign quietly gave one of ACORN’s front groups some $800,000 to fund a voter-registration drive on the senator’s behalf.126 As of October 2008, ACORN was under investigation for voter-registration fraud in 13 states.127
Project Vote is ACORN’s Soros-funded voter-mobilization arm. From April to November of 1992, Barack Obama was director of the organization’s Illinois chapter.128 In 2008, Obama’s presidential campaign furnished Project Vote with a list of donors who had already given the campaign the maximum sum of money permitted by law. In turn, Project Vote representatives contacted those donors and urged them to make contributions to the ACORN affiliate¯funds which could then be used to support Obama’s candidacy while technically complying with election-law limits on campaign donations.129 That same year, the Open Society Institute gave Project Vote $400,000.130
In a massive mobilization aimed at helping Barack Obama win the presidency in 2008, this powerful Soros-affiliated organization dispatched approximately a million volunteers to work on Obama’s campaign nationwide¯600,000 in battleground states and 400,000 in non-battleground states. In addition, MoveOn registered more than half a million young Obama supporters to vote in the battleground states, while adding a million young people to its membership rolls during the summer of 2008. All told, MoveOn and its members contributed more than $58 million directly to the Obama campaign, while raising and spending at least an additional $30 million in independent election efforts on behalf of other Democrats across the United States.131 In November 2003, Soros pledged $5 million to MoveOn.132
Following is a brief overview of some prominent individuals with close political ties to Barack Obama on the one hand, and who also have been influenced in some significant way by George Soros’s money, on the other.
A self-professed revolutionary communist who has long endeavored to ignite transformative revolution in the United States,133 Van Jones spent six months as President Obama’s “green jobs czar” in 2009, until public controversy over his recently exposed radical past forced him to resign.
From 1996-2007, Jones headed the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which, claiming that the American criminal-justice system was infested with racism, sought to promote alternatives to incarceration.134 Between 1999 and 2009, the Baker Center received more than $1 million from George Soros‘s Open Society Institute.135
In 2007 Jones launched Green For All (GFA), an organization “dedicated to building an inclusive green economy” that would provide a vehicle for large-scale wealth redistribution.136 One of GFA’s major fundersis the Open Society Institute ($75,000 in 2008).137
Over the years, Jones has been a board member of numerous environmental and nonprofit organizations, including the Soros-funded Free Press and the environmentalist group Apollo Alliance, which was launched by the Soros-backed Tides Foundation.138 The Apollo Alliance helped craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation that President Obama signed into law in early 2009. Specifically, the organization had a hand in writing the “clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions” of the bill, for which $86 billion was earmarked.139
Today, Jones serves as one of twenty advisors to the Colorado-based Presidential Climate Action Project, which makes climate-policy recommendations for the Obama White House.140 Jones is also a senior fellowat the Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP)¯the think tank that promotes virtually all of Obama’s political agendas.141
Former New Leftist Andrew Stern served as president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the second-largest labor union in North America, from 1996 until April 2010. He was trained in the tactics of radical activism at the Midwest Academy, which received $10,000 from Soros in 1997. Stern also helped form America Votes, a Soros-funded coalition of grassroots, get-out-the-vote organizations.â€¨And he sat on the executive committee of America Coming Together, to which Soros famously gave $10 million in 2003.142
In 2008, Stern’s SEIU spent approximately $60.7 million to help elect Barack Obama to the White House¯deploying some 100,000 pro-Obama volunteers during the campaign.143 Stern went on to become an immensely influential advisor to President Obama. As of October 30, 2009, the union magnate had visited the White House 22 times since Obama’s inauguration¯more than any other individual.144â€¨In February 2010, Obama appointed Stern to sit on a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.145
David Axelrod serves as a key strategist for Barck Obama. In 2004, Axelrod’s political consulting firmreceived at least $229,000 from the Media Fund, a Soros-backed Shadow Party organization which ran some $53 million in pro-John Kerry presidential campaign ads.146
On January 22, 2009, President Obama named Carol Browner to serve as his “environment czar.” Browner previously had been a “commissioner” with the Socialist International, an umbrella group for scores of “social democratic, socialist and labor parties” in 55 countries. She is currently a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Center for American Progress, and the League of Conservation Voters¯all of which are funded by George Soros.147â€¨â€¨
Called “the most powerful women in the labor movement” by Fortune magazine and nicknamed the “Queen of Labor,” Anna Burger is dedicated to building the progressive movement in the United States. She has had a long career with the SEIU, where she currently serves as international secretary-treasurer.148 In February 2009, President Obama appointed her to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.â€¨ Burger is also vice chair of the Soros-affiliated Democracy Alliance.149
In 1990 Kevin Jennings established the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a Boston-area organization that is funded, in part, by the Open Society Institute.150 In June 2009, President Obama appointed Jennings as assistant deputy secretary of education¯or “education czar.”
A great admirer of Venezuela’s Communist president Hugo Chavez, Mark Lloyd has served as a consultant to the Open Society Institute and as vice president of strategic initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a legislative advocacy group that receives financial backing from George Soros. In July 2009, Lloyd, a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, was appointed as President Obama’s diversity chief at the Federal Communications Commission.151
A former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this self-described activist preacher has long championed the cause of communism. Unremittingly critical of the free-market system, Wallis has often impugned capitalism for its historical lack of success. “Our systems have failed the poor and they have failed the earth,” he says. “They have failed the creation.”152 In a January 2006 radio interview with Interfaith Voices, Wallis was asked to clarify whether he was in fact “calling for the redistribution of wealth in society.” He replied, “Absolutely, without any hesitation. That’s what the gospel is all about.”153 Today Wallis is a spiritual advisor to President Obama.â€¨George Soros‘ Open Society Institute has made grants toSojourners, the leftist publication that Wallis founded, in the amounts of $200,000 in 2004,154 $25,000 in 2006,155 and $100,000 in 2007.156
3 Stanley Kurtz, Radical In Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010)
4 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2364 (The reference is to Carol Browner.)
5 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2434 (The reference is to Anita Dunn.)
6 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368 (The reference is to John Holdren.)
7 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406 (The reference is to Van Jones.)
10 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), p. 102
11 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), pp. xvii
12 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. 10
13 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (2000), p. 203
14 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. 3
15 George Soros, “Avoiding a Breakdown: Asia’s Crisis Demands a Rethink of International Regulation,”Financial Times of London (December 31, 1997); George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000), p. 276.
19 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. viii
23 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), pp. 168-169
24 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (2000), p. xxix
27 http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/koh032907.pdf ;http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227209/obama-joins-human-rights-charade-anne-bayefsky (Among the member nations are China, Cuba, Libya, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.)
42 Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire, 2002, p. 135; Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), pp. 164-165.
43 Charles Ellis and James Vertin, Wall Street People: True Stories of Today’s Masters and Moguls, Volume 2 (2001), p. 112.
44 “Revenue Sells 600 Buildings to Bermuda-Based Company.” Trends and Developments, Volume 8, Issue 10 (October 2002); Cited in Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), p. 165.
46 David Kay Johnston, “Dozens of Rich Americans Join in Fight to Retain Estate Tax,” New York Times(February 14, 2001)
47 Quoted in Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire; Cited in Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), pp. 165-166.
56 Ben Johnson, “Who’s Behind the Immigration Rallies?” FrontPageMag.com (March 29, 2006)
59 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 103
60 Richard Poe, “Soros Rewrites U.S. Constitution,” MoonbatCentral.com (April 9, 2005)
61 Scott Johnson, “The $80,000 Misunderstanding,” PowerlineBlog.com (April 9, 2005)
67 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/us/politics/30dems.html; http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/george-soros-pledges-5-million-to-bankroll-health-care-reform-push-group-says/;http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2009/08/11/soros-gives-5-million-liberal-health-care-group;http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/obama-pelosi-acorn/2009/12/12/id/341854
69 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 18
70 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=546; George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 38.
75 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-mr-obamas-international-overtures-deserve-a-response-1488579.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/washington/22gitmo.html?hp
118 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/us/politics/11network.html (Executive Director Lisa Brown had been named as Obama’s White House Staff Secretary. ACS Board of Directors member Goodwin Liu had been named to the Obama-Biden transition team. Joining Liu on the transition team was another ACS Board of Directors member, Dawn Johnsen. Former ACS staffer Melody Barnes had been selected to direct the Obama administration’s Domestic Policy Council. Former ACS Board member Ronald Klain had been named chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden.
122 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224610/inside-obamas-acorn/stanley-kurtz; Frank De Zutter, “What Makes Obama Run?” Chicago Reader (December 8, 1995)
124 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511 (These grants included $45,000 in 2000, $75,000 in 2001, and $70,000 in 2002.)
By Discover The Networks
You carry it with you everywhere you go, but did you know your cell phone could be tracking your every move? Corporations are cashing in by knowing your whereabouts.
More than 140 million people are being tracked by their phones. HTC and Samsung phones come pre-loaded with software from the company carrier IQ.
More than 100 lawsuits in federal court claim the phones track the key strokes of text messages and internet searches. The lawsuits claim the software is the equivalent of a wiretap. The company says various types of data are collected for customer support reasons and to help troubleshoot problems with the network or the phone.
Other software, like Turnstyle Solutions, literally tracks every store you’re walking into. That company says it allows businesses to build profiles of their customers.
“They can tailor everything around what you want, what you’ve purchased in the past, what you do, what your favorite color is, whatever,” explained computer expert and owner of CPR Tools, John Benkert. “It’s a very big industry.”
Even the apps on your phones could be spying on you.
“They make money off of you and me and they make money off of the information,” said Benkert.
Consumers are finding there’s no protection from the federal government. In a December report, the Government Accountability Office found that no overarching federal privacy law governs the collection and sale of personal information. The GAO suggested that congress strengthen laws to protect consumers’ data.
“It’s a multi-billion dollar industry to sell people’s data. Some of it’s legit, some of it’s not legit,” said Benkert.
And you thought you had to worry about the NSA.
“The corporations are collecting much more information on us than NSA ever could,” Benkert told us.
So how do you stop this from happening? First of all, carefully read the prompts when you download an app and if you’re concerned, decline when they ask you if they can share your information.
Secondly, you can turn off the tracking feature on your phone, which is usually in the settings section. It’s not going to stop the tracking completely, but it will help.
More than two years after President Obama reassured the father of a member of SEAL Team 6 that the government would look into the death of his son, the father is still waiting for a response, and his suspicions are growing.
On Aug. 9, 2011, Taliban forces were waiting for a Chinook helicopter carrying members of the elite unit SEAL Team 6 to approach its landing site. The helicopter was attacked from three sides in a coordinated ambush.
Although it was known Taliban forces were in the area, the SEALs did not have the air cover that was a standard procedure for missions of that type. During the ambush, the Chinook was reportedly shot down by a shoulder-fired missile, killing all 38 people on board, including 25 American special operations personnel, five U.S. Army National Guard and Army Reserve crewmen, a U.S. military dog, seven Afghan commandos and an Afghan interpreter.
Charles Strange, whose son Michael was killed in the ambush, said in a meeting with President Obama after the attack he whispered in the president’s ear to ask him if there would be a congressional investigation into the death of his son. Obama whispered back, “We will look very, very, very, deep into this.”
However, more than two years after the attack, the families are still waiting for answers, and they now have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to find out what happened. The lawsuit is being handled by Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, who is also a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor.
The suit is asking for $200 million in damages against Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for revealing that SEAL Team 6 carried out the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Also named as defendants are the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is alleged to have tipped the Taliban off about the coordinates of the Extortion 17 operation.
Despite the amount of damages sought, Klayman says the issue is not about the money but rather to ensure that the rules of engagement and other events leading up to the ambush are changed to protect soldiers in the field.
‘We do want answers’
“While we do want answers, we also want the rules of engagement changed to ensure that their sons did not die in vain,” Klayman said. “The military and the administration should have known better. They should have known that SEAL Team 6 was a target because they made them a target.”
Among the current rules of engagement are orders not to fire unless specifically fire upon. The reasoning behind the order is that the military is there to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.
The downing of the helicopter came just months after SEAL Team 6 conducted the raid that killed bin Laden. Normally, when operations of that nature are conducted, the identities of the units involved are kept classified for operational security. However, following the bin Laden raid, Vice President Joe Biden and the administration confirmed that SEAL Team 6 members had conducted the operation.
After the leaking of their identity by Biden, members of SEAL Team 6 became concerned for their safety and the safety of their family members.
Aaron Vaughn, a member of the team who would eventually be killed on that Aug. 6, warned his mother to delete every reference to SEAL Team 6 from her Facebook and Twitter accounts.
“I never heard Aaron this concerned and worried in his entire life,” Mrs. Vaughn said in an interview. “He called me and said, ‘Mom, you and Dad have to take everything down. Biden has just put a huge target on everybody.’”
Charles Strange said his son Michael, a Special Forces serviceman with the unit, also had premonitions about his impending death after Biden’s leak of their identity.
“Michael was home in June, and he talked to us, saying he was worried and felt he needed to update his will,” Strange said. “My son already had a will that was filled out long before this, so why would he suddenly bring it up again? It was almost as if he knew something was going to happen to him. They labeled those men; the question is, why did they do it?”
Several circumstances surrounding the crash also have raised disturbing questions for the family members.
Among their questions are why seven Afghan commandos on the flight suddenly were replaced just before takeoff. The seven individuals, who also died in the attack, are not listed in the flight manifest. This has caused some of the family members to speculate that they may have been suicide bombers or may have tipped off the Taliban.
When asked if they believed the attack possibly was an inside job, several family members responded in the affirmative.
Billy Vaughn, father of killed Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn, told WND that “yes,” he believed it was an inside job.
Doug Hamburger, whose son Patrick was a flight engineer and gunner with the SEALs, said that at the very least, he believed Afghan president Hamid Karzai tipped off the Taliban.
Strange went even further, saying he believed there was collaboration between the U.S. and Afghan governments to shoot down the helicopter.
“I believe the Afghan administration and someone on their side definitely made a deal with somebody on our side. It says in the investigation report that back in May the military knew the Taliban was in that location with the intent of shooting down an American helicopter. Knowing this why were they sent in without air cover?”
The official explanation by the U.S. military is that the Chinook was struck by a shoulder-fired missile, which caused the helicopter to explode, burning everyone beyond recognition.
However, there are several things that have caused the family to doubt the official explanation that it was simply a “lucky shot,” as Army investigators declared.
“I don’t want to hear about it being a lucky shot, a lucky shot would’ve been a clean miss,” Strange said.
Following the ambush, the Army ordered the remains of everyone on the helicopter cremated, they were simply unrecognizable.
However, Michael Strange’s body apparently showed no sign of being burned by the explosion from the missile. His father obtained a copy of Michael’s autopsy report and photographs of his body and said there was no sign of fire damage.
“There’s nothing wrong with the body except for his ankle, but they claimed everybody was burned beyond recognition, yet there he was lying there whole and intact,” Strange said. “His hair and arms weren’t burned, and there was no sign of smoke in his lungs. When I called the command up and asked them about this they seem shocked that I had the photo. They told me ‘we’ll get back to you,’ but they never did.”
‘We’ll get back to you’
“Why did they cremate my boy? We are Christians and do not believe in cremation; there was no reason for them to do that,” Strange said.
Eyebrows also were raised when a Muslim imam was invited by the Obama administration to pray over the fallen soldiers. During the prayer, the imam reportedly recited a prayer from the Quran that damned the fallen warriors to hell for being infidels. The ceremony did not feature any similar prayer from a Christian chaplain.
Another strange occurrence about the ambush is that the evidence that would reveal how the helicopter was shot down has gone missing.
The Chinook’s black box never was recovered. The military claims a rare flash flood came through the area and washed the box away. However, aircraft black boxes are designed to take that kind of punishment and have even been recovered from the ocean floor.
Another piece of evidence missing is any recording of the explosion by an aerial drone in the area. Hamburger said the military provided the men involved in missions of that kind with a variety of assets in the air.
“When they go out on an operation like this, the military normally has a stack of protection above them that includes two Apache helicopters, a C-130 and a drone to help see what is going on. When the men of Extortion 17 flew into that valley, they did not have a stack over them.
“We were told, and it is in the official report that the ‘eye in the sky,’ meaning the camera on the drone, was inoperative during the time the Chinook was shot down,” Hamburger said. “Yet we have two soldiers, including one of my son’s friends, who told us they saw Extortion 17 get shot down from the cameras on that drone at one of the other forward operating bases. We would really like to see that footage and have it handed over to an expert who could analyze it to see the sequence of how the helicopter was exploded and what happened.”
Hamburger says even more amazingly, he was told the problem with the footage somehow resolved itself later during the ambush after the helicopter was shot down.
“We asked if the camera was not working why was the drone still in the area rather than being sent back to base. They told us the problem with the camera was not an ongoing issue, but was simply a glitch that happened at the exact time Extortion 17 was shot down.”
‘We don’t know what happened”
Klayman said while he understands tragic things happen in war, by refusing to answer legitimate questions by family members the government is acting like it has something to hide.
“Over two years after Extortion 17 was shot down, the families still have these unanswered questions. All of this raises the distinct possibility of a cover-up as to what really happened. We don’t know what happened and none of these answers are forthcoming.”
Hamburger said while any individual could be dismissed if taken alone, but together they suggest a cover-up.
“You sit there and add up the score and what you have is a case where the black box is missing, the eye in the sky is out, and there was no support aircraft in the area. Everything you typically do for safety and to help out the helicopter and crew is non-existent. Additionally, all of the things you would need to take a look at what happened has disappeared. All you have is a downed aircraft and a bunch of dead soldiers.”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is among elected officials who are demanding answers. He and his subcommittee on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are investigating the crash.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was on with Greta Van Susteren Thursday 7/31/13 to discuss the Obama scandals.
This came after Jake Tapper at CNN broke the news that there were “dozens” of CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi on 9-11 when the consulate came under attack and the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
Gowdy told Greta the Obama Administration is hiding the survivors, dispersing them around the country, AND changing their names.
“Including changing names, creating aliases. Stop and think what things are most calculated to get at the truth? Talk to people with first-hand knowledge. What creates the appearance and perhaps the reality of a cover-up? Not letting us talk with people who have the most amount of information, dispersing them around the country and changing their names.”
And, at the same time Obama is hiding the survivors around the country he’s calling Benghazi a ‘phony’ scandal. Read more via The Gateway Pundit
Picture of the UTAH DATA CENTER
Safe to say it’s been a rough couple of weeks for the NSA, and the latest information that has leaked certainly won’t help. This whistleblower isn’t new, he has actually been around since the Bush days, but his claims are getting a closer look now that we know the scope of the NSA snooping scandal.
His comments are chilling and include claims that a Supreme Court justice has been closely monitored for quite some time. Could a justice have been compromised?
According to TheBlaze:
Russ Tice, a former intelligence analyst and Bush-era NSA whistleblower, claimed Wednesday that the intelligence community has ordered surveillance on a wide range of groups and individuals, including high-ranking military officials, lawmakers and diplomats.
“He’s been blowing whistles for a while,” Pat said. “This guy has been talking about the Bush administration spying for a long time, and he was with the ONI, the DIA, the NSA, the NCAA. I mean, he’s been everywhere. And so now, now his latest deal, he’s been saying this about Bush since I think 2005 and then he said that they retaliated against him but then he was speaking out in more specifics yesterday.”
Yesterday, Tice dropped this bomb:
“[The Bush administration] went after–and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things – they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the–and judicial.
But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House–their own people.”
Someone is lying— now Congress just has to figure out who’s the perjurer. According to the testimony of two officials in the IRS Tax-exempt unit in Cincinnati the directions regarding the Tea Party 501c(3) applications came from Washington DC. The DC office of the IRS even came up with the questions to ask the conservative applicants.
The WSJ was allowed to read the transcripts of the interviews which contradicted the “official story” that the targeting was dreamed up and executed by rogue workers in the Cincinnati office.
Elizabeth Hofacre testified the Cincinnati sought guidance from IRS officials in the Washington after she started getting the tea party cases in April 2010. She identified Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in the Washington office the person who closely oversaw her work and even suggested some of those inappropriate questions asked applicants.
“I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” she said, according to the transcripts.
Ms. Hofacre said she was extremely angry when senior IRS management (including Lois Lerner) threw the Cincinnati office under the bus,
“I was furious,” Ms. Hofacre told interviewers. “It looked like Lois Lerner was putting it on us.”
The second Cincinnati official, Gary Muthert testified that he was among the first IRS employees to start selecting and setting aside the tea-party applications for extra scrutiny.
In his interview with congressional investigators, he said a local manager—whose name was redacted in the transcripts—asked him to find all the tea-party applications in the office’s files, both pending and closed. The manager asked him to use the phrase “tea party” to conduct the search.
Around the same time, the local manager “said Washington, D.C., wanted seven” cases, Mr. Muthert said in the transcript. That month, he said, he “batched up” seven of the cases for “EO Technical,” a unit of the Exempt Organizations Division in Washington, then headed by Ms. Lerner, according to his interview.
Around May of 2010, Mr. Muthert said, another local official asked him to locate a couple more applications to send to Washington. Over the next two months, Mr. Muthert said, he located about 40 tea-party cases after expanding his search to include the terms “patriot” and “9/12.”
Ms. Hofacre said the IRS official in D.C. Carter Hull emailed her letters that he had already sent to two tea-party applicants. She was told to use those letters as a “foundation to prepare and review my cases and prepare my letters” to applicants, she said. Hull suggested some of the questions and asked Ms. Hofacre to send him each Tea Party response.
“All I remember saying and thinking is, ‘This is ridiculous,’” she said. “Because at the same time, you are getting calls from irate taxpayers. And I see their point. Even if a decision isn’t favorable, they deserve some kind of treatment and they deserve, you know, timeliness, and…these applications and their responses were just being sent up there [to Washington] and I am not sure what was happening.”
At another point during the interview she complained she was “being micromanaged to death, and it was just really frustrating.” In part because of her experience, she asked for and was given a transfer that she said amounted to a promotion in the fall of 2010.
There is no Word on who gave the orders to Carter Hull, but it couldn’t have been Doug Schulman, the former IRS Commissioner, he was too busy meeting with the White House 150+ times (and when he wasn’t working he was taking is kids to the Easter Egg roll at the White House).
Those 150+ White House meetings couldn’t have had anything to do with the political repression of conservatives even though Stephanie Cutter the #2 person in the Obama reelection campaign (who is not a tax attorney or other kind of tax expert) admitted that she attended some of them.
Perhaps it’s time for Chairman Issa to drag Ms. Cutter in front of the oversight committee.
These are going to be very interesting interviews when they are done during live hearings the next time the House Oversight Committee addresses the issue–better buy the big bag of popcorn.
We may be of the verge of revealing the largest cover up by a President since Watergate and we need to get to the truth.
Countless important questions remain unanswered about the horrific terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and you deserve to know why when the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and heroic Navy SEALs were fighting for their lives against a mob of terrorists, politicians in Washington ignored their calls for help and left them to die.
Here is what you need to know: 124 Members of Congress have cosponsored House Resolution 36 to create a Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi that will investigate what happened and reveal the absolute truth we all deservex – but we are missing critical supporters that we need to ensure that this Select Committee is created.
Obama and his officials continue to lie, cover up, and make excuses for their failure to act. Obama’s Administration is doing everything to prevent this information from getting out!
Without this Select Committee we may never know the truth and we only have a small window to pass this bill. Time is running out. Please take action right now.
It costs nothing more than a few minutes of your time to send a message to Congress and blow the lid off what may be the largest cover up by an American President since Watergate.
Take action in this link now:
Global Research Editor’s Note
Global Research will be publishing a series of articles and reports with a view to promoting “Boston Truth”. The underlying objective is to confront and challenge the official version of events concerning the Boston bombings as well as the twisted and convoluted interpretations of the mainstream media. Rosie On The Right will be republishing as many of these articles as possible. Readers are invited to spread the word on social media, independent media and blog sites.
Nine thousand heavily armed police including SWAT teams were deployed in a manhunt to capture a 19 year old student at U-Mass, after his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the alleged Boston Marathon terror mastermind was shot dead by police allegedly after a car chase and shoot out with police.
Prior to the conduct of a police investigation, the 19 year old student has already been designated as “guilty”. The fundamental legal principle of “innocence until proven guilty” has been scrapped. In the words of President Obama (a graduate of Harvard Law School), the Boston 19 year old student is “guilty” of heinous crimes (without evidence and prior to being charged in a court of law):
“Whatever hateful agenda drove these men [suspects] to such heinous acts will not, cannot, prevail. Whatever they thought they could achieve, they’ve already failed…. Why did young men who grew up and studied here as part of our communities and our country resort to such violence?” (emphasis added)
Coupled with the alleged anthrax and ricin letters in Washington D.C. which mysteriously surfaced in the immediate wake of the Boston tragedy, both Washington and the media have underscored the Tsarnaev brothers tenuous ties to Chechnya’s militant jihadist insurgency.
According to the Wall Street Journal, quoting expert scholarly opinion:
”…the Chechen [family] background is maybe a part of what leads them [the two suspects] to do what they do,” said Lorenzo Vidino, an expert on Chechen militants at the Center for Security Studies in Zurich.” … A profile on the Russian social-networking site Vkontakte that appears to belong to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev includes a propaganda clip rallying jihadists to go to Syria to fight alongside rebels there, citing sayings from the Prophet Muhammad. [Amply documented, it just so happens that the jihadist foreign fighters in Syria are recruited by the US and its allies] (Wall Street Journal, op cit.)
What is implied is that even if the suspects are not tied to a Muslim extremist network, their embedded cultural heritage and Muslim “background” incites them –quite naturally– to commit acts of violence. How does this concept –which routinely associates Muslims with terrorism– repeated ad nauseam in the Western news chain, affect the human mindset?
While the identity and motives of the suspects are currently being examined by police investigators, the Tsarnaev brothers have already been categorized –without supporting evidence– as “Radical Muslims”.
Across the land, Muslims are being smeared and demonized. A new wave of Islamophobia has been set in motion.
The Creation of A New Legend: “The Chechen Connection”
A new legend is unfolding: “The Chechen Connection” is threatening America. Islamism homegrown in the Russian Federation is now being “exported to America”.
Plastered on news tabloids across the United States, the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings on Patriots’ Day are relentlessly compared to September 11, 2001.
According to the Council of Foreign Relations:
Law enforcement agencies at all levels have made advances in surveillance and policing since the September 11, 2001 attacks, but security risks persist. Many counterterrorism experts call for a renewed focus on the ability of the United States to weather and recover from such incidents… (emphasis added)
Is the Boston tragedy being used by Washington to usher in a new wave of police state measures directed against different categories of “domestic terrorists?
Is this catastrophic event being applied to foster public reaction against Muslims?
Is it being used to build acceptance of America’s holy crusade –initiated during the Bush administration– directed against a number of Muslim countries, which allegedly “harbor Islamic terrorists”?
According to the powerful Council of Foreign Relations (which exerts a pervasive influence on both the White House and the State Department), the Boston bombings once again “raise the specter of terrorism on U.S. soil, highlighting the vulnerabilities of a free and open society”. (Ibid)
Counter terrorism and Martial Law –implying the suspension of civil liberties– rather than civilian law enforcement are the proposed solutions. In the words of Secretary of State John Kerry, ‘‘I think it’s fair to say this entire week we’ve been in pretty direct confrontation with evil.’’
The unfolding mass media consensus (including that of Hollywood) is that America is once again under attack. This time, however, the alleged perpetrators are “Muslim terrorists” not from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia but from the Russian Federation:
If a connection between the marathon bombing suspects and Chechen separatists was established, it would mark the first time militants from the former Soviet republic have launched a deadly attack outside Russia. Chechen insurgents deny any link to marathon bombing – U.S. News
“The Chechen Connection” has become embedded in a new media consensus. The American Homeland is potentially threatened by Muslim terrorists from the Russian Federation, who have links to Al Qaeda.
There is also a foreign policy agenda behind the bombings. The White House has hinted that if the “Chechen brothers” had links to radical Islam, the administration “could expand intelligence-gathering efforts overseas, as well as widen surveillance and screening measures in the United States.”
Moreover, the new terrorist narrative now involves jihadists from the Russian Federation rather than from the Middle East.
There are geopolitical implications. Will the Chechen Connection be used by the administration as a renewed pretext for pressuring Moscow? What kind of media propaganda is likely to emerge?
Al Qaeda and the CIA
The American public is misled. The media reports carefully overlook the historical origins of the Chechnya jihadist movement and its pervasive links to US intelligence.
The fact of the matter is that the jihadist movement is a creation of US intelligence, which has also led to the development of “political Islam”. While the role of the CIA in support of the Islamic jihad (including most Al Qaeda affiliated organizations) is amply documented, there is also evidence that the FBI has covertly equipped and incited would be terrorists within the US. (See James Corbett, The Boston Bombings in Context: How the FBI Fosters, Funds and Equips American Terrorists, Global Research April 17, 2013)
The CIA’s agenda starting in the late 1970s was to recruit and train jihadist “freedom fighters” (Mujahideen) to wage “a war of liberation” directed against the pro-Soviet secular government of Afghanistan.
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Jihadist Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)
The “Islamic Jihad” (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA’s intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:
“In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 … [which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 … as well as a “ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.”(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)
Mujahideen from a large number of Muslim countries were recruited by the CIA. Jihadists from the Muslim republics (and autonomous regions) of the Soviet Union were also recruited.(For further analysis see Michael Chossudovsky, Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, January 20, 2008)
Al Qaeda and the Chechnya Jihad
Chechnya is an autonomous region of the Russian Federation.
Among the recruits for specialized training in the early 1990s was the leader of the Chechnya rebellion Shamil Basayev who –in the immediate wake of the Cold War– led Chechnya’s first secessionist war against Russia.
During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander “Al Khattab” who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev’s return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab’s posting to Chechnya had been “arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya”.(BBC, 29 September 1999).
The evidence suggests that Shamil Basayev had links to US intelligence as of the late 1980s. He was involved in the 1991 coup d’Etat which led to the break-up of the Soviet Union. He was subsequently involved in Chechnya’s unilateral declaration of independence from the Russian Federation in November 1991. In 1992, he led an insurgency against Armenian fighters in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. He was also involved in Abkhazia, the largely Muslim breakaway region of Georgia.
The first Chechnya war (1994-1996) was waged in the immediate wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was part of a US covert operation to destabilize the Russian Federation. The Second Chechnya war was waged in 1999-2000.
Broadly speaking the same guerrilla terrorist tactics applied in Afghanistan were implemented in Chechnya.
According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress’ Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the insurgency in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. (Levon Sevunts, “Who’s Calling The Shots? Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.)
It’s obvious that the involvement of Pakistan’s ISI in Chechnya “goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: The ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war.”(Ibid)
The ISI is in permanent liaison with the CIA. What this statement signifies is that US intelligence using Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as a go-between was calling the shots in the Chechnya war.
Russia’s main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington’s condemnation of “Islamic terrorism”, the beneficiaries of the wars in Chechnya were the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which were vying for complete control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin.
The two main Chechen rebel armies (which at the time were led by the (late) Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab), estimated at 35,000 strong, were supported by CIA and its Pakistani counterpart the ISI, which played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel army:
“[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence [in liaison with the CIA] arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defence General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev.” (Ibid, emphasis added)
Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the KLA. (Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, “Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo”, Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000)
The Chechen insurgency modeled on the CIA sponsored jihad in Afghanistan has also served as a model for several US-NATO sponsored military interventions, including Bosnia (1992-1995), Kosovo (1999), Libya (2011), Syria (2011- ).
Chechen Rebels: US Covert Operation to Destabilize the Russian Federation
The 1994-1996 Chechen war, instigated by the main rebel movements against Moscow, served to undermine secular state institutions. The adoption of Islamic law in the largely secular Muslim societies of the former Soviet Union served US strategic interests in the region.
A parallel system of local government, controlled by the Islamic militia, had been implanted in many localities in Chechnya. In some of the small towns and villages, Islamic Sharia courts were established under a reign of political terror.
Financial aid from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to the rebel armies was conditional upon the installation of the Sharia courts, despite strong opposition of the civilian population. The Principal Judge and Ameer of the Sharia courts in Chechnya was Sheikh Abu Umar, who “came to Chechnya in 1995 and joined the ranks of the Mujahideen there under the leadership of Ibn-ul-Khattab. … He set about teaching Islam with the correct Aqeedah to the Chechen Mujahideen, many of whom held incorrect and distorted beliefs about Islam.” (Global Muslim News, December 1997).
The Wahabi movement from Saudi Arabia was not only attempting to overrun civilian State institutions in Dagestan and Chechnya, it was also seeking to displace the traditional Sufi Muslim leaders. In fact, the resistance to the Islamic rebels and foreign fighters in Dagestan was based on the alliance of the (secular) local governments with the Sufi sheiks:
“These [Wahabi] groups consist of a very tiny but well-financed and well-armed minority. They propose with these attacks the creation of terror in the hearts of the masses. … By creating anarchy and lawlessness, these groups can enforce their own harsh, intolerant brand of Islam. … Such groups do not represent the common view of Islam, held by the vast majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars, for whom Islam exemplifies the paragon of civilization and perfected morality. They represent what is nothing less than a movement to anarchy under an Islamic label. … Their intention is not so much to create an Islamic state, but to create a state of confusion in which they are able to thrive.( Mateen Siddiqui, “Differentiating Islam from Militant ‘Islamists’” San Francisco Chronicle, 21 September 1999)
The second Chechnya war was launched by Vladimir Putin in 1999, with a view to consolidating the role of the central government and defeating the US sponsored Chechen terrorists against the Russian Federation.
The 19 year old suspect is being used as a patsy. He was not even born in Chechnya. While he and his brother had no connection to the jihadist movement, the US media is carefully crafting a “Chechen Connection” pointing to an inherent behavioral pattern associated with Muslims:
The brothers spent 10 years in the U.S. during a formative period of their lives, exhibiting normal behavior for first-generation immigrants, said Mitchell Silber, a former intelligence official in the New York Police Department. “The question is, what catalyzed the change? Was it Chechen nationalism? Did it start with Chechen nationalism and somehow migrate to a pan-Islamist jihad cause?” (Renewed Fears About Homegrown Terror Threat,” WSJ April 20, 2013)
There is evidence, however, from the testimony of family members that the Tsarnaev brothers were on the radar of the FBI for several years prior to the Boston bombings and were the object of recurrent threats and harassment. Confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, the FBI had “interviewed” Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011. (Ibid)
What is abundantly clear is that the US government is not committed to fighting terrorists.
Quite the opposite. US intelligence has been recruiting and grooming terrorists for more than thirty years, while at same time upholding the absurd notion that these terrorists, who are bona fide CIA “intelligence assets”, constitute a threat to the American Homeland. These alleged threats by “An Outside Enemy” are part of a propaganda ploy behind the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT).
What is the Truth?
The development of an Islamist terrorist militia in different countries around the World is part of an intricate US intelligence project.
While the Tsarnaev brothers are casually accused without evidence of having links to Chechen terrorists, the important question is who is behind the Chechen terrorists?
In an utterly twisted logic, the protagonists of the ‘Global War on Terrorism” directed against Muslims are the de facto architects of “Islamic terrorism.”
The “Global War on Terrorism” Mindset
The “war on terrorism” mindset builds a consensus: millions of Americans are led to believe that a militarized police apparatus is required to protect democracy. Little do they realize that the US government is the main source of terrorism both nationally and internationally.
The corporate media is Washington’s propaganda arm, which consists in portraying Muslims as a threat to national security.
At this juncture in our history, at the crossroads of global economic and social crisis, the Boston bombings play a central role. They justify the Homeland Security State.
The evolving US Police State is thereby upheld as a means to protecting civil liberties. Under the guise of counter-terrorism, extrajudicial killings, the suspension of habeas corpus and torture are rightfully considered as a means to upholding the US Constitution.
At the same time, the terrorists –created and supported by the CIA– are used to participate in “False Flag” terrorist acts with a view to justifying the conduct of a global military crusade against Muslim countries, which so happen to be major oil producing economies.
“Massive Casualty Producing Events”
Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as “a massive casualty producing event” on American soil, (a Second 9/11) . Implied in General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths were necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the “global war on terrorism”.
“[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.” (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003, emphasis added)
While the Boston bombings are of an entirely different nature to the “catastrophic event” alluded to by General Tommy Franks, the administration appears, nonetheless, to be committed to the logic of “militarizing our country” as a means to “protecting democracy.”
The Boston events are already being used to galvanize public support for an extended domestic based counter-terrorism apparatus. The latter would be implemented alongside extrajudicial assassinations against so-called “homegrown self radicalized terrorists”:
“U.S. counterterrorism policy has since 2001 focused largely on killing terrorists overseas or preventing them from getting into the U.S. But the Boston bombings show how the diffusion of terrorist tactics easily transcends borders. Countering small groups of individuals inside the U.S. can be a bedeviling assignment.
Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, said the Boston attack was likely a harbinger. “We are likely to see this as the future face of terrorist threats to the United States,” he said, adding that the case of a small number of radicalized participants who have lived in the U.S. and execute a plot is “the counterterrorist community’s worst nightmare, homegrown, self-radicalizing terrorism that learns its skill set off the Internet.” (WSJ, April 20, op cit)
The “terrorist massive casualty-producing event” was upheld by General Franks as a crucial political turning point.
Do the Boston Bombings constitute a point of transition, a watershed which ultimately contributes to the gradual suspension of constitutional government?
ORDER DIRECTLY FROM GLOBAL RESEARCH
America’s “War on Terrorism”
by Michel Chossudovsky
In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarization of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalization is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
Right from their facebook page is this mission statement:
Like our brothers and sisters in Egypt, Greece, Spain, and Iceland, we plan to use the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy in America. We also encourage the use of nonviolence to achieve our ends and maximize the safety of all participants.
The mission statement itself points to the “Arab Spring tactic” given the latest announcements by Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya about it reverting to Shari’a Law compliant states who can say THAT tactic wasÂ successful?Â ForÂ those of you who do not know the horrors of Sharia Law just click on the highlighted word for aÂ definition, but because I don’t want you to miss the point of this story thiese are two things Sharia Law has publicly announced as it’s main objectives in the United States.
- Sharia requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the replacement of Americaâ€™s constitutional republic, including the representative government of this state with a political system based upon sharia.
- Sharia in particular includes a war doctrine known as jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of sharia due to a consensus among sharia authorities throughout the ages.
Some want to say the word Jihad means ‘inner struggle’ but that is not how the word has been used through the ages by Â Â Â Â Â Â Muslims. Why change it now? Quite possible to use it in a passive way against us as described above using another tactic known as Al-Taqiyya.
I hope you watch the video in its’Â entiretyÂ because if Occupy Wall Street is being managed and organized by C.A.I.R.Â ThenÂ we are just a few steps away from declaring Shari’a Law in our own country. If you think I am crazy to say this then realize this. Muslims are theÂ fastestÂ growing population in the US even at a faster rate than Hispanics (althoughÂ at this time there are moreÂ HispanicsÂ in the US that will shift in 20 years) all they need is to gain a foothold and their dream of bringing down the U.SÂ ConstitutionÂ to replace it withÂ Sharia could easily become our nightmare. What can you do? Become informed. Be sure to VOTE for people who adhere to the U.S Constitution, and please share this story EVERYWHERE. IT is not national news yet. YOU are hearing it here first.
In 2009 Shayan Elahi represented the parents of the young girl Rifka, the 15 year old girl who ran away from her parents because after converting to Christianity her father swore to restore his honor by honor killing her. She escaped him and now lives in Ohio. On October 15,2011, my friends at the United West produced this video and Bamboo Bob got me this scoop.
Join my facebook page hereÂ
Is there a difference between discussing the political impact of an event like Osama bin Laden’s death versus politicizing it? I would say there is. Ever since the killing of Bin Laden I have witnessed the politicizing, and posturing of the death of Bin Laden by both the Right and the Left. Â Is it any surprise that the spin doctors are hard at work after what is widely considered a triumph for America in the war on terror? The republicans secretly worry this president will gain brownie points with the less informed public who get their information from the drive by media, while the left is ready with an assertive narrative of how ‘the president was so courageous in ordering the kill” Â I’m sure they are licking their chops as they ponder how they can better use this in the coming political battle for president in 2012.
I ask you; what was so courageous on the part of the president? Was it he who was out there laying his life on the line? Was he the one who would forever be reminded of the blood and guts he left splattered all over that compound in Pakistan? Did President Obama once concern himself with a buddy who was along side him on this dangerous mission, asking himself; “would I make it back alive? Will we be successful? Did he ask himself “will I live to see my family or loved ones ever again?” No. The true heroes here are the warriors, the soldiers whether they were Navy seals, or which ever branch of the government they were. THEY ARE THE TRUE HEROES. The brave ones. The courageous ones to whom all credit should be given. I didnt really hear a lot of that on TV lately. Â They mention the ‘secret 6 Navy Seal Team’ but so much is being made of the presidents bravery when in fact it takes very little to do what he did. Afterall he knew for sure that OBL was in that compound. There was no guess work there.
Obama takes the credit.
It is ironic to see President Obama taking credit for policies that worked which were put in place by President George W Bush. Especially since those are the very same policies this president wanted to and still wants to eradicate. Truth be known if it were up to this president he would have never had this triumph. You see it has come to light that it was information obtained through the methods of ‘enhanced interrogation’ in Guantanamo Bay which netted the information the government needed to find, and then watch for the right moment for the kill. The operation has been in effect for four years. That’s right. This means since before Presdient Obama was in office. In reality this mission was started under President Bush administration and it just so happens that it came to a culmination now while Presdient Obama is presdient;. So please let’s stop fawning over this president and give credit where credit is due. I’ll let you decide that. As for me? Thank you to our brave men who undertook this dangerous mission with such precision. May God bless you always, and thank you Leon Panetta, and last but not least THANK YOU President Bush.
written by Rosie Reyes-Johnson
click here for Rosie Onthe Right FACEBOOK page