Panama Papers: Debate with Yanis Varoufakis

Published on 4 Apr 2016

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, Conservative MP Jesse Norman, Diane Abbott – the Shadow International Development Sec and Alexander Nekrassov a former Kremlin advisor discuss Panama Papers.

Advertenties

Being Recruited by the CIA, Espionage, and Dirty Tricks: How the CIA Works

Gepubliceerd op 1 jun. 2012

http://thefilmarchive.org/

John R. Stockwell is a former CIA officer who became a critic of United States government policies after serving in the Agency for thirteen years serving seven tours of duty. After managing U.S. involvement in the Angolan Civil War as Chief of the Angola Task Force during its 1975 covert operations, he resigned and wrote In Search of Enemies, a book which remains the only detailed, insider’s account of a major CIA “covert action.”

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian intelligence agency of the United States government. It is an executive agency and reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence, with responsibility for providing national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers. Intelligence gathering is performed by non-military commissioned civilian intelligence agents, many of whom are trained to avoid tactical situations. The CIA also oversees and sometimes engages in tactical and covert activities at the request of the President of the United States. Often, when such field operations are organized, the US military or other warfare tacticians carry these tactical operations out on behalf of the agency while the CIA oversees them. Although intelligence-gathering is the agency’s main agenda, tactical divisions were established in the agency to carry out emergency field operations that require immediate suppression or dismantling of a threat or weapon. The CIA is often used for intelligence-gathering instead of the U.S military to avoid a declaration of war.

The CIA succeeded the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), formed during World War II to coordinate espionage activities against the Axis Powers for the branches of the United States Armed Forces. The National Security Act of 1947 established the CIA, affording it “no police or law enforcement functions, either at home or abroad.” Through interagency cooperation, the CIA has Cooperative Security Locations at its disposal. These locations are called “lily pads” by the Air Force.

The primary function of the CIA is to collect information about foreign governments, corporations, and individuals, and to advise public policymakers, but it does conduct emergency tactical operations and carries out covert operations, and exerts foreign political influence through its tactical divisions, such as the Special Activities Division. The CIA and its responsibilities changed markedly in 2004. Before December 2004, the CIA was the main intelligence organization of the US government; it was responsible for coordinating the activities of the US Intelligence Community (IC) as a whole. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), which took over management and leadership of the IC.

Today, the CIA still has a number of functions in common with other countries’ intelligence agencies. The CIA’s headquarters is in Langley in McLean, unincorporated Fairfax County, Virginia, a few miles west of Washington, D.C., along the Potomac River.

Sometimes, the CIA is referred to euphemistically in government and military parlance as Other Government Agencies (OGA), particularly when its operations in a particular area are an open secret. Other terms include The Company, Langley and The Agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sto…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA

“Daddy Warbucks” of Drugs and Death – CFR member George Soros

Source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_cfr_06.htm

In “Theirs Was the Kingdom: Lila and DeWitt Wallace and the Story of the Reader’s Digest“. [New York: W.W. Norton, 1993. 701 pages], author John Heidenry writes how the Reader’s Digest grew to become the world’s most successful publisher of magazines, and largest global marketer of books. At one time the Digest had a circulation of 18 million. Heidenry also writes how the Reader’s Digest through its Washington Bureau, was a major distributor of Cold War propaganda with strong connections to the US intelligence community.

What Heidenry, fails to point out are the strong connections the Reader’s Digest has to the Council on Foreign Relations. Reader’s Digest Chairman, and CEO George V. Grune is a Council on Foreign Relations member .

In April 1998 Reader’s Digest printed an article by Senior Editor Daniel Levine, titled “HIGH ON A LIE.” The article is about the “medical marijuana” movement and explains how the movement is a hoax and a fraud. Levine fails to point out the Council on Foreign Relations links to sponsorship of the movement.

In November of 1996 the California voters passed Proposition 215 – the Compassionate Use Act. It allows the marijuana to be grown and used for “any illness for which marijuana provides relief.” The Campaign for the “Compassionate Use Act” to legalize medical marijuana would not have been successful without the funding of billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling. Levine doesn’t identify George Soros as a Council on Foreign Relations member.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff DoD Publication 1 (1987) Glossary of Department of Defense Military Associated Terms defines:

“COVERT OPERATIONS: (DoD, Interpol, Inter-American Defense Board) Operations which are so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor. They differ from clandestine operations in that emphasis is placed on concealment of identity of sponsor rather than on concealment of the operation.”

The Council on Foreign Relations has used covert operations to conceal their identity while methodically taking control of the Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the Government.

The Council on Foreign Relations is part of an international group of co-conspirators, that have been carrying out successful covert operations since the mid-1800’s. If the Council and its branch organizations weren’t so successful at divorcing themselves from their operations they would have been stopped long ago. The American Branch is the Council on Foreign Relations. The British Branch is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. They have a web site at http://www.riia.org/. They operate under what they call the Chatham House Rule http://www.riia.org/index.php?id=14:

>THE CHATHAM HOUSE RULE
>
> When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule. participants are
> free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the
> speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned
> that the information was received at a meeting of the Institute.
>
> In 1992 the application of the Rule was clarified and its wording strengthened as
> follows:-
>
> Meetings of the Institute may be held ’on the record’ or under the Chatham House Rule.
> In the latter case, in accordance with the Chatham House tradition, it may be agreed with
> the speaker(s) that it would be conducive to free discussion that a given meeting or part
> thereof, should be strictly private and thus held under the Chatham House Rule.
>
> Today the Rule is used by organizations and gatherings throughout the world.

The Council on Foreign Relations is one of the organizations. In 1942 Council on Foreign Relations member James Warburg was appointed deputy director of the overseas branch of the Office of War Information in London with responsibility for propaganda aimed at the Axis powers and occupied European Nations. In UNWRITTEN TREATY, Warburg writes,

” Psychological warfare aims at the undermining of a people’s confidence in its cause, its strength, its leaders and itself, and at the destruction of its determination to fight for its cause or even for its life.

This combination of confidence and determination we call morale. When a nation’s morale is destroyed, it commits suicide – as did Austria – or else it submits to conquest after feeble and disorganized resistance – as did France. In any case, it reaches a state of mind in which resistance seems hopeless and surrender less of an evil than endurance of armed conflict…

Psychological warfare against an enemy nation seeks to paralyze the will of that nation by spreading confusion, by alternating excessive hope and excessive fear, by exploiting every cleavage and adding fuel to every prejudice. “

The Council on Foreign Relations propaganda machine manipulates American Citizens to accept the particular climate of opinion the Council on Foreign Relations seeks to achieve in the world. Council on Foreign Relations members working in an ad hoc committee called the “Special Group” and through a vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure called the “Secret Team” formulate this opinion in the US.

The dominant Council on Foreign Relations members belong to an inner circle that plan and co-ordinate the psycho-political operations used to manipulate the American public. These are the Council on Foreign Relations members in an ad-hoc governmental committee called the “Special Group.”

The rest of the Council on Foreign Relations members, past and present, inside and outside of the government, are part of a “Secret Team” that play key parts in carrying out the psycho-political operations. The “Secret Team” is set up as circles within circles. Not every Council member knows exactly what psycho-political operations are being planed or what their exact role in the operation is. This allows them to deny responsibility and deny Council sponsorship of the operation.

Secret Team circles include Council on Foreign Relations members in top positions in:

  • the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government
  • who control television, radio, and newspaper corporations
  • who head the largest law firms
  • who run the largest and most prestigious universities
  • who direct the largest private foundations
  • who direct the largest public corporations
  • who direct and staff the major think tanks and University Institutes
  • who hold top commands in the military

Council on Foreign Relations members are focusing psycho-political operations (psyops) at the American public. The psycho-political operations are designed to undermine our confidence, and destroy our determination to fight. The psycho-political operations target the family, loyalty to our nation, and our faiths. Two of the psycho-political operations are abortion, and legalization of drugs. Council on Foreign Relations member George Soros is helping to finance both operations. Council on Foreign Relations members in the “Special Group” and on the “Secret Team” help plan and co-ordinate the operations.

The abortion and drug legalization psyops are covert operations. The identity of the Council on Foreign Relations sponsorship is kept secret. A covert operation makes the target aware something is wrong while making them helpless to do anything about it because they don’t know who is attacking them. A covert operation allows the sponsor to place members of its organization on both sides of an issue. Former Heath, Education and Welfare Secretary Council on Foreign Relations member Joseph A. Califano, Jr., calls Council on Foreign Relations member George Soros the “Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization.” However, Califano never links the Council on Foreign Relations to sponsorship of drug legalization or abortion, thus participating in concealing the identity of CFR sponsorship and participation in the covert operation.

Council on Foreign Relations member George Soros is one of the world’s richest men (estimated worth: $10 billion) and probably the biggest international investor of all time. This guy lost $600 million in one day speculating on which way the yen would jump and never flinched.

Soros doesn’t flinch because he and his fellow Council on Foreign Relations members can always steal more money. In 1995, Senator Alfonse D’Amato, as head of the Senate Banking Committee, issued a report about the Clinton Administration’s $20 billion loan to Mexico. The reason given for the loan was to prop up a staggering Mexico because any default on loans would end foreign investment in all developing countries.

The real reason was to rescue American and Mexican investors who had thrown their money into the craps game of high-interest Mexican Government bonds. For a year before the loan was ordered, on January 31, 1995, top Treasury officials and President Clinton were telling us how great things were going economically in Mexico. It was a cover-up to prevent Congressional defeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement, to bolster the Mexican and US administrations in upcoming elections in both countries, and to protect the major speculators.

An article from Newsday , “Peso Hits Record Low As Bailout Is Debated” ( Karen Rothmyer – 1/31/,95) identifies some of the Council on Foreign Relations members involved in the cover-up. They were,

“Former Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford [who] signed a declaration of support for the [bailout] plan. Also endorsing the plan was George Soros, probably the world’s most influential international investor.”

George Soros is also a member of the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group is an investor team led by Ronald Reagan’s Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci III and funded in part by the Mellon family.Carlucci is a sawed off runt with a Napoleon complex and a poor self image. The furniture in Carlucci’s office is miniaturized so he feels bigger. When Carlucci is photographed with other men, they sit down, and he stands up, to give the perception he is bigger. As president and CEO of Sears World Trade center, Carlucci left the company with a $60 million dollar loss, and went work for government.

The managing director of the Carlyle Group is George Bush’s White House Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman. A partner in the group is George Bush’s Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Another member of the Carlyle group is Richard Nixon’s White House Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Frederic Malek. George Bush Sr.’s son George Bush Jr., former CIADirector Robert Gates and current SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt are advisors to, investors in or board members of Carlyle’s companies. Included in Carlyle’s press kit are Vernon Jordan and Bob Strauss.

Carlucci, Darman, Gates, Jordan, Malek and Strauss are Council on Foreign Relations members. The
Carlyle Group has exploited their governmental connections and ties to turn itself into one of the twenty-five largest defense contractors in the world. All the members of the Carlyle group have been part of dubious investment activities. Many have been exposed in scandals that involve the Central Intelligence Agency.

Soros uses some of the money he steals to fund a group of international foundations. Foundations are used by The Council on Foreign Relations to funnel corporate and personal wealth into the policy-making process. Foundations are tax-free. Contributions to foundations are deductible from federal corporate and individual income taxes. The Foundations themselves are not subject to federal income taxation. Foundations control hundreds of Billions of dollars of money that would normally go to pay federal and individual income taxes. In 1970 there were 7000 foundations that controlled $20 Billion in assets. Nearly 40% of these foundation assets were controlled by the top 12 foundations:

  • Ford Foundation
  • Lilly Foundation
  • Rockefeller Foundation
  • Duke Endowment
  • Kresge Foundation
  • Kellogg Foundation
  • Mott Foundation
  • Pew Mutual Trust
  • Hartford Foundation
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Carnegie Foundation

The top twelve foundations were controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Foundations can he created by corporations or individuals. These corporations or individuals can name themselves and their friends as directors or trustees of the foundations they create. Large blocks of corporate stock or large amounts of personal wealth can be donated as tax-exempt contributions to the foundations. The foundations can receive interest, dividends, profit shares, and capital gains from these assets without paying any taxes on them. The directors or trustees, of course, are not allowed to use foundation income or assets for their personal expenses, as they would their own taxable income, But otherwise they have great latitude in directing the use of foundation monies-to underwrite research, investigate social problems, create or assist universities, write research, investigate social problems, establish “think tanks,” endow museums, etc. [1]

At the Soros foundation Web Site (http://www.soros.org/) we learn that the:

“National foundations are autonomous institutions established by Mr. Soros in particular countries to initiate and support projects. National foundations are located primarily in the previously communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, but also in Guatemala, Haiti, Mongolia, and South Africa. Each national foundation has a board of directors and staff who set the priorities for the foundation’s work. The national foundations are, in most cases, autonomous nongovernmental organizations registered in their own countries and staffed by local professionals. The foundations develop distinct programs in support of the mission and strategic goals established by their directors and staff. These programs vary greatly in nature and urgency from country to country. The local nature of the foundations represented here is one of the distinctive features of Mr. Soros’ approach to philanthropy.”

One of the Foundations, the Open Society Institute, is issuing grants to promote abortion. Among the programs those that use abortion as a method for family planning.

  • Is the Soros Foundation a way for the Council on Foreign Relations to use tax payer money to promote abortion and population control?
  • Are the Soros Foundations part of the Council on Foreign Relations “Secret Team.”?
  • Do Soros Foundation employees double as covert operators who carry out well planned psycho-political operations in the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union?
  • Are any Soros’ Foundation employees also CIA agents?

The Council on Foreign Relations controls the US Banking industry, and has controlled the Federal Reserve since it’s inception. Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Edward Rubin was sworn in as the 70th Secretary of the Treasury on January 10, 1995. On May 18, 1998 Reuter’s reported

“Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno, at a joint news conference, said a three-year undercover operation had resulted in the indictment of officials from 12 of Mexico’s 19 largest banks. They said it was the first time that Mexican banks were ‘directly linked to laundering the Cali and Juarez cartels’ U.S drug profits.”

Are any drug profits laundered by Council on Foreign Relations controlled US banks?

CFR member Congressman Richard Gephardt (D-MO), recently informed the TV audience America will soon have to relinquish control to a “International Regime.”

  • Are we approaching the day when students and workers marching in the United States will be crushed by UN Peacekeeping Forces under the control of this International Regime?
  • Who will control the Regime?
  • The Council on Foreign Relations?
  • Should a major political party consider someone willing to turn our country over to a “International Regime” a possible presidential candidate?

Daniel Levine’s article “High on a Lie” follows. It explains how George Soros is using his money to finance a psycho-political operation that would legalize and encourage drug use in America. Is the “medical marijuana” movement a psycho-political operation meant to create another problem that will divide and occupy the attention of the American people, while the Council on Foreign Relationscontinues to destroy America and make it part of an international Regime under Council on Foreign Relations member control?

High on a Lie
Funded by billionaires, the “medical marijuana” movement is blowing smoke in our eyes

BY DANIEL LEVINE, Senior Editor, READER’s DIGEST, April 1998

ONE SATURDAY last September, 50,000 people, most of them teenagers, crowded into the Boston Common for the eighth annual Freedom Rally. Its organizers billed it as the largest marijuana-legalization event on the East Coast. Strolling through the crowd, holding a joint, was a 17-year-old high- school senior who said his name was Bill. “If they allow sick people to use it,” he said, “it can’t be that damaging.”

Sharing a marijuana pipe with two friends, a 15-year-old named Nicole agreed. “Pot is harmless,” she said. “It should be legalized because there are so many medical benefits. It helps you with a lot of things. It’s the best.”

An increasing number of young Americans agree. They have gotten this idea from a well-funded movement to legalize the “compassionate” use of marijuana. While every legitimate drug requires rigorous testing by the FDA before being approved, marijuana advocates are opting for medicine by popular vote. This year signatures are being gathered for medical-marijuana initiatives in a half-dozen states and the District of Columbia.

Marijuana’s main active ingredient, THC, is effective in relieving nausea and inducing weight gain in cancer and AIDS patients. That is why the FDA has approved Marinol, a synthetic pill form of THC. But marijuana in its smoked form has never been shown in controlled scientific studies to be safe or effective. In fact, marijuana smoke contains over 2000 chemicals many of which produce psychoactive reactions, cause lung damage and – in cancer and AIDS patients-increase the risk of pneumonia and weaken the immune system. Inhaling the smoke also disrupts short-term memory and leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by heroin, cocaine and other highly addictive drugs.

“There is no conclusive scientific evidence that marijuana is superior to currently available medicines,” says Dr. Eric Voth, chairman of the International Drug Strategy Institute in Omaha. “Medical marijuana is a scam that takes advantage of sick and dying patients.”

Says Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, (Ret.), director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,

“Medical marijuana is a stalking-horse for legalization. This is not about compassion. This is about legalizing dangerous drugs.”

Daddy Warbucks” of Drugs
The legalization of marijuana and other drugs has been debated for more than 30 years, with a vast majority of Americans standing in opposition. Legalization supporters have used the argument that drugs are necessary for medical reasons. But now, for the first time, they have significant financial backing.

In the last six years a handful of Americas wealthiest people have contributed $20 million to groups that promote medical marijuana or other radical drug-policy reforms. Billionaire financierGeorge Soros is the biggest giver, donating more than $16 million. Others include Peter Lewis, CEO of Cleveland-based Progressive Corp., the nation’s sixth-largest auto insurer, and John Sperling, president of the Apollo Group, a holding company that controls for-profit universities and job-training centers.

In an interview with Reader’s Digest, the 76-year-old Sperling said he believes doctors should be allowed to prescribe all drugs, including heroin and LSD. Lewis declined to be interviewed.

A spokesman for Soros said he does not support drug legalization. Nonetheless, Soros has donated millions since 1992 to groups led by people advocating it. Former Heath, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano, Jr., calls him the “Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization.”

Soros created a drug-policy institute called The Lindesmith Center and has funded it with $4 million. Its director, Ethan Nadelmann, Sores’s point man on drug policy, has said he wants to “legalize the personal possession of drugs by adult Americans.”

Soros has also given $6.4 million to the Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) a leading advocate for medical marijuana. Its stated mission is “publicizing alternatives to current drug strategies.” Its founder, attorney and college professor Arnold Trebach, calls himself a “flat-out legalizer” who advocates the repeal of current drug laws.

Richard J. Dennis, a 49-year-old Chicago commodities trader and member of DPF’s board of directors, supports both medical marijuana and legalization in general. In fact, says Dennis,

“I’d like to see legalization for adults for all drugs, including heroin.”

On DPF advisory board is Harvard Medical School psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon, a leading advocate of medical marijuana for over 25 years. He compares marijuana’s potential benefit to that of penicillin, predicting, “It will be the wonder drug of the new millennium.”

Soros, Lewis and Spelling gained their biggest victory in November 1996 when California voters passed Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act. It allows pot to be grown and smoked for “any illness for which marijuana provides relief.” There are no age restrictions. “Illness” is loosely defined and can include headaches, chronic pain and arthritis. A doctor’s oral recommendation is all that is required.

The principal author of the California initiative was 52-year-old Dennis Peron, a San Francisco “medical pot club” owner who’s been arrested 15 times on marijuana charges. Peron says he worded the initiative vaguely because he believes “all marijuana use is medical.”

Peron’s Cannabis Cultivators’ Club is the state’s largest pot club, taking in over $20,000 a day. One day last fall, Peron wandered the club greeting patrons and handed one a bulging quarter-pound bag of marijuana. Standing in line at Peron’s smoke-filled club to buy an eighth of an ounce of high-grade Mexican marijuana was a 39-year-old named Anthony. Under California’s law, Anthony is considered a “seriously ill patient” who can purchase and smoke pot. He tokes up four or five times a day.

When asked about his ailment, Anthony answered: “Officially, hernia discomfort from overstrenuous intercourse. Actually, I can’t feel it.” He said the club admitted him without any medical referral. A self-described “potaholic,” Anthony has smoked dope since he was 16. “My problems,” he conceded, “are related to a general life-style kind of thing.”

Peron’s club had operated for years, despite violating state and federal drug laws. In August 1996, state drug agents raided it, seizing 86 pounds of pot and $62,000. “The club was running a sophisticated illegal drug distribution network,” said a spokesman for California Attorney General Dan Lungren. A grand jury indicted Peron, and he awaits trial on felony drug charges. Meanwhile, Peron is running for governor of California. Peron’s initiative never would have made it to the ballot without the help of Soros, Lewis and Sperling.

California requires 433,269 valid petition signatures before a “citizen’s initiative” can be placed on the ballot. As the deadline neared, Peron and his unorganized group of volunteers had collected only 40,000.

That is when Ethan Nadelmann of Soro’s Lindesmith Center stepped in. He helped create Californians for Medical Rights, a sophisticated campaign organization that pushed the medical-marijuana initiative. Soros and Lewis poured $400,000 into the group, which paid professional signature gatherers who, in 90 days, obtained more than 700,000 signatures.

Once the measure was on the ballot, Soros, Lewis and Sperling contributed a combined $450,000 for advertising. Commercials featured emotional appeals for relief through the use of marijuana. The ads never mentioned that Proposition 215 would allow marijuana to be smoked for any condition, without age restriction and without a prescription.

One of the numerous medical- marijuana clubs that opened as a result of Peron’s measure was the Dharma Producers Group in San Francisco, which bragged that it offered “medical marijuana with a Tibetan touch.” The club’s “medical director,” a pony-tailed 52-year-old named Lorenzo Pace, laughed when he explained his medical- marijuana credentials: “I did preliminary research all through the ’60s.”

Californians for Medical Rights has since changed its name to Americans for Medical Rights. Today it is leading a campaign to place medical-marijuana initiatives on state ballots across the country.

Rx: LSD.
While Californians were voting on medical marijuana, their neighbors in Arizona were considering an even more radical initiative. The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 proposed to legalize not only marijuana but also more than 100 other drugs–including heroin, LSD and PCP (angel dust) for medical use.

Arizona’s initiative was sold to voters as a way to get tough on violent criminals. How? Open up jail space by paroling all first- and second-time drug offenders. This ignored the fact that virtually all of the 1200 inmates affected had plea-bargained down from much more serious charges or had prior felony records.

In Arizona, Sperling spearheaded the campaign. He, Soros and Lewis contributed a total of $1.2 million; the DPF gave $303,000. This accounted for 99 percent of the initiative total funding. As in California, much of this money paid for a massive media campaign. Opponents of the initiative, caught unprepared, did not run a single advertisement.

The measure passed, but a post-election survey revealed that Arizona voters had been badly misled. Seventy-four percent did not believe doctors should be able to prescribe drugs such as heroin, PCP and LSD, as the proposition allowed; 70 percent agreed the initiative would give children the impression the drugs were also acceptable for recreational use. The state legislature subsequently passed a statute that effectively overrode the initiative.

Fighting Back
The organizers of Arizona’s initiative moved to place a similar measure on the ballot in Washington State. Sperling, Lewis and Soros contributed a total of more than $1.5 million.

Despite being outspent more than ten to one, opponents of the Washington initiative were not about to be caught unprepared. They took every opportunity to stress that the measure was not about compassion, but about legalizing dangerous drugs. Last November voters rejected the measure.

The defeat in Washington has not sidetracked plans for similar medical marijuana initiatives in other states. Battlegrounds include Hawaii, Florida, Arkansas, Maine and Alaska. An Oregon initiative would not only legalize use of many drugs but also permit the sale of marijuana in state liquor stores. In Washington, D. C., Initiative 59 would allow up to four caregivers, including “best friends,” to cultivate pot for a “seriously ill” person. Organizers are hoping that passage of these initiatives will spur Congress to legalize medical marijuana under federal law.

Says Dr. Robert DuPont, a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse:

“Never in the history of modern medicine has burning leaves been considered medicine. Those in the medical-marijuana movement are putting on white coats and expressing concerns about the sick. But people need to see this for what it is: a fraud and a hoax.”

You can stop the Council on Foreign Relations, by making them visible. Tell other Americans who the Council on Foreign Relations are, and what they are doing. Write your elected representatives and demand that they investigate the Council on Foreign Relations role in the CFR run Clinton administrations sale of military technology to China. Demand that the Iran-Contra investigation be reopened and that the Council on Foreign Relations links to key individuals under investigation and performing the investigation be explored and explained.

Petition For The Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. This Petition is auto sent via email to all Senate/House/members. ( http://celebseries.com/slick/ ) .

Write letters to your local papers, radio, and TV stations, and ask them why they fail to link the CFR to many of their top news stories.

How would Council on Foreign Relations prize winning University Professors, Historians, Authors, Statesmen, Politicians, and Journalists explain to a Grand Jury, why links to the Council on Foreign Relations are missing from major news stories, and from the history books?

[1] Dye, Thomas R., Who’s Running America?, Prentice-Hall, 1976, pgs 103-107

The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power

Source: http://www.aim.org/special-report/the-hidden-soros-agenda-drugs-money-the-media-and-political-power/


4 Comments   |   Printer Friendly

How many times have we heard or read stories about Vice President Dick Cheney’s old firm, Halliburton, and its alleged influence over the government? A public company with more than 100,000 employees, Halliburton had revenues of $13 billion in 2001. However, George Soros is a human Halliburton who will be in a position if John Kerry is elected president to pull the strings. He is reportedly worth $7.2 billion. But his role in buying the White House for John Kerry has received generally positive coverage. Soros, we’re told, is a “philanthropist” committed to “democracy.” The Republican Party, by contrast, is supposed to be run by fat cats and Big Business, such as those at Halliburton.

Soros may be the biggest political fat cat of all time. Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests. He is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. His power is such that his statements alone can cause currencies to go up or down. Other people suffer so he can get rich. But journalists don’t want to examine the questionable means by which he achieved his wealth because they share his goal of electing Kerry and the Democrats.  Curiously, once he made his fortune he became a global socialist, endorsing global taxes on the very means he employed to get rich ? international currency speculation and manipulation.

The media consistently ignore the fact that this so-called “philanthropist” has had several brushes with the law as he has laid siege to national economies and currencies. Hard-working U.S. businessmen understand how Soros has made his money. In protesting a Soros appearance hosted by the University of Toledo, Edwin J. Nagle III, president and CEO of the Nagle Companies, highlighted “the immoral and unethical means by which he achieved his wealth.” He added, “I certainly didn’t see included in his bio the stories on how he collapsed whole country’s currencies for his own self interests so that many may suffer.”

Here, Soros signed a consent decree in United States District Court, in a Securities and Exchange Commission case involving stock manipulation, and was fined $75,000 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for holding positions “in excess of speculative limits.” Stories about Soros rarely, if ever, mention any of his legal problems.

Despite his vision of an “open society,” he operates an unregulated “hedge fund,” open only to the super-rich, and is currently fighting a proposal from the Bush-appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and monitor these offshore entities.  House Speaker Dennis Hastert said on national television that no one really knows where the Soros money comes from.

Soros has categorically denied receiving money from drug cartels or any form of criminal activity. The fact remains, however, that at least some of his financial operations have been based offshore, in banking and financial centers that are widely reported to be considered conducive to money-laundering.  The Soros fund is based in the Netherlands Antilles, a self-governing federation of five Caribbean islands. A CIA factbook describes the region as “a transshipment point for South American drugs bound for the US and Europe; money-laundering center.”

Soros reportedly purchased a major stake in one of Colombia’s biggest banks, at a time when the Drug Enforcement Administration, in its study, “Colombian Economic Reform: The Impact on Drug Money Laundering within the Colombian Economy,”  was documenting how major drug kingpins were taking advantage of the liberalization of the economy to put illicit drug revenue into legitimate businesses. The report stated: “U.S. and Colombian Government authorities have evidence of drug proceeds being deposited in every major bank in Colombia… A Colombian source indicated that many banks and businesses are owned covertly by principal members of the Cali cartel.”

His complex web of financial interests, companies and foundations makes Halliburton look like a Mom & Pop operation.

The charge we read in the press is that Halliburton gets government contracts and makes money from the Iraq war. Far less attention has been paid to the fact that the company has lost 54 employees as a result of that war. Nobody in the press mentions that Soros profits from the Kosovo war, which he supported as a preemptive strike against Yugoslavia, because he runs an investment fund that now does business there. Even though he pays big bucks to advertise his opposition to the Bush policy of democracy-building in Iraq, reporters still describe him as someone with a reputation for building democracy abroad.

However, his position on Iraq may be a diversion from the real reason he wants to get rid of Bush ? his longstanding desire to adopt a national “retreat and defeat” approach to the drug problem.

Soros’ long-time goal has been to subvert the national anti-drug policy of the U.S. Government, to move away from the use of national and global law enforcement resources against the drug trade.  He calls this “harm reduction,” meaning that criminal activity associated with the use of drugs will supposedly be reduced if the government takes over the drug trade and provides drugs and drug paraphernalia, including needles, to addicts. But law enforcement would still be required to keep drugs out of the hands of children.  If this is not the case, then Soros intends to allow substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin to be distributed to children.

If Soros is able to capture the White House and implement his drug policy nationally, millions more people could be led to experiment with dangerous psychoactive substances and damage themselves, their families, and society. Even marijuana, depicted by the media as a “soft” drug, has extremely negative consequences. In the new book, “Marijuana and Madness,” one of the editors, Prof. Robin Murray of Britain’s Institute of Psychiatry, cites studies and evidence from around the world, some of it going back 40 years, linking the use of marijuana to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and psychosis.

In a recent article about his growing financial and political clout, the Washington Post sanitized Soros by claiming that he “funded efforts to reform campaign laws, decriminalize marijuana and change [the] criminal justice system.” All of that is misleading, if not false. His “reform” of campaign laws left a loophole that will enable him to set a record “for the most money donated by an individual in an election cycle,” to quote the Post itself. So where are the investigative stories into Soros and his agenda?

A key part of the Soros agenda — his proposed surrender in the war on drugs — has been carefully concealed from the American people during this campaign. The war on Islamic terrorism is front and center, to be sure, but the war on drugs is still of major concern to millions of Americans, especially parents fearful of the influence of Hollywood and the drug culture.

A Soros role in formulating national drug policy is worthy of special press attention because his pro-drug legalization campaign has been considered at odds with the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who share the view that legalization would make the drug problem far worse.

In the current campaign, however, a major transformation has taken place. Soros is said to have “privatized” or replaced the Democratic Party by subsidizing many different liberal-left organizations that comprise its political base and creating new ones, the “527” organizations.

Among the candidates who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, Soros financially supported John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Senator Bob Graham, and Howard Dean. He has been praised by Senator Hillary Clinton and contributed to her Senate campaign and political action committee.  He has also contributed to the political campaigns of Democratic Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Corzine, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, Joseph Biden, Patrick Leahy, Paul Sarbanes, Thomas Harkin, and Barbara Boxer. In 2002, Soros funded Al Gore for president and contributed $153,000 in “soft money” to the Democratic National Committee. Soros, who is also very close to Bill Clinton, was described by Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott as a “national treasure.”

It is significant that Soros and two of his sons have contributed $2000 each to Brad Carson, the Democratic Senate candidate in Oklahoma. His Republican opponent, Dr. Tom Coburn, was a member of the U.S. House for six years, where he developed a reputation as a leading opponent of efforts to legalize marijuana and fund needle exchange programs that facilitate illicit drug use.  Coburn exposed Soros-style “harm reduction” as a backdoor approach to legalization of illicit drugs. Coburn was also a strong supporter of drug testing and even fought to require drug testing of members of Congress. Coburn and his staff voluntarily underwent drug testing. If elected to the Senate, say his supporters, Coburn would be the chamber’s leading voice for protecting children from the dangers of drug abuse and a scientific voice of reason against the Soros-supported movement that seeks to legalize drugs. It’s no wonder that Soros and his sons have targeted Coburn for defeat.

Soros has also contributed to Barack Obama, running for the Senate as a Democrat from Illinois. CNSNews.com reports that, “Not only did Soros donate to Obama’s campaign, but four other family members – Jennifer, sons Jonathan and Robert and wife Susan – did as well. Because of a special provision campaign finance laws, the Soroses were able to give a collective $60,000 to Obama during his primary challenge.”

Soros was described by the New Yorker as close to Harold Ickes, a former Clinton deputy chief of staff who runs the Media Fund, one of many Soros-supported “527” groups. Soros described him as a “real pro.”

Away from the scrutiny or even the notice of the establishment press, Soros has emerged as a counter-culture hero.

The drug culture magazine, Heads, calls him “Daddy Weedbucks,” ran an excerpt from his book, Soros on Soros, and declared that “he drops the bucks exactly where they’re needed.”  The September-October issue of the drug culture magazine High Times recognizes the stakes, noting that there are “ten reasons to get rid of Bush” and that one is that there will be “No legalization of pot” under Bush. The implication of the article was that the situation would change under Kerry.

None of this is being reported, however, by the major media.

His partner, Peter Lewis, whitewashed by the Post as “one of the country’s 10 most generous philanthropists,” was actually arrested in New Zealand for “importing” drugs, including hashish and marijuana.

The Human Halliburton

The media call him a billionaire “philanthropist” who “promotes democracy” and “democratic institutions” abroad.  He has been invited to address the National Press Club on October 28, 2004, just before the election. But admitted marijuana user George Soros, who says he tried marijuana “and enjoyed it,” doesn’t just “give” money away. He spends money for a purpose because he wants to remake America and the world.  He is depicted in a recent lengthy New Yorker article by Jane Mayer as well-intentioned, not that concerned about money, the victim of scurrilous attacks, and someone who simply wants his “ideas” to “be heard.” This is typical of the fawning coverage of Soros. Mayer made a brief reference to his collaborator, Peter B. Lewis,  and his funding of “efforts to decriminalize marijuana,” but she failed to explore how Soros is himself committed to legalizing dangerous drugs. Mayer did disclose that a meeting was held in August, after the Democratic Party convention, of what critics call a “billionaire conspiracy” to defeat Bush.  Soros and Lewis were among the participants in the meeting, which was supposed to be kept private.

Soros’ strong opposition to President Bush’s effort to create democratic institutions in Iraq contradicts his alleged support for democracy. But the media don’t point this out because they oppose Bush’s Iraq policy. Mayer, who interviewed the billionaire at length, suggests that Soros may be “looking for influence [in a Kerry Administration] to get out of Iraq” but that to pursue such an objective in exchange for his financial support to the candidate might be deemed “not appropriate” by some observers.

It would be unwise for the public to dismiss the idea that he would not demand implementation of his other “ideas,” including drug legalization.

Sometimes described as an atheist or agnostic, Soros has announced a vision of a secular “open society.” However, his agenda of drug legalization has remained largely hidden from public view during the current campaign.

While Soros may not want to openly talk about what he would expect out of a Kerry Administration, his allies have obviously been giving it much thought.

At the 2004 conference of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance  was asked about his association with Soros and the billionaire’s attempt to put John Kerry in the White House. The questioner asked, “Are we going to get some Supreme Court justices out this?” Nadelmann modestly answered, “We will see,” and cautioned that it may be difficult to deliver “all the goods.”

This is critical because the U.S. Supreme Court is already considering the matter of the several U.S. states that have laws on the books permitting some form of “medical marijuana” use, a violation of federal law, and could return to the subject in the future. The Court is expected to rule by June 2005 on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, challenged by the Bush administration, that bars federal agents from interfering with the growing and use of marijuana by two women in California.

Hollywood has already been captured by the illegal drug lobby.

At the 2004 NORML conference, Allen St. Pierre of the NORML Foundation described how various U.S. television programs “have previewed marijuana in a way ultimately positive.” He named them as ER, Chicago Hope, the Practice, Sybil, Murphy Brown, Sports Night, Becker, West Wing, Roseanne, Sex in the City, Six Feet Under, Whoopi, Montel, That 70s Show,  and the Larry David Show. “These shows are seen by tens of millions of people,” he said. “So that’s what it’s so crucial that we’re able to capture?and to demonstrate the change in?culture.”

The challenge for the drug culture is now to capture the U.S. Government. Soros is their front man.

Bloomberg.com quoted Strobe Talbott, U.S. deputy secretary of state from 1994 to 2001, as saying, “Whenever George Soros called and asked to meet, I would move heaven and earth to do so. I treated him like the foreign minister of another country because of all that he had done.” Even under the Bush Administration, Soros has been considered an important and influential figure. He gave a September 16, 2003, speech at the State Department on “America in the Global Community: Building Long-Term Security.”

So think about the clout he would have if he almost single-handedly buys the White House for John Kerry and plays a role in the election of several new Senators.

Rather than investigate the source of the Soros money, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson has praised Soros for engineering the “privatization” of the Democratic Party through funding of the “527” political groups and bypassing what he calls an incompetent Democratic Party apparatus.  At the far-left “Take Back America” forum in June, Soros was photographed greeting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who introduced him to the group. She told the crowd that, “we need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.” He stepped up with his money.

However, Meyerson and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman  have attacked House Speaker Dennis Hastert for raising questions about where Soros gets his money.

A professed believer in democracy, Soros has used the “527” loophole in a campaign finance law that he promoted to restrict the political activities of “special interests.” He has set a record “for the most money donated by an individual in an election cycle.”  Those “special interests” turned out to be other people ? not him.  He has since poured millions of dollars into anti-Bush groups and voter registration drives, some marked by alleged fraud, for the Democratic Party.

His commitment to democracy is never questioned. Typical of the pro-Soros media coverage was a USA Today story on June 1 that gave Soros credit for freeing millions of people from communism and “supporting democracy.” The story ignored his insider trading conviction. While Soros provided some funding to anti-communist groups during the Cold War, his career has been designed to make money and extend his influence over nations and people. Communism was a threat because it was not hospitable to his investments.

An excellent example of how he operates is Kosovo. As indicated earlier, it is relevant to note that, after the Soros-supported war on Kosovo,  a province of Yugoslavia, a Soros fund announced in 2000 that it was investing $150 million — with loan guarantees from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation — in the Balkans. It was called the “Southeast Europe Equity Fund.” By 2002, the OPIC-supported size of the investment had risen to $200 million and OPIC announced that Soros Investment Capital, Ltd. Fund Yugoslavia had acquired a controlling stake in Eksimbanka, a private commercial bank in Serbia, and had financed the start-up of Serbia Broadband Networks, the leading cable television and broadband services company in Serbia.

What’s more, his “open society” doesn’t extend to himself. He unregulated “hedge funds,” open only to the super rich, are beyond public scrutiny or the interest of the press.  In a curious chapter of his career, he reportedly invested in an energy company run by George W. Bush, in an unsuccessful attempt to buy influence with the Bush family.

As noted, in another curious development, the global capitalist has become a global socialist advocating a global tax, known as the Tobin Tax, on the means by which he exploited the global capitalist system and became rich ? international currency speculation and manipulation. Soros has declared that the Tobin Tax is a “valid suggestion” for raising international revenue and that opposition to implementing the tax can be overcome. What has not been reported  is that Thomas Palley, the director of the Globalization Reform Project at Soros’ Open Society Institute, was a featured speaker at a January 2003 event in Washington, D.C. to discuss how to implement the tax.

“He made his money the old-fashioned way, on Wall Street,” wrote Post columnist Harold Meyerson. In fact, he made his money through investment techniques that are not available to ordinary investors, and his financial interventions can affect nations and their economies.

Soros claims that the “527” organizations he funds “file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators.” On the January 9 NOW With Bill Moyers program on PBS, Charles Lewis of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity argued that while Soros was funding 527 groups, Soros was disclosing these contributions and that the money could be tracked.

Again, that begs the question of where he gets his money.

His use of that loophole — in a law that he promoted to restrict the influence of outside “special interests” on political campaigns — is suspicious and curious on its face. Equally curious, Soros claims that the Bush Administration’s reaction to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq caused him to spend millions of dollars through these “527” organizations to defeat Bush.  However, Soros favored the Clinton Administration’s preemptive attack on Yugoslavia, in the absence of any threat to the U.S. and without U.S. Congressional authorization.

While Soros runs around the country talking about defeating Bush, mostly because of his Iraq policy, he is using his money to target other candidates who have prosecuted the war on drugs.

The pro-Soros national media have refused to examine the implications of a ruling by New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Malone. He ruled that it was improper for the Soros-backed Working Families Party to get involvement in a Democratic primary for District Attorney and he referred the case to local prosecutors and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for a possible criminal investigation.  Thanks to the money provided by Soros, David Soares defeated incumbent District Attorney Paul Clyne in the Democratic primary. At the time of Clyne’s defeat, Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance Network said he was proud that his group had “contributed to this race” and that “what happened in Albany” has “national resonance.” That suggested to some that Soros, if he is successful in putting John Kerry in the White House, would change the nation’s anti-drug policy.

The Criminals Lobby

Soros, who lives in New York, has also contributed $150,000 to a California ballot measure, proposition 66, to overturn the three-strikes law, which mandates prison terms of 25-years-to-life for defendants convicted of a third felony. The ballot measure is opposed by the state’s district attorneys and law enforcement agencies.

In other unsavory connections, a Soros grant was given to Linda Evans, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton for her involvement in the Weather Underground terrorist group. The Weather Underground was involved in the 1981 Brinks robbery, in which three murders were committed, and a series of bombings, including the bombing of the U.S. Capitol in November 1983.

The Baltimore, Maryland, branch of the OSI on May 12 hosted Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the Weather Underground who once expressed solidarity with mass murderer Charles Manson,  at a forum on criminal justice issues.  Speaking to a Weather Underground “war council” in Michigan in 1969, Dohrn gave a three-fingered “fork salute” to Manson. As noted by Ami Naramor of The Claremont Institute,  “Calling Manson’s victims the ‘Tate Eight,’ Dohrn gloated over the fact that actress Sharon Tate, who was pregnant at the time, had been stabbed with a fork in her womb. ‘Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!’” Dohrn, now an associate professor and director at Northwestern University’s Children and Justice Center, was a member of the advisory committee of the “children’s rights watch” project of Human Rights Watch,  funded by Soros.

Not coincidentally, the drug culture has embraced the Weather Underground. High Times magazine has called David Gilbert, a Weather Underground member now in prison, an “anti-imperialist political prisoner” and has hailed his book, No Surrender.  High Times says Gilbert works behind bars for “prisoners’ rights” ? a favorite cause of Soros.

The latest development is creation of “Cannabis Consumers,” a bizarre organization of out-of-the-closet illegal pot smokers, formed to celebrate and glorify the drug. Director Mikki Norris, who says her group received a grant from the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance, says, “we honor George Soros.”

The Soros-supported Drug Policy Alliance supports “marijuana clubs” currently dispensing the drug, supposedly on “medical” grounds. The federal government has tried to close down these clubs?a policy that could change if Soros gains access to and influence over the White House. Several states have passed “medical marijuana” initiatives, funded by Soros, attempting to provide the drug under the cover of treating illnesses. But the American people have been kept in the dark about whether the Soros campaign to weaken drug laws would be embraced and implemented on a national basis by a Kerry Administration.

One of the few reporters to question the Soros agenda is John Berlau of Insight magazine,  who asked whether Soros would benefit financially from his huge expenditures on political activity. Michael Vachon, the spokesman for Soros Fund Management in New York City, said,  “I have no faith in the ability or desire of Insight magazine to portray George Soros’ activities in an unbiased manner.” Pressed, he said, “There’s no relationship between the policy prescriptions George Soros recommends and his own financial holdings. He doesn’t make policy recommendations to increase his own personal wealth. That’s not what motivates him.”

There can be no doubt, however, that if the Soros plan for drug legalization goes forward, there would have to be an official infrastructure in place to finance drug production and distribution and handle the enormous profits that will be made from legalization. Legalization will not eliminate drug profits, it will only transfer some of them to government and “legitimate” industries. Soros could be poised to invest in those industries and companies.

He is laying the groundwork for the creation of a system under which government and corporations would legalize, dispense and advertise hard drugs, much like tobacco or alcohol, and supply addicts with needles and drug paraphernalia. In effect, Soros appears to be financing drug legalization for the purpose of creating a new market for federal payments to underwrite drug purchases for addicts.  Soros appears to favor an indoor version of “Needle Park,” where addicts come to government offices to inject or smoke their drugs at taxpayer expense.

His position is also reflected in his funding of the ACLU,  which itself favors the legalization of all drugs?even heroin and crack cocaine?and opposes virtually all measures taken to curtail drug use. In another example of its extremist approach, the group has rejected funds from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and participation in the Combined Federal Campaign, because acceptance of the money would require adopting measures to make sure it does not employ terrorists or support terrorist activity.

Soros hired Aryeh Neier as president of his Open Society Institute (OSI) in 1993. Neier worked for the ACLU for 15 years, including eight as national director.

Typically, Soros and his cronies present the current “war on drugs” as draconian, a huge waste of money and a threat to civil liberties. Legalization is then presented, usually couched in terms of reducing the harm associated with illegal use and procurement of drugs. The audience is never presented with a third option?eradication of drug crops at home and abroad, an intensified military/intelligence effort against drug lords abroad, tougher sentences for users and dealers, and more drug testing.

In 1995, Soros made a major contribution to the Council on Foreign Relations,  which two years later, under the leadership of Mathea Falco,  released a comprehensive report on U.S. international drug control strategy, entitled, Rethinking International Drug Control. However, A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times, who participated in the task force that drafted the report, declined to endorse it, saying that it “is so negative in substance and tone about United States efforts to stem drug use, production and distribution that it amounts to an invitation to drop those efforts?”

Soros clearly has his sights set on global policy on drugs. Soros was a signer of a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urging a radical revamping of global anti-drug policies. Another signer was Morton H. Halperin, a former Department of Defense and National Security Council Official.

In a typical laudatory article about Soros, USA Today author Rick Hampson made a brief reference to his belief in “liberalized drug laws.” Nothing was said, however, about how Soros has managed to liberalize or weaken those laws across the country, and how he has his sights set on national anti-drug policy. The National District Attorneys Association says that since 1996 “incremental changes in state drug laws have continued at an alarming rate across our nation” and they are designed to “ultimately legalize drugs.” Soros was identified in this report as one of the wealthy individuals behind this “very well financed” drug legalization movement that is “highly adept at manipulating the media.”

In an October 18 Newsweek story, “Can a Billionaire Beat Bush?”  writer Marcus Mabry  said that Soros will “be there” even if Bush wins, ready to “build a new left?” Soros and other ” wealthy progressives,” he says, “will set about assembling the infrastructure,” including think tanks, foundations, and civic groups, of this “new left.”

But Soros has already done this. The late left-wing writer, Walt Contreras Sheasby, noted that the Soros influence “is one of those hushed secrets inside the left?” and that he has subsidized “many of the activist groups, luminaries and publications of the American left?”

Mabry completely ignored his pro-drug legalization agenda and erroneously claimed that his involvement in this year’s presidential campaign is “his first significant involvement in American electoral politics.” Mabry ignored Soros’s funding of at least 19 initiatives to weaken drug laws.

Journalists carefully conceal their own conflicts of interest. On the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) NOW With Bill Moyers program on January 9 of this year, Moyers interviewed Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity about the big money supporting the presidential candidates. But little time and attention was paid to how Soros was trying to buy the White House and pouring millions of dollars into groups such as MoveOn.org to bring this about. Moyers, former press secretary to President Lyndon Johnson, failed to tell his viewers that he is on the board of Soros’ Open Society Institute and that it has funneled $1.7 million into Lewis and his Center for Public Integrity. Moyers had conducted and aired an interview with Soros on September 12, 2003, where he declared, “The Republican Party has been captured by a bunch of extremists?” Soros was presented as an opponent of unchecked capitalism and a supporter of democracy and nation-building abroad.

The power of the Soros-supported media network was demonstrated in mid-October when a controversy emerged over Sinclair Broadcasting airing parts of Stolen Honor, a film raising questions about the detrimental impact of John Kerry’s 1971 anti-war testimony on U.S. Vietnam POWs being held by the communists. Kerry had branded U.S. soldiers as war criminals, and POWs interviewed in Stolen Honor said this resulted in more torture to them. The Democratic Party, the Kerry campaign, and various groups denounced Sinclair for planning to air Stolen Honor. MediaChannel.org, Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, Media Access Project, Media for Democracy, and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ held an anti-Sinclair news conference. They denounced Sinclair for allegedly abusing the public airwaves by planning to air “propaganda.”  All of these organizations — except for the possible exception of the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ — are funded by Soros.

Media Matters, a left-wing media watchdog group that was also pressuring Sinclair to abandon plans to air the testimony of the former POWs, was “developed” with help from the Center for American Progress, funded by Soros.

The attack on Sinclair had the effect of diverting attention away from the extensive and controversial media connections of Soros, his foundations, and the organizations they subsidize, and legitimate questions about the Soros-supported candidate John Kerry.  These groups ? and the many prominent journalists who serve on their boards ? make Sinclair look penny ante.

Pro-Soros media coverage dates back many years and continues to the present day, as detailed in this report.  In 1996, Dan Rather’s CBS Evening News highlighted him as a philanthropist and humanitarian, someone who had made a fortune but was now making a difference. The story by correspondent Anthony Mason ignored his commitment to legalization of drugs.

That same year, Judith Miller of the New York Times wrote that he was “bringing his philanthropy home.” While she made a brief reference to his drug legalization agenda, the headline over the piece said he was committed to “social justice.” His close adviser, Aryeh Neier, a longtime ACLU official, was described merely as a “human rights advocate.”

On the far left, The Nation magazine and its Nation Institute have been supported by OSI. The magazine published a generally flattering piece about the Soros-funded Center for American Progress.

In 1994 Soros received the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award at an International Press Freedom Awards dinner, sponsored by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Five years earlier, OSI gave 4 grants, totaling $220,000, to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Benjamin was senior executive producer at CBS News and served briefly as chair of the Committee to Protect Journalists before his death in 1988.

The Soros media connections include:

  • An investor in the Times Mirror Company, Soros funded the Project on Media Ownership, headed by Professor Mark Crispin Miller at New York University. Whose purpose was expose “media concentration.” A total of $300,000 over several years came from George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI). In 1999, a survey commissioned by the Project on Media Ownership and the Benton Foundation and paid for by OSI  found that seventy-nine percent of adults would favor a law requiring commercial broadcasters to pay 5 percent of their revenues into a fund for public broadcasting.
  • Eric Alterman of The Nation has hailed Soros for spending millions on “education campaigns with America Coming Together, voter mobilization drives with MoveOn.org and research activities with the Center for American Progress (CAP)–where I am a senior fellow?” Alterman says his own magazine, The Nation, is viewed as out of the mainstream in part because of “the continued appearance in its pages of a long-time Stalinist communist, Alexander Cockburn, whose unabashed hatred for both America and Israel … tarnish the reputation of its otherwise serious contributors.” Alterman’s mentor, I.F. Stone, was a paid agent of the KGB and a Stalinist.
  • In the Los Angeles Times Book Review, Orville Schell said that Soros had written a “succinct and well-reasoned book,” The Bubble of American Supremacy, which ought “to provide a welcome template for how the candidates might begin to think their way through to a more coherent view of America’s place in the world.” Soros had spoken on March 3 at the Goldman Forum on the Press and Foreign Affairs, sponsored by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism.  The event was a conversation between Soros and Journalism Dean Orville Schell.
  • OSI gave $60,000 to the Independent Media Institute , whose executive director, Don Hazen, is a former publisher of Mother Jones.  Hazen has called Soros a “progressive philanthropist.” A story carried by the Independent Media Institute on its AlterNet project says Soros “believes in democracy, positive international relations and effective strategies to reduce poverty, among other things.”
  • OSI gave a $75,000 grant to the Center for Investigative Reporting. The group’s board of advisers includes prominent journalists.
  • OSI gave $246,528 to the Center for Public Integrity, headed by former CBS News producer Charles Lewis, “to support the continuing expansion of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.”  A total of $1 million went for “the Global Access Project.” In total, it is estimated that the group has received $1.7 from Soros.
  • OSI gave $200,000 to the Fund for Investigative Journalism.  This group, too, features prominent journalists on its board.
  • OSI’s “Network Media Program” gave $22,157 to Investigative Reporters & Editors.
  • Soros Foundations have provided $160,000 to MediaChannel.org, a so-called “media issues supersite, featuring criticism, breaking news, and investigative reporting from hundreds of organizations worldwide.” The executive editor is Danny Schecter, a former news program producer and investigative reporter at CNN and ABC. It was created by Globalvision News Network, whose board includes “Senior executives from the world’s leading media firms.”
  • OSI has contributed $70,000 toward the far-left Independent Media Center, or Indymedia, known as an “independent newsgathering collective,” whose servers were seized by a federal law enforcement agency on October 7. The action was apparently related to an investigation into international terrorism, kidnapping or money laundering.
  • OSI provided $600,000 to the Media Access Project, a so-called telecommunications public interest law firm critical of conservative influence in the major media.
  • OSI provide $30,000 to the Media Awareness Project, a “worldwide network dedicated to drug policy reform” and promoting “balanced media coverage” of the drug issue.
  • OSI provided $200,000 to the Association for Progressive Communications, “an international network?working for peace, human rights, development and protection of the environment?”

Considering all of the money that Soros or his organizations have provided to news organizations, it should be no surprise to learn that journalists love him.  His web site advises visitors to “read about George Soros from The New York Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, et al.,” all of which are reprinted on the site and highly favorable. His new web site features several complimentary statements about Soros from articles in the press and media figures.

Either the media fear his wealth and power, they favor his positions on the issues, or they want access to his money. The people have a right to know.

Who’s really behind child trafficking? Following the big money across the globe

Source: http://itccs.org/2014/07/14/whos-really-behind-child-trafficking-following-the-big-money-across-the-globe/

An Exclusive Report by Kevin D. Annett

“Cartels have moved into the human-smuggling business, imprisoning would-be border crossers, charging high rates, or requiring border crossers to act as drug mules or prostitutes … The former Wachovia Bank (now Wells Fargo), Bank of America, and Western Union all made or continue to make millions from drug money collected in the U.S. and sent or laundered back to Mexico … General Dynamics, Motorola and Raytheon are doing well by the (human trafficking prompted) border security build-up.” – The Washington Spectator, July 1, 2014

“The crime syndicate called ‘Ndrangheta provides the children used in the sacrificial killings in Holland, the ones I witnessed, including the human hunting parties. It’s called “The Octopus” in Holland. They are deeply involved in human trafficking thanks to their control of the police and politicians”. – Testimony of “Josephine”, retired lawyer and eyewitness, given in a deposition to the International Common Law Court of Justice, Brussels, June 2014

“The ‘Ndrangheta is a Mafia style criminal organization in Italy, having replaced the old style Cosa Nostra. ‘Ndrangheta is currently the most powerful and richest criminal organization in Italy and possibly Europe, with an estimated annual revenue of at least 53 billion Euros ($72 billion US), gained from drug trafficking, extortion and money laundering”. – Wikipedia.org

…………………

Crime pays: that’s why it continues. And nothing pays as well as selling human beings, especially children.

Child trafficking isn’t just some sick illness: it’s a global, profitable business. And this simple fact is too often overlooked by the scramble to blame evil individuals, whether “Lizard-like Royals” or child-raping priests and popes, for the systematic slaughter of vast numbers of innocents.

The details of that global industry have surfaced, almost accidentally, in the course of the Brussels-based International Common Law Court trial of “Pope Francis” Jorge Bergoglio and others for child trafficking.

Commenced as a prosecution of the Catholic and Anglican church leaders for their documented involvement in harming children or aiding those who do, the Brussels case has since May unearthed considerable inside information on the corporate cartels that provide children for rape, torture and killing: and on their ties to the men presently under indictment by the Court.

Last month, I was contacted by a retired Dutch lawyer whose former husband is a member of the criminal syndicate that provides the children and adolescents who are used in ritualistic “hunting parties” in Belgium. I’ll call her Josephine. We’ve spoken three times on skype, and her recorded statements are now in the archives of the International Common Law Court of Justice.

According to Josephine, her ex-husband and other members of”The Octopus” – the local slang term for Ndrangheta, today’s born-again Mafia – provided ten children and adolescents who were hunted down and killed, and then mutilated, by wealthy men in forests near Oudergem, Belgium, in the spring of 2000 and 2004.

“I was there, I saw the whole thing. I was told they were kids from the juvenile detention centres in Brussels. They were let loose naked in the forest and hunted down and shot. The killers included Prince Friso of Holland and his wife’s friend, the billionaire George Soros, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and Prince Albert of Belgium. After they shot down the young ones they cut off the boys’ penises and held them up like trophies, cheering and applauding.”

While confirmed by other insiders, these grisly accounts can distract from the bigger story and motives behind the crime. The ‘Ndrangheta syndicate, for example, obtains its child fodder through its deep involvement with the child-snatching roman catholic church and top Vatican officials. According to Matteo Macceo, a Radical Party member of the Italian Parliament,

“The modern Mafia are the same people who run the catholic church and the Italian government. They’re indistinguishable, they’re all in the same club. And their main concern is their assets, which come from organized crime: drugs, and arms dealing, and human trafficking.” (from a statement to the author made in Rome, April 2010)

The Catholic church is clearly the largest baby trafficker in human history, making billions each year by selling catholic newborns to orphanages, foster agencies and undisclosed parties. In Spain alone, 300,000 children were trafficked by the church between 1940 and 1980, reaping over $20 billion. (See ICLCJ testimony of Antonio Barrero). And the present under-indictment Pope Francis himself organized such a marketing of children of more than 30,000 Argentine political prisoners during his stint as front man for the military junta there in the 1970′s and ’80′s. (ICLCJ testimony of Witness No. 32)

This official slave trade ties in directly to criminal groups like ‘Ndrangheta, which often provides the outlets for catholic trafficking, selling the babies through syndicate-controlled safe houses and providing political and legal protection to their Vatican associates.

“For every single child raping priest or baby-dealing nun, there are ten other people protecting them, greasing the wheels, making the payoffs to keep it all working smoothly and hidden from view. And ‘Ndrangheta keeps rearing its ugly head in this whole business” stated a member of the Brussels Court’s Prosecutor’s Office, which is conducting the case against Jorge Bergoglio and others.

And yet even ‘Ndrangheta is itself part of a bigger global cartel specializing in a vast modern human slave trade financed by major banks tied in through their routine laundering of drug money for the mob. These banks include Bank of America, J.P. Morgan and HSBC, which recently admitted to laundering over $2 billion in drug money for Mexican crime syndicates.

This economic empire, in which drugs and human trafficking are so intimately bound, is reinforced politically by the continual use of child prostitution by domestic spy agencies to blackmail and control politicians and leaders. “The CIA admitted their vested interest in child trafficking in their 2008 disclosure that since the Vietnam War they have operated child prostitution ‘entrapment rings” to snare their congressional opponents, in Bangkok and Seoul” (Rock Creek Free Press, Washington).

All told, the recent exposure of royal and church involvement in child sacrificial rituals seems yet another tip in the proverbial iceberg of crimes in high places. But the fact of the common presence of ‘Ndrangheta in so many of these crimes against children, and that syndicate’s own direct ties to the Vatican, has given new impetus to the prosecution of Pope Francis and others who, like the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg, are symbolic of an entire system of corruption and death that must come down.

…………..

The release of new evidence and updates from the Brussels Court will be forthcoming.

14 July, 2014

http://www.itccs.org / http://www.iclcj.com