A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Friday, September 14, 2012

Is George Soros Behind the Wave of Violence against American Embassies?

Timothy Birdnow The riots in Benghazi and Cairo have now spilled over into numerous other countries in the Middle East, and the American public - and the Obama Administration - seem puzzled by events. We have attacks throughout the region, in Tunisia, in Yemen, in Lebanon and even outside the region with protests in Indonesia and even India. All over a short Youtube movie made by an amateur and readily available on the internet. Something is amiss here; how did this situation erupt? I don't believe this is a spontaneous uprising, and I have written in previous posts that this has the makings of a dandy October Surprise. The question must be asked; who is doing the surprising? Is it Al-Qaeda? The Administration? Where do the threads lead? The threads lead not to a tapestry of home-grown Jihadists engaging in military operations; they have had plenty of time for that, and they aren't hitting in the usual places where Jihad is ripe. No. These riots started in two peculiar places. First there is Egypt. Let me refresh everyone's memory about Egypt; the "Arab Spring" blossomed in Egypt not through purely local entities but with considerable aid from the West. First there is Wael Ghonim. Ghonim was a executive at the notoriously liberal Google and very friendly with the folks at Twitter. When protests broke out Ghonim became a hero in Egypt and helped the uprising swell and metastasize by using the computer networking systems he helped run. Interestingly enough, Ghonim the American supported an Islamist for president in the Egyptian elections. Interestingly enough, it was Ghonim and Muhammad Elbaradei, who had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (the current rulers of Egypt) who were the two public faces of the Egyptian revolution. Elbaradei sat on the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group along with George Soros. So, a Google executive and a crony of George Soros fostered a revolution. There are more ties to George Soros. Read this excerpt: " " "A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington." The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED): "The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. " George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations. In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported: "It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month. These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED funded Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground." Soros own ICG "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 whose executive 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" End excerpt. So, american money and training went into the making of the Egyptian revolution, and behind much of this was - you guessed it - George Soros! But there's more. And the New York Times agrees: "Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department. End excerpt. So, what have we learned? The "Arab Spring" in Egypt was fostered and directed by people with close ties to American leftists, particularly George Soros. And the same holds true for the Libyan uprising. Consider: " "In the United States, the offensive was instigated by liberal interventionists: notably three women, starting with Samantha Power, who runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights in Barack Obama's National Security Council. She's an Irish American, 41 years old, who made her name back in the Bush years with her book A Problem from Hell, a study of the US foreign-policy response to genocide, and the failure of the Clinton administration to react forcefully to the Rwandan massacres. She had to resign from her advisory position on the Obama campaign in April of 2008, after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with the Scotsman, but was restored to good grace after Obama's election, and the monster in her sights is now Gaddafi. America's UN ambassador is Susan Rice, the first African-American woman to be named to that post. She's long been an ardent interventionist. In 1996, as part of the Clinton administration, she supported the multinational force that invaded Zaire from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrew dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that, "Anything's better than Mobutu". [...] So much for the instigators of intervention in the US. In France the intervention author is the intellectual dandy and "new philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy, familiarly known to his admirers and detractors as BHL. As described by Larry Portis in our CounterPunch newsletter, BHL arrived in Benghazi on March 3. Two days later BHL was interviewed on various television networks. He appeared before the camera in his habitual uniform – immaculate white shirt with upturned collar, black suit coat, and disheveled hair." End excerpt. Hillary Clinton was the third Liberal woman to foster the Libyan war. Bear in mind that Hillary was a devotee of the revolutionary leftist Saul Alinsky and tried to ram a health industry takeover down the throats of America when her husband was President. Samantha Powers has close ties to George Soros. According to this report from Fox Nation: Soros fingerprints all over libyan bombing Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights. Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions." End excerpt. Rice has close ties to the leftist Brookings Institute, another Soros funded operation. So the grubby paws of George Soros were all over both the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. I find it very curious that the current mayhem had it's beginnings in Egypt and Libya. Yes, Al Qaeda was in eastern Libya, the source of the revolution that overthrew Khadaffi. But where did the funding come from? Where did the rebels get equipment, training, intel, assistance of every kind? Recently George Soros suggested that a collapse of the U.S. economy would spark street violence here in the states. Soros should know about such things; in 1998 he manipulated the Russian markets in such a way as to cause a crash that sent the still fragile Russian economy into a tailspin. (Jim Leach, head of the House Banking Committee, called Soros' actions; "one of the greatest social robberies in human history".) Soros made out nicely and managed to cement the neo-fascism of he so admires into place in Russia. He previously did this in Britain where he is known today as "the Man who broke the Bank of England". And he tried with Germany. In fact, Soros has ruined economies over large swaths of the globe, and used their ruin to call for "a third way" between Marxism and Capitalism. (Strange; the dictator Peron in Argentina call his fascist economic system a "third way".) And Soros tried to do this in 2008 when a small cabal of "mystery investors" pulled $550 billion out of the market in just a couple of hours. It strongly smells of an attempt to collapse the U.S. economy, and it is exactly the tactic that Soros has employed in other countries. So, we have a plutocrat who is more than willing to overthrow whole national economies, who finances innumerable left-wing action groups and who has had a hand in both the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. I must ask if there is any connection between Soros' involvement in the region just one year ago and the attacks on the U.S. embassies? Why do this? I have been predicting war should it appear Obama may lose, and surprisingly there is now a state of war - although our wayward student Mr. Obama is dragging his feet in calling it such - and in acting as if it were true. Wars are usually game changers for presidents in close elections. NOT for presidents who have fought long, protracted stalemated wars, but ones where the attack is a surprise and the war is fresh. Americans rally behind the Commander-in-Chief at such times, and so wars are quite attractive tools for vote getting. Remember when Bill Clinton launched attacks on aspirin factories in the Sudan on the eve of his impeachment? This is a common strategy. It's definitely a strategy that Saul Alinsky would approve, as I have pointed out in this website. Obama is steeped in Alinsky-esque tactics. So, one must wonder who started this outrage, and why. Was it Obama himself? I think not; I suspect that there are forces at work seeking to support Obama but the clueless empty chair isn't taking advantage. Some strong action - even if in the end it is meaningless - could win the support of many average Americans. Al Qaeda certainly knows this, and I have little doubt that they do not want Mitt Romney taking charge. Al Qaeda endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, for instance, and have little reason to oppose him now, as he has gutted the U.S. military, pulled out of Iraq, and generally left the U.S. defenseless. Mr. Obama DID kill Osama, but that only fired up the Egyptian crowd who defiantly crowed "we are all Osama!" And Rush Limbaugh wondered on-air if Al Qaeda didn't actually give Bin Laden up to help Obama's re-election chances. There is something to that, although one need not believe that to believe Al Qaeda would want Obama to have a second term. Remember Obama's words to outgoing Russian president Medvedev; "after the elections I'll have more flexibility". Does that not speak to the Islamists as well as the Russians? Remember, too, that Al Qaeda launched attacks in Spain to influence the presidential elections in that country, and it worked. Why not influence them here? And then there is Cloward and Piven, the leftists who propposed the "Cloward-Piven strategy" which calls for overwhelming the system. How does one overwhelm the system? A community organizer would understand this. Certainly attacks on America worldwide would go a long way to doing precisely that. And there is the fear of Obama declaring martial law, something that looms over the entire election in the face of an all-out war with the Islamic world. I have theorized that the Administration would do precisely that. Even if the President would not have the nerve, many in his Administration and his fellow travelers certainly would. Coinsider the likes of Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, William Ayers, etc. Power is the first principle to these people. These are devotees of Saul Alinsky, who said: ""The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24 "The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26 " End excerpts. If this bunch believes in the teachings of Alinsky, would they not be willing to foment murder and mayhem? Does anyone doubt that George Soros is capable of inciting the type of violence we have seen sweeping the Islamic world? Does anyone doubt that Cass Sunstein or Van Jones are capable of such things? Who are the puppet masters behind what is happening? I suspect if we look hard enough we'll see the palsied hands of the plutocrats and leftists who are feverishly working to remake America.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by