Bilderberg 2012 date and location confirmed
The code name for the 2012 Bilderberg meeting is allegedly the “Palm Tree Conference.”
Bilderberg Agenda Attracts National Exposure
Romney policy advisers on defensive over secretive group’s power
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Sunday, May 20, 2012
The secretive Bilderberg Group’s agenda for its 2012 meeting has attracted national attention with an article by veteran Politico journalist Ken Vogel exploring charges that the organization is set to play a decisive role in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
The article, entitled Marco Rubio as vice president: the Bilderberg conspiracy, focuses around our piece from back in April which flagged the fact that the Washington Post, itself a creature of Bilderberg, had not so subtly implied that Bilderberg may have a hand in picking Mitt Romney’s running mate just as they picked VP candidates in 2004 and 2008.
“Like any good conspiracy theory, there’s just enough there to stoke questions,” writes Vogel. “John Edwards’s speech to the Bilderberg Group’s 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy, reportedly helped clinch his selection as that year’s Democratic vice presidential candidate. And Jim Johnson, the man who chaired that vice presidential selection process and initially was tasked with spearheading Barack Obama’s 2008 search for a running mate, is a leading Bilderberg member, while prominent Romney advisers including Robert Kagan and Vin Weber have attended past meetings, as have Bill Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld and top finance, media and tech executives.”
Vogel also quotes two time Bilderberg attendee Vin Weber, who claims that no scheming takes place at the event and that it is “just a conference.” Another Romney foreign policy adviser, Robert Kagan, claims the meeting merely represents, “a lot of vaguely uninteresting people giving vaguely uninteresting lectures and then having nice meals in nice places.”
However, as we have exhaustively documented with numerous different examples, Bilderberg does indeed create the consensus for setting policies of global significance, including the introduction of the euro single currency.
As former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes admitted during a 2010 radio interview, Bilderberg attendees are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the annual conference of power brokers.
Claes said that Bilderberg guests are normally given around 10 minutes of talk time, after which a report is compiled of their presentation.
“The participants are then obviously considered to use this report in setting their policies in the environments in which they affect,” stated Claes, according to the translated text.
Vogel’s Politico piece is another sterling example of how Bilderberg’s cloak of secrecy is gradually being unveiled through pressure as a result of increasing numbers of activists doing the mainstream media’s job for them by drawing attention to the annual confab.
The ‘Occupy’ Bilderberg protest that Alex Jones first initiated has now gone viral, and Bilderberg 2012 looks set to attract record protests that will outstrip anything seen previously.
Alex Jones has developed two sources within the Bilderberg Group itself. The veracity of these sources was successfully put to the test when Jones was informed that the code name for this year’s meeting was the “Palm Tree Conference,” a fact later confirmed when Jones called the Westfields Marriott hotel and pretended to be a Bilderberg attendee who wanted to confirm his booking.
The 2012 Bilderberg Group meeting will take place from May 31st to June 3rd at the Westfields Marriott Washington Dulles hotel in Chantilly, Virginia.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Secretive BILDERBERG Group Set To Meet In Virginia May 31st – June 3rd 2012 (Alex Jones, Infowars)
Speculation that the location of the Bilderberg Group’s annual meeting would be chosen to coincide with this year’s U.S. presidential election appears to have been accurate with the likelihood that Bilderberg will hold their confab in Chantilly, Virginia from May 31st to June 3rd.
-
Mark Dice talks with random people on the street to see if they have heard of the Bilderberg Group. Mark Dice is a media analyst, political activist, and author who, in an entertaining and educational way, gets people to question our celebrity obsessed culture, and the role the mainstream media and elite secret societies play in shaping our lives…
List of Bilderberg participants
The following is a list of prominent persons who have attended one or more conferences organized by the Bilderberg Group. The list is currently organized by category. It is not a complete list and it includes both living and deceased people. Where known, the year(s) they attended are denoted in brackets.
Meet the Bilderbergs
Every US president since Eisenhower has either belonged to the Bilderberg Group or its older sister guild (Bavarian Illuminati), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), or been directly approved by them.
Roster of CFR/Trilateral Commission Members
Members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission dominate key positions in America’s government, military, industries, media outlets and educational foundations and institutions. The following is a partial list of current CFR members and the positions of influence they hold in society. The CFR’s membership is limited to 3,000, and there are only 325 Trilateral Commission members (2008)
CFR = Member of the Council on Foreign Relations
TC = Member of the Trilateral Commission
BB = Member of the Elite Bilderbergs
-
The Order of the Illuminati: Its Origins, Its Methods and Its Influence on the World Events
Bavarian illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776 by created by Adam Weishaupt. The The Bavarian Illuminati operated in both realms of spiritual and politics.
A Bavarian Illuminati Primer
-
Minerval seals of the Bavarian Illuminati. These pendants, worn around the necks of Minerval initiates, featured the Owl of Minerva . Also known as the Owl of Wisdom, this symbol is still found today in powerful places: around the White House, hidden on the dollar bill or on the insignia of the Bohemian Club.
After the Bavarian Illuminati
Today, the term Illuminati is used to loosely describe the small group of powerful individuals who are working towards the creation of a World Government, with the issue of a single world currency and a single world religion. Although it is difficult to determine if this group descends directly from the original Bavarian Illuminati or that it even uses the term Illuminati, its tenets and methods are in perfect continuation of it. As stated above, the name that is used to describe the occult elite can change. And, ultimately, the name is irrelevant; what needs to be recognized is the underlying current that has existed for centuries.
The Great Seal of the United States features the unfinished Great Pyramid of Giza, a symbol of the unfinished work of the Esoteric Orders: a New World Order. The Seal was adopted on the American dollar by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a 32nd Degree Freemason and a Knight of Pythias with ties Manly P. Hall.
The Illuminati Today
On another political plane are ideological groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, or participants in the World Economic Forum. Here we find leaders in politics, business, finance, education, and the media who share a belief in the value of global solutions; are in position of high authority and influence; and represent different levels of involvement with the inner circle of the group. Most members simply welcome the opportunity to associate with other well-known luminaries and are honored by being offered membership or attendance privileges. Yet, the ideology at the highest levels of such groups supports a world government – to be administered by a class of experts and planners, entrusted with running centrally organized social and political institutions. Although members may be persuaded to add their considerable voices to certain transnational political and economic policies, they may bot be as supportive (or even aware) of the long-range ambitions of the inner circle. While these groups quite often hold their meetings in secret, their membership lists are a matter of public record. It is the central agenda that is disguised.” 21
The main elite groups and councils are: the International Crisis Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum, the Brookings Institution, Chatham House, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. The Bohemian Club is known to hold informal gatherings of the world elite punctuated with strange ceremonies and rituals. The Club’s insignia is an Owl similar to the one found on the Bavarian Illuminati’s Minerval seal.insignia
Insignia of the Bohemian Club
If one would carefully study the members and attendees of these exclusive clubs, one would notice that they combine the most powerful politicians, CEOs and intellectuals of the time with lesser known individuals with famous names. They are descendants of powerful dynasties that rose to power by taking over vital aspects of modern economies, such as the banking system, the oil industry or mass media. They have been associated with game changing events, such as the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. This act completely modified the banking system of the United States, placing it in the hands of a few elite corporations. A proof of this is the court decision of 1982 stating that “The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations“.
In his book “Bloodlines of the Illuminati”, controversial author Fritz Springmeier claims that today’s Illuminati is formed from the descendants of thirteen powerful families whose ancestors had close or distant ties to the original Bavarian Illuminati. According to Springmeier, the 13 bloodlines are: the Astors, the Bundys, the Collins, the DuPonts, the Freemans, the Kennedys, the Li, the Onassis, the Reynolds, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Russells and the Van Duyns. 22.
There is no doubt that by virtue of the material and political resources they own, some of these families have a great deal of power in today’s world. They appear to form the core of what we call today the Illuminati. However, are they conspiring to create a New World Order (“Novus Ordo Mundi”)? Here’s a quote from David Rockefeller’s memoirs that might answer some questions:
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” 23
-
-
Logan Act
The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act.[1][2]
Text of the Logan Act
- § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
- Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
- This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.[7]
The Bilderbergs propagation of their own power is thriving in American politics.
We the people have the power, less we never forget that.
-
-
Henry Lamb on Maurice Strong_UN_Bilderberg_Agenda 21
Henry Lamb on Maurice Strong 1997
Introduction by Elias Alias
May 25th, 2012
Before the Internet, our culture had something generally referred to as “the grapevine”.
“I heard it through the grapevine” was a popular lyric half a Century ago. It was how natural news spread, communities networking communities, people to people, by word of mouth and the printing press, cameras and telephones, letters in the mail. It was not choreographed and maimed on the cutting-room floor by corporate mandate or spat out in five-second sound bites for a mesmerized public mentality. It still carried the voice of people.
The fact that the following article by Henry Lamb is now on the World Wide Web is an example which shows that the human voice is yet with us today. The grapevine system is alive on the Internet. A friend in Montana known as “Lark” sent to my inbox the notice of the passing of Henry Lamb. In clicking around about Henry Lamb’s death I came across a remarkable work he wrote in 1997, and I’m sure it belongs on the pages of Oath Keepers national.
There are additional reasons to share Mr. Lamb’s biographical work on Maurice Strong and the United Nations, including the fact that this year we shall see the UN’s celebration of the 20th anniversary of Agenda 21, a subtle but powerful attempt by the United Nations and those who champion the UN’s causes, to destroy the American middle class. We were given Agenda 21 with no Congressional process in 1992, in part by the hand of George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush 41).
Following the Rolling Thunder event in WDC this Memorial Day weekend shall blossom, nearby, a secretive meeting of the Bilderberg group.
There will be a vocal/activist public objection to the Bilderberg meeting, and multiple levels of security, including Intelligence community personnel. Oath Keepers will complete our work at Rolling Thunder and will immediately muster again for the Bilderberg event, where Oath Keepers will reach, teach, and inspire all peace officers and current-serving as well as the Veterans on both sides of the sidewalk, regarding their Oath. I am promised some jpegs for this site’s coverage of that.
The Bilderbergers rank highest in the publicly-known tiers of the hierarchy of global power, so there exists at least associatively an interface with the United Nations. Members of both inmix and move through revolving doors between Bilderberg and the UN. Under their philosophical rendition of global ontology the regions and nationalities of the globe are to be levered by financial management in a centralized concentration of governance. They feel that good global governance requires a world police force as well as economic sanctioning power and currency manipulation at the national level.
The Bilderbergers are the closest to such powers we’re permitted to see, and even at that they have defied transparency for decades, despite the earnest efforts of Jim Tucker and Alex Jones and their friends, like Daniel Estulin.
The Bilderberg group seems to set policy for the World Bank / International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements and its membership roster of nearly two hundred nation-state central banks world-wide, the World Court, the World Peace Keeping Force, and the UN’s Agenda 21.
Such are the extensions by power into the policies of governments, which are used by the elite to generate “perpetual war for perpetual peace”. All of that busyness is supporting a fraudulent so-called “war on terror” which is designed to, and actually is, destroying Western Civilization, with a hesitant America thrown in to boot. Maurice Strong has played a stellar role in all of that.
Henry Lamb was writing about this in 1997, and the following article is a classic which all Oath Keepers will want to own as part of their own personal knowledge. You can just say you heard it on the grapevine, courtesy of the Lark.
Salute!
Elias Alias
* * * * * * *
Note: Visit the source site, Sovereignty International, Inc., and explore a great website operation.
Original article published <here>
-
Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future!
By Henry Lamb
January, 1997
-
Pingback
THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN THE WORLD
Like this:
The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style, by Doug Hagmann
-
Obama administration, including his czars and his closest Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. Using the media to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals
The planned re-election of Obama, revolutionary style
- Doug Hagmann Monday, May 7, 2012
The Contact
It was not the proverbial 3:00 a.m. phone call, but close enough. And it was not made to the White House, but to my house, which is not white, nor is it in DC. It was about 2:30 a.m. on 25 April 2012, and the call itself was somewhat unexpected. I had anticipated the telephone call from my DHS insider much earlier the previous day, but our schedules didn’t synch up. I was traveling on an investigative assignment, while my source was in meetings all day. I had just fallen asleep, and was slumbering no more than 20 minutes when the phone rang.
In most households, a ringing phone at that time of night causes concern for everyone who hears it. In my household, it seems to surprise only my surly, 140 pound light-sleeping German Shepherd. He let out an objective grunt as I stepped over him to take the call in another room. It was “Rosebud,” the code name given my insider source.
About Rosebud
Just a little bit here about my source and his “super-secret code name.” I’ve known this government insider since 1979, when he first became a municipal patrol officer. He took a job in a bigger city and had a very successful run as a cop. Before retirement and after the events of 9/11, he was tapped by the feds, where he worked in various capacities under the umbrella of DHS. He worked his way up, and suddenly found himself in what he terms the inner sanctum of the “TEC” building. TEC, he explains, is an acronym for what he calls “The Estrogen Challenged,” which houses the upper echelon of the Department of Homeland Security. I’ll leave it at that.
As far as his code name, it originates from an incident that occurred at the end of the disco era. It is something that we both privately laugh about, but rarely ever talk about. His “code name” is known to him, me, and at the time, a young woman who has since vanished amid the glitter of disco balls and constant replays of the Bee Gees in a dark nightclub some 32 years ago, and has no “cloak and dagger” origins.
But he is real, his position serious, and his knowledge vast. Unfortunately, that’s what makes the whole situation frightening and deadly serious.
The information
It began on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 with a 45-minute interview on TruNews with Rick Wiles when I first disclosed the information I received the previous week from my source. The information I relayed “went viral,” as they say, across the internet.
To support the statements I made during that interview, I am showing my handwritten notes taken contemporaneously during our conversation. My notes consist of two pages and are, at various points, admittedly difficult to decipher. I ask that points not be deducted for my penmanship given the time of the morning which they were taken.
According to my source, there is talk among the highest levels of the uppermost echelon of the Department of Homeland Security, which he describes as effectively under the control of Barack Hussein Obama. During this call, he said that the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that “a civil war” is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it,” stated my source.
“The DHS takes their marching orders from the Obama administration, from Obama himself, but mostly from his un-appointed czars. And Jarrett, especially Valerie Jarrett. Don’t think for a minute that the administration is doing anything to stabilize events in the U.S. They are revolutionaries, and revolutionaries thrive on chaos,” he added.
My source stated that he has not seen things this bad since he began working within DHS. “It’s like they [DHS agency heads] don’t care about what the American people see or feel about what the DHS agencies are doing. They figure that if the average American will put up with being “sexually groped and nuked” just to fly, they’ll accept almost anything. “That’s why their actions are becoming more overt. “It’s in your face and the brass actually chuckle about it” said my source.
New Information
Astounded by the information my source provided “going viral,” I spoke to him again early Sunday morning. This was a scheduled telephone call (as noted on page 2 of my notes) based on a high level meeting of DHS personnel that was scheduled for and took place in Chantilly, Virginia, on Saturday, 5 May 2012. He hoped to provide me with more information to supplement that which he already given. Although he was not personally present, his source was. While he would not say who was at the meeting on Saturday or give its precise location, he said that the many of the names would be recognizable. He spoke to his source late Saturday night.
I contacted him on his cellular phone early Sunday morning to get the promised update.
“Geez, nice job on getting the word out about what’s really going on at DHS and in this administration,” were the first words out of his mouth, followed by “thanks a lot.” I asked him why he would be thanking me. “I just wanna’ tell you that I’m going to have to hire someone to start my car, and I’m surely not going for any rides in small planes in the immediate future,” he said with a bit of nervous laughter. “I hope no one finds out who I am or it’s going to be more than my pension I’ll have to worry about.”
“I can tell you word is getting out that people are starting to wake up, which is causing a lot of ‘pissed off brass.’ I can’t tell if they are more desperate or upset about the exposure, but the tone is starting to become a lot more tense. I hope that we’re having something to do with that,” he added.
With that, he provided me with additional information to supplement that which he already given me on 25 April. For clarity purposes, I have combined the information together from both contacts. The following information includes the updated information provided to me Sunday morning.
Obama the revolutionary
Metaphorically speaking, there’s a revolution going on in the U.S., propped up by three legs. Economic chaos, chaos through racial division, and chaos through class division, all joined by one core element: Barack Hussein Obama and his stable of unelected czars. Obama is using the lessons learned in 1968 as the template for 2012, and many of those who were active in the late 1960s are now calling the shots for 2012.
“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S.,” stated my source. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source. He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives. “It’s like Fast & Furious” but in the social realm,” he added.
“Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”
“Mentioned at the meeting Saturday were methods to use pawns to simulate the rioting in the Arab Spring countries, but to the benefit of this administration. A controlled chaos thing,” stated my source. They envision rioting starting in the urban areas first, such as New York and other major cities, followed by a disruption of business and commerce. This will allow the DHS to mobilize their various teams into the streets of America without objection of the people,” stated my source.
“They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by rioting and unrest. They understand we are the most well-armed nation in the world, yet they are aware of our vulnerabilities and intend to fully exploit them,” he added. The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic. This is the run-up to the 2012 elections, or perhaps causing enough chaos to delay them – indefinitely.”
One statement that rattled me more than anything was that a great number of those already in power, whether in appointed or elected positions, actually want to see Obama stay in power, according to this source. “This is what we’ve been working toward and we’re closer now than we’ve ever been. If we lose now, we might not have another chance.”
This chilling common goal also explains the lack of interest in the Constitutional legitimacy of Obama. It is common knowledge that Obama is not an American, and neither is his agenda. Of course, criticism of his bona-fides feeds into the cries of racism, despite the massive fraud perpetrated on the American people. Party lines are meaningless when the common objective is the revolutionary overtaking of America.
Obama, the professor of Keynesian economics
“The Obama administration is working closely with Bernanke, Geithner and others not to save our economy, but to outright destroy it. He is not the first or only one to try this, but the most effective and most vetted for that purpose. Do you actually think that the fact that Timothy Geithner’s father worked with Obama’s mother in Indonesia was coincidental,” stated my source rhetorically. “What we’re seeing now is the fourth quarter of a game that started long ago, which also currently involves the Clintons. Obama would not be where he is if it were not for the Clintons, and to a lesser extent, Bush, but that’s for other reasons. Don’t be fooled, the Clintons never left or lost power,” he added.
“There are file drawers full of papers, heavily guarded papers at the ‘TEC building’ so I can only imagine what’s in them, about international financial dealings going back decades. I do know, or at least I was told, that they involve organizations that are the so-called conspiracy fringe groups, such as the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, and people including George Soros, Henry Kissinger, and current leaders of big industry. Some are fossils. They’ve been around a long time. Others are up-and-coming. They’ve got one thing in common, though, and that is to put in place a global system of governance, including a common currency. Economics is a huge part of this revolution, and they want to replace the dollar, to see it collapse. They expect, that is, they are working toward this very goal, and when this happens, it will cause chaos like never seen before in the history of this country.”
“Why do you think Jon Corzine is not only walking around, but heavily involved in Obama fundraising? They know it’s just a matter of time that Europe will implode economically, and when it does, start counting the days before we see massive hyperinflation and the ultimate collapse of the U.S. dollar,” stated this insider. “What will it look like in the streets of America when the general population realizes that there is no money? That’s right, chaos.”
Obama & the planned racial divide
According to this insider, the Trayvon Martin case is just the tip of the iceberg. “You certainly don’t have to be a genius to understand how Obama and his team played the public on this issue, and it’s far from over. But that’s not the sole element of what we’ll see this summer.”
“Remember the shots fired at the White House not too long ago?” asked my source. There was an element of outrage that was squandered, according to ‘team Obama.’ In fact, Obama and some of his closest advisers, especially [Valerie] Jarrett were incredibly angered that the outrage was seemingly tempered. It should have been an opportunity to use our force against the Tea Parties, the gun clingers, the Constitutionalists, and everyone who has complained about Obama. DHS should have stepped in right then, and used that event to start the clampdown,” this source stated about White House comments.
This source stated that from that point on, the DHS must become more responsive and aggressive.
Watch for a false flag event against Obama or his family, something that will outrage ‘black America.’ It will be carefully choreographed, but executed in a manner that will evoke the ugliest of reactions and create racial chaos in this country that will make the Watts riots, 1968 and the Rodney King riots pale in comparison. That’s the third leg in this.”
The planned end-game
Does Obama look worried about the upcoming elections? Look at his lavish vacations, his limited work schedule, and those with whom he is working. This is a very dangerous man who has, as his closest advisers, people who have orchestrated the revolutions of the 1960s. They know the “trigger points” in America.
The Obama administration, including his czars and along with his closest Progressive supporters, are planning a manufactured insurgency against America. He is using the media to his advantage to garner both sympathy and support for his unfinished goals. He is desperately seeking a way to remain in office, even if it means the surreal prospect of an indefinite postponement of elections – if it can be pulled off. So far, he’s got the support of the majority of the DHS “brass” behind him, according to my source.
“They’re power hungry, and they want to remain in charge,” stated this source.
The “surreal” aspect of suspended elections won’t look so surreal when you see any or all of the “trigger points” take place in the not-so-distant future.
“The end-game plan for America is its destruction as a Constitutional Republic, with the assistance of the agencies under the umbrella of the DHS.”
My sourced stated one more thing that seemed to tie things together. He urged me to recall the quote by Henry Kissinger who was speaking at a Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, on 21 May 1992:
Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.
That threat need not be from beyond. All it might take is a world of starving, broke and desperate people.
Note: My source promised more information at a later time. Stay tuned.
Most recent columns
Older articles by Doug Hagmann
-
”Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~Benjamin Franklin
-
-
*Marxists, socialists, communists have long been working on a revolution to destroy Western Civilization*
Marxists, socialists, communists form group to plot on official campaign blog
Marxists For Obama Urge Revolution Against U.S.
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – Marxists, socialists and communists have created a safe space online to congregate, exchange ideas – including a stated revolution against the U.S. “oppressive” regime – and support their favored presidential candidate.
-
-
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION: EO 13563
-
Regulation is a law. So what is actually being attempted here is a standardization of international law. It is an absolute violation of the Constitution for the United States to legislate our law outside of our borders.
Executive Orders
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(i) serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities with respect to:
(A) international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulatory actions;
(B) efforts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross-cutting international regulatory cooperation activities, such as the work of regulatory cooperation councils; and
(C) the promotion of good regulatory practices internationally, as well as the promotion of U.S. regulatory approaches, as appropriate; and
(ii) examine, among other things:
(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;
(B) best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory development, and, where appropriate, information exchange and other regulatory tools; and
(C) factors that agencies should take into account when determining whether and how to consider other regulatory approaches under section 3(d) of this order.
(b) As Chair of the Working Group, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall convene the Working Group as necessary to discuss international regulatory cooperation issues as described above, and the Working Group shall include a representative from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, representatives from other agencies and offices.
(c) The activities of the Working Group, consistent with law, shall not duplicate the efforts of existing interagency bodies and coordination mechanisms. The Working Group shall consult with existing interagency bodies when appropriate.
(d) To inform its discussions, and pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 12866, the Working Group may commission analytical reports and studies by OIRA, the Administrative Conference of the United States, or any other relevant agency, and the Administrator of OIRA may solicit input, from time to time, from representatives of business, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.
(e) The Working Group shall develop and issue guidelines on the applicability and implementation of sections 2 through 4 of this order.
(f) For purposes of this order, the Working Group shall operate by consensus.
Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies. To the extent permitted by law, and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each agency shall:
(a) if required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;
(b) ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;
(c) in selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:
(i) reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and
(ii) such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and
(d) for significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.
Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).
(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.
(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.
(d) “Regulation” shall have the same meaning as “regulation” or “rule” in section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866.
(e) “Significant regulation” is a proposed or final regulation that constitutes a significant regulatory action.
(f) “Significant regulatory action” shall have the same meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Sec. 5. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;
(ii) the coordination and development of international trade policy and negotiations pursuant to section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2451) and section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171);
(iii) international trade activities undertaken pursuant to section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 1512), subtitle C of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2171 note);
(iv) the authorization process for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(c) and its implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. 181.4) and implementing procedures (11 FAM 720);
(v) activities in connection with subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code, title 26 of the United States Code, or Public Law 111-203 and other laws relating to financial regulation; or
(vi) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
-
Let Your Voice Be Heard
Regulations.gov is a Web-based Federal rulemaking application supporting the United States government in its rulemaking process. Regulations.gov is provided as a public service to increase participation in the government’s regulatory activities by offering a central point for submitting comments on regulations.
-
New Obama Executive Order Pushes Us Closer To A North American Union
…And A One World Economic System
Michael Snyder
The American Dream
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
When it comes to Barack Obama, one of the most important things to understand is that he is a committed globalist. He firmly believes that more “global governance” (the elite don’t like to use the term “global government”) will make the world a much better place.
Throughout his time in the White House, Obama has consistently sought to strengthen international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. At every turn, Obama has endeavored to more fully integrate America into the “global community”. Since he was elected, Obama has signed a whole host of new international economic agreements. He regularly speaks of the need for “cooperation” among global religions and he has hosted a wide variety of different religious celebrations at the White House. Obama once stated that “all nations must come together to build a stronger global regime”. If you do not want to live in a “global regime” that is just too bad. To globalists such as Obama, it is inevitable that the United States of America will be merged into the emerging global system. Just this week, Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to “harmonize” U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system. Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening.
The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to “harmonize” their work with the international community. The following is how this new executive order was assessed in a recent Businessweek article….
Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.
“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.
Members of the Obama administration are touting this as a way to “reduce regulation”, but the truth is that this is much more about aligning ourselves with the rest of the world than anything else.
Obama’s “Information Czar”, Cass Sunstein, authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal on Monday in which he stressed the need to eliminate “unnecessary regulatory differences across nations” so that the United States can compete more effectively in our “interdependent global economy”. The end result of this process will be that we will now do things much more like how the rest of the world does things….
In an interdependent global economy, diverse regulations can cause trouble for companies doing business across national boundaries. Unnecessary differences in countries’ regulatory requirements can cost money, compromising economic growth and job creation. Think of divergent requirements for car headlights, or the labeling of food, or standards for container sizes.
Recognizing this, President Obama’s Jobs Council has called for U.S. agencies to better align U.S. regulations with those of our major trading partners. And today the president is issuing an executive order, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” with a simple goal: to promote exports, growth, and job creation by eliminating unnecessary regulatory differences across nations.
But a one world economic system is not going to arrive overnight. Initially, it is much more likely that there will be a very strong push toward North American integration first. The goal will be to shape North America into an integrated regional economic unit similar to the EU. Cass Sunstein discussed how this new executive order will affect North American integration on the White House website on Tuesday….
The new Executive Order will build on work that is already underway. We have started close to home, with President Obama launching Regulatory Cooperation Councils with Prime Minister Harper of Canada and President Calderon of Mexico. The Councils are implementing work plans to eliminate or prevent the creation of unnecessary regulatory differences that adversely affect cross-border trade; to streamline regulatory requirements; and to promote greater certainty for the general public and businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, in the regulation of food, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and other areas. The United States and Canada released the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Action Plan last December. In February, we announced the United States-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) Work Plan.
Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far plans to integrate the United States, Canada and Mexico have advanced.
Last year, Barack Obama signed an agreement to create a “North American security perimeter” and most Americans never even heard about it because the mainstream news networks almost entirely ignored it.
But this is exactly what the globalists want. They don’t want people to become alarmed by these moves toward North American integration. In fact, a document uncovered by Wikileaks shows that those involved in the effort to integrate North America believe that an “incremental” approach is best. Apparently they believe that small moves toward integration are less likely to alarm the general population. The following is from an article that appeared in The National Post last year….
The integration of North America’s economies would best be achieved through an “incremental” approach, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable.
The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.
“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the document said. “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.”
If the people of Canada, the United States and Mexico were told that there was a plan to merge all three economies, there might be massive protests to stop it, and the globalists do not want that.
A few years ago, the “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America” (SPP) that was being promoted by President George W. Bush started to generate quite a bit of negative publicity. That caused those seeking to integrate the economies of North America to back off for a little while.
But as an article by Jerome Corsi last year detailed, the eventual goal is to turn North America into another version of the eurozone. That includes a common currency for North America called the “amero”….
The SPP in the administration of President George W. Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as “the eurozone.”
The concern under the SPP has been that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could be evolved into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.
So will we ever see the “amero” replace the U.S. dollar?
Hopefully not.
If the globalists try to introduce the “amero”, it would probably be after a horrible financial crisis in which the U.S. dollar falls apart. The “amero” would be heralded as the “solution” to the problems that were plaguing the dollar.
If there ever is a move to get rid of the U.S. dollar for an international currency of some kind, the American people will need to resist it with all of their might.
The more integrated the world becomes, the more likely it becomes that we will see nightmarish global tyranny someday. It is very frightening to think of what someone very evil might do if they had the chance to run the entire planet.
Once our national sovereignty is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get back. If the American people don’t take a stand while they still can, their children may wake up someday as citizens of a very oppressive “global regime”.
-
Under the guise of filling us all in on what his White House department is doing to “clear away red tape”, Sunstein is really informing his followers about the advancements in one world government and a North American union:
-
Reducing Red Tape: Regulatory Reform Goes International
Posted by Cass Sunstein on May 01, 2012
Over the past year, the Federal Government has been working to implement President Obama’s directions for a 21st-century regulatory system, which he described in Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” Executive Order 13563 requires U.S. regulators, to the extent permitted by law, to select approaches that maximize net benefits; choose the least burdensome alternative; increase public participation in the rulemaking process; design rules that are simpler and more flexible, and that provide freedom of choice; and base regulations on sound science. Executive Order 13563 also calls for an ambitious, government-wide “lookback” at existing rules, with the central goal of eliminating outdated requirements and unjustified costs.
Today, President Obama has built on Executive Order 13563 by signing a historic Executive Order on Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. The new Executive Order will promote American exports, economic growth, and job creation by helping to eliminate unnecessary regulatory differences between the United States and other countries and by making sure that we do not create new ones…continued….
Cass Sunstein aka The Nudger is the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
-
-
-
-
-
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry
Like this:
Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, in this own words
-
“The pressure that gave us our positive power was the negative of racism in a white society. We exploited it for our own purposes.” – Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals,
p.144
While there has been a debate in the press as to whether or not the father of community organizing and author of Rules for Radicals,
In Alinsky’s view and that of his acolytes, progressive social justice is the redistribution of wealth and the primacy of the societal good over individual liberty.
Below is an interview with Saul Alinsky with Pulizer Prize-winning author, Studs Terkel. Terkel hosted a popular radio show in Chicago for 45 years from WFMT and passed away in 2011 at the age of 96. Thanks to the Tom Gaudette Archives and BWM-Citizen Journalism. Audio transferred from cassette. Original Broadcast unknown. Transcript below.
-
<
An interview with Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing (and POTUS Obama mentor) with Pulizer Prize-winning author, Studs Terkel. Terkel hosted a popular radio show in Chicago for 45 years from WFMT and passed away in 2011 at the age of 96. Thanks to the Tom Gaudette Archives and BWM-Citizen Journalism. Audio transferred from cassette. Original Broadcast unknown.
-
-
-
-
-
Rules for Radicals
-
*Understanding these radical rules arms Americans that fight for their freedom & liberty by Restoring the Republic, saving the U.S. Constitution and our county’s Sovereignty against those that seek to destroy our Western Civilization with Socialism.*
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” ~Winston Churchill
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” ~Thomas Sowell
“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you’ll join with me, as we try to change it.” ~Barack Obama, 2008
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.” ~Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1861
-
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
-
Rules for Radical Conservatives Will Help Us Save America
By Kyle-Anne Shiver October 7, 2010
As a longtime student of Alinsky myself, I was more curious than a lurking feline to see how Walsh answered Alinsky’s manual for the left. Rules for Radical Conservatives far outshines Alinsky’s drab socialist nihilism and actually not only gives conservative Americans a roadmap for bringing our nation back to Constitutional fidelity, but also tells us exactly how we got to such a place as this — where truly limited government is little more than a dim memory. But of course Walsh’s book would be vibrant and colorful, where Alinsky’s is nothing but stale adolescent peevishness in dun-colored verbiage. After all, Walsh is strong Irish-Catholic stock, whose father was a lifetime Marine, and Alinsky was just a dull-witted atheist with an absent father, whose mother was a harridan of the neighborhood. The voice of the shrew, Alinsky’s mother, is as loud and off-putting in Rules for Radicals as the voice of God is fresh and alluring in Walsh’s Rules for Radical Conservatives.
In Walsh’s work, this classic literary device has inspired the David Kahane muse, a cunning, lifelong, ultra-believing liberal willing to spill his guts on all the wiles, ways, and means of the nihilist left, just so conservatives will have a fighting chance to save the soul of America from the diabolical aims of the Alinskyites. In other words, if you loved The Screwtape Letters — and who of good heart didn’t? — then you will find “Kahane’s” manual a rip-roaring laugh a minute even as your spine shudders at the very real and imminent dangers we Americans now face.
Walsh didn’t do what many conservatives do, however. He didn’t abandon his creative bent for a more practical and less liberal-entrenched field. Instead, he became a screenwriter and a novelist, and then a political commentator. All the while being surrounded on all sides by Alinskyites, he studied them, fought them on their own turf, discovered their weaknesses and their vanities, and finally exposed them with all their nihilist filth on the pages of Rules for Radical Conservatives.
From the mouth of David Kahane, Walsh’s liberal muse you’ll love to hate, explaining the wiles of the left for conservative readers:
I want you to understand that when we say it’s for your own good, we mean that it’s for our own good. When we use a term like “social justice,” what we really mean is that payback’s a bitch … When we start complaining that something is “unsustainable,” we have not the slightest shred of evidence to support that assertion, and what we really mean is that it is, in fact, entirely sustainable, but that we are doing our best to wreck it … When we speak of such things as “fierce moral urgency,” our “morality” is based on absolutely nothing more than whatever suits our purposes, and bears only an accidental resemblance to anything found in such traditional sources of morality as churches and synagogues, or basic common decency.
… my pals and I are the ones who run your neighborhood associations and co-op boards and “concerned citizens committees” – we never get tired of this stuff! – the people who meddle in every aspect of your lives, not only because we want to, having nothing better to do ourselves, but because we can. We are Eddie Haskell, on steroids, a malevolent, empowered Eddie Haskell, come to living, breathing life, and sent back to earth by a lower power to annoy you. …
Without wasting a lot of time invoking “God,” we can devote more time and money to metal detectors, to self-esteem classes, to lectures from cops about the dangers of drugs and weapons. Instead of hectoring their “charges,” as if there were some sort of inherent power imbalance between students and teachers, we now have teachers in our urban jungles cowering in fear from their “students,” assaulted, beaten up, threatened. We have teachers’ unions that can now devote themselves entirely to their real purpose, which is making sure that the teacher will never get fired (a small price to pay for having to endure the level of hostilities in the inner cities that a still-racist society engenders). With “God” no longer in the classroom, the old taboos have flown out the window along with discipline, morals, and learning. If you’d wanted to destroy the public schools in the U.S., you couldn’t have found a better tip of the spear than Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
-
-
Like this:
Spanish Company “Scytl” To Count American Votes In November Election
-
Scytl currently has contracts with 900 U.S. jurisdictions to count votes
According to SCYTL’s website, the company’s software will be used to report election results in the state of Arkansas along with 13 other states:
“Scytl’s election management subsidiary, SOE Software, has recently been selected by the Arkansas Secretary of State’s Division of Elections to provide its Clarity ENR solution and enhance the State’s web presentation of Election Night Results. With this selection, Arkansas will join over 800 Election jurisdictions in 13 states that leverage the industry leading election results solution. Clarity ENR presents results data graphically through the utilization of maps, bar charts, totals and downloadable reports. Ballot contest and/or issue information may be presented at the state and county level with granular detail provided down to a specific voting precinct. The solution will empower every web visitor with access to user friendly presentation of voting data to include contest details, status of counties / precincts reporting, voter turnout, vote type summaries and more.”
In addition, SCYTL has contracted with the state of Virginia to develop new technology that will be used to tabulate absentee and military votes.
And in February of this year the state of Connecticut awarded to SCYTL a contract to conduct online poll worker training.
Among the states so far that have contracted with the company are Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Connecticut, Washington, Virginia, and West Virginia. The state of New York has contracted with the company to do its overseas vote tabulations.
During the 2010 midterm elections, SCYTL ‘modernized’ the electoral process in 14 states:
During the midterm elections in November 2010, SCYTL successfully carried out electoral modernization projects in 14 States. The company boasted that a “great variety” of SCYTL’s technologies were involved in these projects, including an online platform for the delivery of blank ballots to overseas voters, an Internet voting platform and e-pollbook software to manage the electoral roll at the polling stations.
The states that used SCYTL’s technologies during the Midterms were New York, Texas, Washington, California, Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia and Washington DC.
SCYTL technology was the subject of controversy in South Carolina during its 2012 Republican primary. The Ron Paul campaign charged that there were major problems with the process of vote tabulation implemented by local elections officials who had been trained to use the SCYTL platform. There were also reports of numerous technical failures on the part of electronic voting machines.
Bev Harris, an elections and voter fraud expert, wrote that the manner in which SCYTL reports election results are very hard to monitor for fraud. According to Harris, a citizen observer would have to be present at the time the polls close to capture evidence of precinct results. Otherwise there is no way to compare the numbers.
Harris’ online vote watch venture, BlackBoxVoting, contains a disturbingly lengthy list of an assortment of problems associated with elections and voter fraud in the U.S., including widespread evidence that government officials can now see exactly how an individual citizen voted. The site also delineates how state and local elections officials in certain states routinely mislead the public and outright violate the law.
In the South Carolina case, results were tabulated privately, which is against state law. The state requires that the vote count be done openly, in public. But in order to make sure that the SCYTL machines report the accurate numbers, observers must actually see the physical evidence of the vote before the information is entered into the database.
Such a requirement may be difficult if not impossible to implement, since many states no longer require a paper backup to electronic votes.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson sent an official letter to the U.S. Department of Justice to delineate potential fraud in the voting process in the state. Over 900 people who supposedly cast ballots were found later to be deceased.
The fact that each state uses its own system and operates according to its own laws would prevent a nationwide scheme to tamper with the 2012 vote. It is therefore impossible under the current system for the Obama Administration, for example, to implement a vote counting system for every precinct in America, although there are government officials who have made it known that they wish to mandate a uniform voting system that would be used in every state. At present, however, the various states and precincts are not capable of such a thing due to economic issues and other logistics.
But the fact that the SCYTL system is being used in 900 voting jurisdictions in the U.S. means that the potential for widespread vote tampering, even enough to skew the November election, does in fact exist.
According to one political activist who recently presented evidence to a Congressman concerning these issues, the only way for citizens to get something done about preventing potential massive vote fraud in 2012 is to volunteer to be a poll watcher, become a precinct worker, and send the information contained in this article to every local, state, and national politician, along with phone calls and emails to Congressmen, Senators, and state legislators to request investigations.
Worldwide leader in secureelectronic voting & electoral modernization
-
April 9, 2012, Hewlett Packard (HP) is a partner with Scytl
-
-
-
-
Spanish company contracts with 900 U.S. jurisdictions to count votes Continue reading on Examiner.com Spanish company contracts with 900 U.S. jurisdictions to count votes
by Admin on April 14, 2012
DERWOOD, MD – APRIL 03: A voter uses a digital voting machine during the presidential primary election at the Agricultural History Farm Park April 3, 2012 in Derwood, Maryland.
-
-
-
WHAT is Scytl & WHY Should You Be VERY, VERY Concerned?
Written on April 10, 2012 by Ann-Marie Murrell
Here’s another of those quiet, subtle, but very dangerous little stories that has somehow slipped past all the mainstream media outlets.
The United States of America has a brand new private VOTE COUNTING company that the Obama administration has personally handpicked.
The company is called Scytl and it is based in Michelle Obama’s most favorite vacation spot, Barcelona, Spain.
Forget the fact that Barack is once again providing jobs for people in another country; there are much bigger fish to fry in this story.
According to the “About Us” section of the Scytl website:
Scytl is a worldwide leader in the development of secure solutions for electoral modernization.
Scytl was formed as a spin-off from a leading research group at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. This group, funded by the Spanish Government’s Ministry of Science and Technology, has pioneered the research on e-voting security in Europe since 1994 and has produced significant scientific results, including 25 scientific papers published in international journals and the first two European Ph.D. theses on electronic voting security, by Prof. Joan Borrell and Scytl’s founder Dr. Andreu Riera (in 1996 and 1999, respectively). This research group also participated in the first Internet binding election in Europe (i.e., the 1997 election to the Presidency of the IEEE IT Spanish chapter).
Scytl has customers both in the private and public sectors. Some of these customers represent leading references in the electoral modernization market (e.g., governments in Spain, the USA, France, Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Philippines, Argentina, Mexico, Finland and Australia) and are pioneering new electronic voting applications. Scytl’s solutions have been successfully used in multiple projects worldwide, some of which represent breakthrough projects for the electoral modernization industry.
So what does this mean for all us non-European voters here in America?
According to Michael Savage, “[T]his critical component to a free election, the transparent tabulation of votes, will not be handled by individual precincts but by a company over which we will have little control…The problem is that once the votes are merged, it will be impossible to go back and check their integrity at the local level. It is very likely that this is the final step in Barack Obama’s corruption of the voting process. It has the promise of enabling him and his cohorts to control the outcomes of federal elections with no accountability. On top of that it’s one more step toward a global government.”
There are no Americans on the Board of Directors of Scytl—but CEO Pere Valles once lived and worked in Barack’s old stomping grounds, Chicago. From the Scytl website:
Mr. Valles joined Scytl in March 2004 after spending most of his professional career in the United States. Prior to joining Scytl, Mr. Valles was Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of GlobalNet, a NASDAQ publicly-traded telecommunications company headquartered in Chicago. Mr. Valles assisted GlobalNet in becoming one of the leading providers of Voice-over-IP in the world and was instrumental in the successful sale of the company to the Titan Corporation, a NYSE defense company. At GlobalNet, Mr. Valles was responsible for designing and executing the strategic plan that led to an increase in revenues from US$ 25 million to over US$ 100 million and brought the company to profitability. Previously, Mr. Valles had worked as Senior Manager for KPMG‘s Mergers & Acquisitions group in Los Angeles and Miami providing financial and strategic consulting services to private equity groups and corporations involved in acquisitions in the United States, Latin America and Europe. During his career at KPMG, Mr. Valles actively participated in more than 20 transactions in the telecommunications and technology areas. Mr. Valles has a bachelor degree in Economics and a bachelor degree in Law from the University of Barcelona and a MBA (summa cum laude) from Indiana University.
In 2008 the Florida Department of State looked into using Scytl’s remote voting system but turned it down. Their reasons:
Our findings identified vulnerabilities that, in the worst case, could result in (i) voters being unable to cast votes, (ii) an election result that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters, or (iii) disclosure of confidential information, such as the votes cast by a voter. The extent to which these vulnerabilities could actually be exploited in the ODBP is beyond the scope of this report given our lack of system context. Secure handling and audit of the Voter Choice Records may defend against some or all of these vulnerabilities, but these procedures were not available for review.
We identify three findings of particular significance:
- The use of supervised polling stations provides significantly better protection against voter coercion or vote- selling than is present in some other absentee voting systems, such as voting by mail.
- Two copies of each vote are stored: one electronically, and another on paper as a Voter Choice Record. This pro- vides redundancy that is not present in existing vote-by-mail systems. If the electronic votes are well-protected, then they can enable audit of the paper records in ways that are not currently possible.
- After casting their ballot, each voter is given a receipt that is intended to give voters confidence that their votes were “Counted as Cast”. These receipts do not achieve their stated goal of allowing voters to “independently verify that their ballots have been correctly accounted for.” These receipts might indicate that a vote was received and decrypted by the county (a property not typically provided by current postal voting systems), but they do not provide assurance that the voter’s vote was correctly recorded.
Also interesting to note, one of the organizations on “Scytl Partners” tab is Oracle, a major supporter to all-things-Democrat. And another Scytl Partner is a spooky “global governance” organization called Gov2u.org. Check them out. Yikes.
There are many, many reasons for all of us to be concerned about Obama’s choice in vote-counting this November—yet no one seems to be up-in-arms about this other than Michael Savage and a handful of Internet bloggers.
Goodbye ACORN, hello Scytl…
Like this:
RISE OF THE IRAN LOBBY by Clare M. Lopez
Islamic government cannot be reformed, regime change is the only option!
Pro Democracy Movement of Iran (PMDI)Dr. Arash Irandoost
Vision, Mission and Beliefs
Pro Democracy Movement of Iran (PDMI)
Clare M. Lopez
Monday, January 17, 2011
(A revised version with more links and pictures)
See also
گزارش تحقیقی در مورد شبکه لابی رژیم ایران در آمریکا بخش اول
گزارش تحقیقی در مورد شبکه لابی رژیم ایران در آمریکا بخش دوم
A complex network of individuals and organizations with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran is pressing forward in seeming synchrony to influence the new U.S. administration’s policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. Spearheaded by a de facto partnership between the pearheaded by a de facto partnership between the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other organizations serving as mouthpieces for the mullahs’ party line, the network includes well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world.
This report documenting the rise of what can accurately be described as the “Iran Lobby” in Washington, D.C. is derived entirely from unclassified open sources and describes in detail the activities, linkages, and objectives of this alarming alliance between NIAC, CAIR and others that is aimed at co-opting America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and specifically with Iran. Understanding the involvement of the Tehran regime in the foundation and continuing activities of organizations like these and their allies will become increasingly important to understanding the extent of the regime’s influence on American foreign policy decisions regarding Iran.
As these organizations expand, multiply and, in the process, intensify their efforts to promote a shared and ominous agenda, it is imperative to recognize the role being played by what amount to their interlocking (or at least overlapping) boards of directors, donations from the same foundations and growing access to some key members of Congress and top levels of US policymaking circles. Of special concern is the growing penetration of the Obama administration by a number of individuals with such associations.
To be sure, efforts at influencing U.S. decision-making are common among a host of legitimate interest groups, including many foreign countries. But in this context, where the guiding force behind such influence operations emanate from the senior-most levels of a regime like Iran’s – which holds the top spot on the State Department list of state-sponsors of terror, makes no secret of its hatred and enmity for the United States and its ally, Israel, and acts in myriad ways to support those who have assassinated, held hostage, kidnapped, killed and tortured American civilians and military personnel over a 30-year period – such operations must be viewed with serious concern.
Specifically, the de facto alliance between CAIR, one of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates named by the U.S. Department of Justice as an unindicted co- conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation trials, and groups such as NIAC and its predecessor, the American-Iranian Council (AIC), which long have functioned openly as apologists for the Iranian regime, must arouse deep concern that U.S. national security policy is being successfully targeted by Jihadist entities hostile to American interests.
Background
This paper is meant to provide a Who’s Who-style catalog of the organizations and individuals associated with the Iran Lobby in America. Some of the most influential figures involved are surely witting that their actions serve to support the objectives of the mullahs in Tehran, while others may not realize that their actions inevitably result in such consequences. Either way, the group as a whole is openly portrayed in the Iranian media as the regime’s “Iranian lobby” in the United States.1
Some of these entities also share another connection – to Iranian and international business interests, especially in the oil industry. Whatever their differences, the members of the Iran lobby have one thing in common: They insist that the United States must adopt a new policy towards Iran of conciliatory negotiations without preconditions.
Known supporters of the Tehran regime such as NIAC (founded in 2002), CAIR (founded in 1994), the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII, founded in December 2005) and their associates have methodically fostered an expansive web engaged in influence operations in the United States. In recent years, they have been joined in promoting appeasement of Iran by several newer organizations, including the Center for a New American Security CNAS, founded in February 2007), the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI, founded in June 2008), and the American Foreign Policy Project (AFPP, founded in December 2008).
A number of these groups count prominent Middle East and Iran experts among their boards and advisory councils, as well as a shifting cast of pro-regime advocates who periodically swap leadership positions in these and other organizations. What is more, whether directly influenced by the pro-Iran lobby network or not, several established fixtures on the Washington and New York think tank landscape – such as the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Institute for Science and International Security and the Woodrow Wilson Center – have also weighed in urging the United States to eschew any consideration of a military option to deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, in favor of diplomatic measures in preparation for living with a nuclear Iran.
It has taken at least a decade of maneuvering behind the scenes of Washington policymaking to create this “Iranian Lobby” for the purpose of edging U.S. foreign policy on Iran closer to the preferred positions of the clerical regime in Tehran. Participating organizations have benefited from the support of powerful business interests associated with and/or seeking the favor of the mullahs that have a deep stake in perpetuating the status quo. Some may even view expansion of Iranian dominance in the Persian Gulf as to their benefit. Available evidence, moreover, suggests that the Iran Lobby in America is coordinated in Iran at various government levels and within establishment circles both governmental and industrial. An official agency of the Iranian regime called The Supreme Council for Iranians Living Abroad was formed at the highest levels of the Iranian regime at some point in the early part of the decade with the specific objective of “establishing specialized groups and non-governmental bodies among Iranians living abroad.”2 This should come as no surprise since the Iranian government’s has sought to influence U.S. policy from the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
A glimpse of Tehran’s more recent role in the establishment and activities of its lobby in America can be found in frank discussions about the National Iranian-American Council in regime-controlled media such as the Fars News daily. For example, in a March 2007 piece, Fars News describes NIAC as a “non-profit” organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. that was established to counter the influence of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a legal lobby group, and to silence those opposing the regime and enlist the support of Iranian expatriates living in the United States in order to “penetrate U.S. politics.”3 Interestingly, the same Fars News article drew a comparison between what it termed “harassment” against NIAC by so-called American “neocons” and an “increase in negative publicity” against CAIR, implying at the least the two share a common agenda.4
n fact, while details about the full extent of CAIR’s partnership with advocates for the Iranian regime in the United States are difficult to pin down, it is easy to document CAIR’s public support for the Islamic Republic, which closely parallels and sometimes overlaps that of NIAC and other affiliates in the Iran Lobby network. CAIR as an organization, as well as individual CAIR representatives, long have taken a public stance that minimizes the criminality of Tehran’s human rights abuses, its non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threats of genocide against the state of Israel and support for terrorism throughout the Middle East. CAIR’s public positions also have advocated a policy of acquiescence, diplomacy, incentives and negotiations with the Tehran regime, while strongly opposing coercive diplomacy, sanctions or the threat of military action.
Sometimes, CAIR (or other Muslim Brotherhood affiliates) and other members of the Iran Lobby make joint public appearances or statements, as when former Iranian president Khatami visited the U.S. in 2006. Another example also dates from 2006, when an interfaith group of religious figures joined in drafting and signing a statement entitled, “Words, Not War, With Iran.” Among the signatories was Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism funding trials.5 The statement’s core message urged “that the U.S. engage in direct negotiations with Iran as an alternative to military action in resolving the crisis.”6
Robert Gard
Interestingly, as will be described later in this report, a similar statement under the same title was issued by a group of former military leaders and foreign policy officials in August 2006. Among those signatories are two names that are prominent among the Iran Lobby network of influential Washington-based organizations. They are Ambassador Charles ”Chas” W. Freeman, member of the AIC’s Board of Directors, and retired Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, one of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran’s experts.
Nihad Awad
Representative Keith Ellison
The case of Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) is a prime example of how the Iran Lobby achieves and exerts influence in Washington through groups like NIAC and CAIR and at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking. The first Muslim representative elected to Congress, Rep. Ellison makes appearances at both NIAC and CAIR events and expresses support for an agenda that opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and pressure of any kind against the Tehran regime.
Parvez Ahmad
During the 2006 congressional campaign, CAIR threw at least one fundraiser for Ellison, held at a Crowne Plaza hotel outside Minneapolis.7 Ellison accepted thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director, and Parvez Ahmed, then CAIR chairman.8 In a short piece defending their campaign donations to Ellison, the two wrote, “We are proud of our personal donations to Ellison’s campaign” and criticized what they called “Muslim-bashing” during the campaign season. 9
Shortly after his election in November 2006, Ellison appeared at a CAIR fundraising event in Arlington, Virginia where he was a featured speaker.10 In December 2008, Congressman Ellison made the hajj, the pilgrimage to the Muslim holy city of Mecca; according to his hometown Minneapolis daily, the Star Tribune, “his expenses were paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota.”11 The MAS was founded in 1992 by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and is identified as its representative in the U.S.12
Rep. Ellison moves easily between his NIAC associations and CAIR connections. One theme that bridges the two for Ellison is his consistent support for “peaceful resolutions” to conflicts in the Middle East. This takes the form of vocal opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom and any coercive measures, whether sanctions or military action, to bring Iran into compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions or its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In February 2008, Ellison spoke at a NIAC-hosted event in Palos Verdes, California that was chaired by , a member of NIAC’s board of directors. “The [Dec 2007 Iran] NIE estimate shows that engaging in dialogue can work,” Ellison reportedly said.13 The press release advertising the event was posted on both the NIAC website14 and the Payvand Iran News website.15
Then, on May 28, 2008, Rep. Ellison hosted a group of Iran “scholars” for a Minneapolis community forum dedicated to the U.S.-Iran relationship. One of his invited co-panelists was NIAC president Trita Parsi. Commenting on his purpose in holding the forum, Ellison said: “Nary a day goes by that someone isn’t saying something about Iran in the media. Part of my responsibility as a U.S. congressman is to be [sic] a forum to discuss the critical issues we face and to promote dialogue about the most pressing issues.”16
In fact, Ellison said the forum was in preparation for a national call-in day on June 10, 2008 when Americans were asked to phone their representatives and senators, urging that the U.S. not attack Iran. That event was cosponsored by the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran, an Iran Lobby organization founded in February 2008 together with official Partner organization, NIAC.
Ellison’s support for the non-confrontational U.S. policy towards Iran favored by the Tehran regime was spelled out in a June 2008 article carried by the website of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran – a NIAC affiliate described in greater detail below. The article is entitled, “Congressman slams U.S.’s Iran policies,” and notes that Ellison “pointed out that he always votes ‘nay’ to sanctions against Iran in the U.S. Congress. He maintains that the sanctions are fruitless and only worsen the situation.” 17 Ellison’s ideological position spanning his support for the Iranian regime and as a unalloyed apologist for Islam in general is captured in his final comment, expressing criticism “of the U.S. and Western mass media, which generally offer a pre-judgmental image of Iran and a negative view of Islam.”18
The American‐Iranian Council
Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi
The American-Iranian Council (AIC) was established in the United States in the 1990s with backing from multinational oil companies such as Aramco, Chevron Texaco, and Conoco Phillips. Leadership figures of these corporations have served on the AIC’s board of directors. The AIC’s founder and president, Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, is an Iranian regime insider and close associate of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Amirahmadi also ran as a presidential candidate in the same June 2005 elections that ultimately brought Ahmadinejad to power.
While the AIC’s website states that its mission “…Provides for a sustainable dialogue and a more comprehensive understanding of US-Iran relations” and claims that, according to its vision, “The United States and Iran should and will work together, as their common interests far outweigh their differences,” its apparent unofficial objective was to create a U.S. lobbying web to further the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.19
The following are among the prominent figures associated with this arm of the Iran lobby:
‘Chas’ Freeman
Ambassador Charles (“Chas”) W. Freeman Jr., president of the Middle East Policy Council, was a member of the AIC board of directors. Freeman is reportedly the Obama administration’s pick to be the next chairman of the hugely sensitive National Intelligence Council, a position from which he would be able to exercise profound influence on U.S. policies towards Iran.20 Freeman served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He maintains close ties to members of the Saudi royal family and is a member of the Saudi-American Forum and a frequent contributor to the Saudi-U.S. Relations Information Service. In August 2006, Amb. Freeman was one of nearly two dozen diplomatic and military notables who signed the “Words, Not War, with Iran” statement. Its short petition directed itself to the Bush administration and called for direct talks without preconditions with the terror regime in Tehran:
As former military leaders and foreign policy officials, we call on the Bush administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and settle differences over the Iranian nuclear program.
We strongly caution against any consideration of the use of military force against Iran. The current crises must be resolved through diplomacy, not military action. An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq, and it would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims elsewhere.
A strategy of diplomatic engagement with Iran will serve the interests of the U.S. and its allies, and would
enhance regional and international security.21
Richard Matzke
A former vice chairman of the Chevron Texaco Corporation, Richard Matzke, served as a co-chairman of the AIC. Matzke, who retired from Chevron Texaco in 2002 after some 40 years with the oil company, called in 2001 for a complete review of U.S. sanctions against energy investment in Iran saying, “It’s clearly time to reevaluate all sanctions but it’s a little early to tell what the Bush administration will do….They have serious issues to contend with. Iran’s not the highest thing on the priority list. But it will get there.” (Emphasis added.)22
Mehdi Karroubi.
At that time, Matzke added that he thought the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act was the “driver” behind existing sanctions on business with Iran, and noted that oil companies such as Chevron could play an influential role. “We’ve got to look beyond oil companies, but oil companies can be used as a framework for national dialogue,” he said.23 Matzke also was present, together with Exxon Mobil and Conoco representatives, at a September 2000 meeting in New York City with the speaker of the Iranian Majles (parliament), Mehdi Karroubi. According to the accompanying announcement made by AIC President Hooshang Amirahmadi, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways of working against U.S. trade sanctions on Iran.24
J.M. “Michael” Stinson
Another AIC board member, J. Michael Stinson, is also retired from the Conoco Phillips Company, where he was senior vice president for government affairs. He, too, looked forward to the possibility that companies like Conoco might one day gain access to Iranian oil fields. Speaking in November 2001 about the relationship between Iran and the U.S., he said: “’We’ve been encouraged in the last couple of months….We see evidence of things going on, like very quiet government-to-government talks about the issues that are separating us. If they succeed, we have a bright future.”25
William G. “Bill” Miller
One of the other prominent fixtures in the Iran Lobby is Ambassador William G. Miller. He too was a member of the AIC’s board of directors and advisory council. Miller is currently Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington and Senior Advisor to the US-Iran Program at Search for Common Ground since 1998.
Miller served as political officer for the U.S. Embassy in Tehran from 1962 to 1964 and at the U.S. Consulate in Isfahan, Iran from 1959 to 1962. His affinity for the mullahs was evident when he subsequently served as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1979. During that era, Miller actually recommended that the U.S. support the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom he thought would be a “progressive force for human rights.”26
A fluent Farsi speaker, Miller travels regularly to Tehran, where he maintains a relationship with the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Miller was an attendee at the April 2006 Pugwash Conference held in Tehran and entitled “Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program: Policies and Prospects.”27 Miller is also a close associate of NIAC President Trita Parsi.
In the decades since the Khomeini Revolution, Miller has been a consistent advocate for a more convivial relationship between the U.S. and Iran. In a 1999 statement broadcast by the Voice of America, Miller said that “the more Americans and Iranians interact the better.” Incredibly, he added his belief that “Iran is not fundamentalist. Iran is a very complicated society which has a varied approach to many of the aspects of life. Its religion is led by people of great learning and distinction. It has men of great openness and character among the religious leadership with whom you can have a very direct and constructive dialogue.”28 On this and other issues involving the U.S.-Iran relationship, Miller’s position regularly and reliably reflects that of the Iranian clerical regime.
Thomas Pickering
One of the most prominent names among AIC’s board of directors that reappears repeatedly in legitimating positions elsewhere in the Iran Lobby network, is that of Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering. A career diplomat, Pickering served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from May 1997 through the end of 2000. He subsequently was a senior vice president with the Boeing Company until 2006. Currently he is vice chairman of the international business consulting firm, Hills & Co. and co-chairman of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group (whose executive committee includes, interestingly, George Soros).
Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran. Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. He also cites positive experiences as a tourist in Iran, where he recalls that ordinary Iranians on the streets expressed friendliness towards him.29
John Esposito
Another AIC board member was John Esposito, the director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Esposito is perhaps best known as an apologist for radical Islamism; his Center is the recipient of a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
According to Prof. Esposito, it was actually the 1979 Iranian Revolution that catapulted his academic career into national prominence, as his books and articles about the Iranian clergy suddenly took on new relevance. “I owe my Lexus and my career to the Ayatollah Khomeini,” he tells his students at Georgetown.30
Illustrative of Esposito’s thinking about Iran is the following comment from his introduction to Modernizing Islam: Religion in the Public Sphere in Europe and the Middle East, the book he co-edited with Francois Burgat: “…Iran, long regarded as a terrorist threat, has in fact provided a major example of the mobilizing power of an appeal to democratization and civil society.”31 Esposito’s rose-colored formulations about Iran’s terrorist regime continue with commentary about the presidency of Mohammed Khatami: “Khatami’s support for civil society, the rule of law, and democratization, though not imposed, has become part of the political culture and debate within Iran.”32
Esposito manages to garner plaudits from both sides of the Sunni-Shia split, as demonstrated by his August 2005 award from the Saudi-associated Islamic Society of North America. ISNA honored Esposito for his contributions to the understanding of Islam. Sayyid Syeed, ISNA’s secretary general even went so far as to compare Esposito to Abu Taleb, the uncle of the Prophet Mohammad, who never converted to Islam, but defended the new faith nevertheless.33
Bruce Laingen
Ambassador Lowell Bruce Laingen, a former Tehran Embassy hostage and another AIC board member, is president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. He appeared on a December 2007 panel with NIAC founder and president Trita Parsi at the National Cathedral in Washington called “The Dialogue Conference.” The event was sponsored by Episcopal Bishop John Bryson Chane (and is described in greater detail later in this paper).
Surprisingly for the American Charge d’Affaires at the Tehran Embassy in 1979 who, together with his staff, saw his country’s embassy overrun and was then held hostage for 444 days, Laingen consistently displays a lack of outrage over that assault on American sovereignty. In an extensive interview he gave in 1993, for instance, Laingen expressed regret that the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Iran had not yet returned to normal:
…The hostage crisis, if you will, is still with us, now 14 years after the taking of the Embassy. Still with us in the sense that we don’t have now after all those years a relationship with Iran. In many ways that is unnatural….It will be very difficult for Washington, even when the time comes to try to reestablish a relationship, to deal with this public distaste out there among the American public. It is a burden on the future and is going to require some very deft handling on the part of Washington to overcome. Both we and Iran, both governments today, will be bringing a lot of emotional, political baggage to the negotiating table when we sit down eventually and try to talk. I think this is overdue. We should be talking to put this business behind us.34
One of the American-Iranian Council’s most intensive, but ultimately unsuccessful, campaigns was an effort to prevent the renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 2001 and to achieve the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Perhaps Amirahmadi’s most noteworthy achievement as part of this campaign was his recruitment of then-U.S. Congressman Robert William (Bob) Ney (R-OH). On behalf of AIC and its Iranian masters, Ney led congressional efforts to defeat ILSA and encourage a more Tehran-friendly U.S. foreign policy.35
Ney was subsequently convicted and sentenced to a federal prison term for conspiracy and making false statements in relation to the Jack Abramoff lobbying and bribery scandal of 2006. Ney reportedly accepted bribes from Abramoff and two foreign businessmen in return for using his congressional position to assist their illegal circumvention of U.S. sanctions on selling U.S.-made aircraft parts to Tehran.
Amirahmadi served more recently as professor of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey. In late 2008, however, he left Rutgers and now teaches in the Department of Sociology at Kings College, Cambridge.
Even before Amirahmadi’s departure from the United States left the future of the AIC in doubt, Tehran decided that a more intensive effort was required to promote the Iranian regime’s agenda in U.S. policymaking circles. In part, Tehran viewed AIC shortcomings as due to a failure to attract the Iranian expatriate community to its program. The 2000 formation of the Supreme Council for Iranians Living Abroad (a.k.a. the Secretariat of Supreme Council for Iranian Expatriates) established the official authority that henceforth would direct the Iranian regime’s program to infiltrate Iranian communities abroad, create entities to pose as their ostensible representatives and work to promote policies favorable to the regime. The Iranian president heads the Council and the Ministers of Culture and Islamic Guidance, and Intelligence are Council members who collaborate to implement Council initiatives.37
The National Iranian-American Council
Trita Parsi-NIAC Lobby
The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) began its existence as a concept proposed in a 1999 paper written by Trita Parsi, then a young Iranian-Swede living in Stockholm, and Siamak Namazi, a young businessman who lived in Tehran. The title of the paper was “Iranian-Americans: The Bridge Between Two Nations.” It was presented at a conference organized by the Iranian regime in Cyprus. (The paper is listed on Trita Parsi’s personal website at http://www.tritaparsi.com/publications.htm but is blocked to readers.)
The Parsi-Namazi paper explicitly proposed the formation of an Iranian lobby in the U.S. capital to promote Tehran’s interests in Congress and oppose the powerful Israeli lobby, the American Israeli Political Action Committee. Two years later, in 2001, Parsi came to the United States to pursue his graduate studies but also went to work as a managing director for Hooshang Amirahmadi at AIC.
As it happens, Parsi took a second position as an assistant in the Capitol Hill office of Rep. Bob Ney Even though Parsi and his friends were unable to prevent the renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 2001, Tehran seems to have had faith in the Iranian-Swede’s abilities. The mullahs chose in 2003 to transmit what was purported to be a proposal originated by the Swiss Ambassador to Tehran, Tim Guldimann, for negotiations between Iran and the United States through Parsi and his boss Rep. Ney. The latter delivered it to the White House.38
While nothing came of the initiative at the time, Parsi’s usefulness had been established. And so the National Iranian-American Council was created. Parsi and three other individuals named on the NIAC website formed the organization as a tax-exempt 501(c)3 entity in 2002, claiming its “express mission [is] to promote Iranian-American civic participation.” Importantly, such a tax status is not supposed to be used by lobbying organizations.
David DiStefano
Yet, among NIAC’s founders were Roy Coffee and Dave DiStefano, both Washington lobbyists who were later investigated by the Justice Department for activities conducted on behalf of Bob Ney. DiStefano was Ney’s Chief of Staff in the mid-late 1990s. In fact, Rep. Ney, Amirahmadi’s long-time man on the Hill, was instrumental in helping their mutual protégé, Trita Parsi, launch NIAC and establish it as an influential player in Washington. The regime in Tehran was thrilled. In an August 5, 2008 interview with Parsi, Iran’s Aftab News openly described him and his organization as the successors to the AIC and its founder/president, Hooshang Amirahmadi.39
Simak Namazi
Another key NIAC co-founder and friend of Parsi is Siamak Namazi, the Tehran-based political analyst who graduated from Tufts University (B.A., International Relations) and Rutgers University (M.S. Planning). Namazi began his professional work at Tehran’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning from 1994-98. In 1998, he founded the Future Alliance International, a Washington-based consulting company with a focus on the risks of doing business with Iran. This was a rather peculiar choice of venue for such a venture given that Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 1995 had banned all U.S. trade with and investment in Iran.
Namazi’s career really took off after he co-authored the 1999 Cyprus conference paper with Trita Parsi. Doors in Washington opened and Namazi served in a succession of think tank appointments, including as a visiting scholar at the Center for Strategic and Intelligence Studies (CSIS), a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center (2005) and a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), where he studied the role of the private sector in promoting good governance.
Namazi’s affiliation with Trita Parsi and NIAC, however, is curiously absent from the NIAC website. The relationship is only fleetingly apparent online from a single photograph of Trita Parsi that is included in a photo gallery depicting Namazi’s August 2000 trip to Yazd, Iran.40
The relationship between the two men is important because Namazi is also a partner in and the managing director of Atieh Bahar Consulting – one component of the sprawling Atieh family business in Tehran. Indeed, Atieh is a major Iranian conglomerate, well-connected to the clerical regime, that does business in a range of key industries, including banking, finance, and energy.41 The depth of regime trust in Atieh is demonstrated by its multiple contracts to provide network and computer services for Iranian banks, the Majles (parliament), and other important national institutions.42
Also noteworthy is the fact that Muhammad Baquer Namazi, Siamak’s father and a former United Nations (UN) and UNICEF representative, is currently the Director of Hamyaran, a so-called NGO Resource Center formed in March 2001. Ostensibly, Hamyaran’s mission is to serve as an Iranian NGO umbrella group. In practice, it functions as the regime’s watchdog to monitor and control other NGOs.43
Against this backdrop, the financial support provided to NIAC by the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) warrants close scrutiny. NED is a private non-profit organization created in 1983 “to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.” It receives an annual congressional appropriation for this purpose.
NED has provided thousands of dollars in grants to NIAC, ostensibly “to foster cooperation between Iranian NGOs and the international civil society community and to strengthen the institutional capacity of NGOs in Iran.” With that money, NIAC has conducted weeks of training programs on project design and grant writing for Iranian “civil society leaders” inside Iran.44 Iranian NGOs, though, are required to belong to the Hamyaran government umbrella organization – the one headed up by Muhammad Baquer Namazi, the father of Trita Parsi’s friend and partner, Siamak Namazi.
So, when U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to NED are granted to NIAC, the ultimate beneficiary is actually an organization closely affiliated with the Iranian regime. And NIAC, which channels these funds to Iran, is itself called an Iranian lobbying organization by that regime, whose purpose is to promote the positions of Tehran to Washington, policymaking circles.45 Under the leadership of Trita Parsi, and amply funded by a host of generally left-wing foundations, NIAC conducts an active agenda of interviews, lobbying, and outreach that has succeeded in developing a complex network of influence throughout the Washington academic, legislative, media, NGO, and policymaking communities. Thanks as well to an echo chamber it enjoys from a retinue of prominent American Middle East experts, an authority on Iranian matters has been conferred on NIAC that is unmatched by any opposing organization in the United States.
For example, recent screeds include nasty criticism of Israel’s military tactics during its latest incursion into Gaza that the journal likens to Nazi-style tactics and allege that American politicians fail to criticize Israel out of fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic.”46 The visceral antipathy and extreme bias against Israel on display in this journal would be deeply disturbing from any editor; when that editor may be the next chairman of the National Intelligence Council, there are grounds for serious concern.
The Middle East Policy Council’s National Advisory Committee compounds such misgivings. The Committee includes Georgetown University’s Dr. John. Esposito; his colleague at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Dr. Yvonne Haddad; and Gary G. Sick, Senior Research Scholar and adjunct professor at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
Barbara Slavin
Esposito and Haddad both attend events sponsored by NIAC’s ally, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and Esposito has in the past called CAIR (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials) “a phenomenal organization.”47 A January 2008 meeting organized by the Middle East Policy Council and entitled “Iran’s Strategic Concerns and U.S. Interests” was held in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill. The panel featured presentations by Professor Sick, Council on Foreign Relations Iranian scholar Ray Takeyh, Barbara Slavin (then a U.S. Institute of Peace fellow and USA Today reporter),48 MEPC’s Chas Freeman and Trita Parsi – every one an advocate for a U.S. government policy of more concessions, dialogue and accommodation with the Iranian regime.
To focus on just one of the experts on this panel, the positions and connections of Prof. Gary Sick illustrates the broad reach of the AIC-NIAC network. A former member of the AIC Board of Directors and currently at Columbia University, Sick served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. He was the principal White House aide for Iran during the 1979 Iranian Revolution and ensuing hostage crisis. He is a member of the Board of Human Rights Watch (HRW) in New York City and chairman of the advisory committee of Human Rights Watch/Middle East.
Mohammad Jafar Mahallati
Prof. Sick was also the executive director of Gulf/2000, an international research project on political, economic, and security developments in the Persian Gulf conducted at Columbia University from 1994-95that was partly financed by oil interests.50 The Open Society Institute of the Soros Foundation and Exxon/Mobil Foundation were among the major funders.51 Sick’s appearances at other conferences together with Iranian regime insiders such as Tehran’s former Ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Jafar Mahallati, are representative of his cordial connections to the Iranian regime
Through influential positions and relationships such as these, Prof. Sick has developed over the decades an extensive network of contacts with access to both Iranian and U.S. policymaking circles at the highest levels. To his American audiences, he routinely promotes the interests of Iran’s clerical rulers, finding ways to excuse their terrorism, advocate more understanding on the part of the U.S. government and encourage accommodation with Tehran.
Gary Sick and Trita Parsi
For example, Sick excuses Iranian support for Hamas terrorist activities: “Iran’s support for terrorist activities carried out by Hamas is a matter of dispute. Iran claims that its support for Hamas is no different than the Saudi’s support. They give money for clinics and medical needs, but that money is used for terrorism. Iran has a different view on this. So it’s a matter of dispute.”52 About the 1992 and 1994 Iranian-directed terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the professor suggests that rogue elements of the Iranian secret service were responsible, with “little interference by the central authorities and no apparent coordination with Iran’s foreign policy agenda.”53 Such statements are contradicted by specific evidence that the attacks were, in fact, coordinated out of Iran’s Embassy in Buenos Aires. Fawning comments about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid the groundwork for Sick’s key role in securing the invitation for the former to speak at Columbia University following his 2007 appearance at the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York.
In yet another example of NIAC President Trita Parsi’s success in network-building, on April 8, 2008, he moderated a speakers panel entitled “Breaking the U.S.-Iran Stalemate:
Reassessing the Nuclear Strategy in the Wake of the Majles Elections.” Speakers included Dr. Hans Blix, currently chairman of the UN’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission and former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Dr. David Albright, the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security; Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who delivered the keynote address; Ambassador Thomas Pickering; and Barbara Slavin. Slavin is notable for her trips to Iran on visas she unabashedly admits are at least in part dependent on her willingness to follow her hosts’ agenda.54
Ambassador Pickering is a member of NIAC’s Advisory Board, a position he shares with former Rep. Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD). In December 2008, Congressman Gilchrist co-authored a letter to the newly installed speaker of the Iranian Majles, former Islamic Republican Guard Corps commander, and nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijni, to congratulate him on his election to that post and to urge dialogue between Iranian and American lawmakers.55 On February 22, 2008, Amnesty International (AI) sponsored an event in Los Angeles, under the title “Human Rights in Iran: It is striking that, AI chose Trita Parsi to be one of their panelists.
After all, at the aforementioned January 2008 meeting on Capitol Hill, Parsi publicly denied that NIAC had a human rights role. In response to a question about why NIAC never takes any meaningful stand against human rights violations in Iran, Parsi responded: “NIAC is not a human rights organization. That is not our expertise.”56 Instead, he defends continuity for the mullahs’ regime and rejects any struggle for democracy in Iran, claiming that “…The current choice Iranians face is not between Islamic tyranny and democratic freedom. It is between chaos and stability.”57
The Unfolding Drama
The Iranian government and its friends are making no secret of its ambitions for the Iran Lobby. AIC’s president Hooshang Amirahmadi was in Tehran in November 2008 and spoke with the Etemad newspaper about the importance of the presidential transition period then taking place in the United States. He warned that a contest among Arab, Iranian, and Jewish lobbies was unfolding in the U.S. capital, each trying to capture the “hearts and minds” of the new administration. He likened the scene to a “bazaar” and urged the friends of Iran to act quickly and
decisively.58
Hassan Qazwini
Indeed, Israel is central to Iranian concerns and, given that Obama is on record describing Israel as “This constant wound…this constant sore [that] does infect all of our foreign policy,”59 the Tehran regime might expect an easy time with the new American president. In fact, the day after he made this statement, the Iranians scored a major coup when Sen. Obama stopped at Macomb Community College in Warren, MI. There, on May 14, 2008, he met one-on-one behind closed doors with Imam Hassan Qazwini, the smooth-talking head of the Dearborn, Michigan Islamic Center of America. Qazwini, an Iraqi Shi’ite who grew up in exile in Iran during the Saddam Hussein years, requested the meeting, which reportedly was arranged by a former U.S. congressman from Michigan with a long record of sympathy for Arab, Iranian and Muslim causes: David Bonior. 60 Qazwini is close to Lebanese Shi’ite Ayatollah Fadlallah, known for his relationship with the Hizballah terrorist group.
At present, a major objective of the Iran lobby is to weaken U.S. support for Israel. The lobby advocates permitting the Iranian nuclear weapons program to push forward with no serious consequences, while urging an “evenhanded” policy that would ban all nuclear weapons from the Middle East region. An impressive array of prominent think tanks and Middle East experts has been lining up to echo this party line.
For example, the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center produced a new report in December 2008 entitled “Restoring the Balance—a Middle East Strategy for the Next President.” An overview chapter by Richard N. Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (and reportedly an Obama special envoy-in-waiting) and Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center, was followed by individual chapters devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict, counterterrorism, Iran, Iraq, and more.
Ray Takeyeh
The Iran chapter was written by Council on Foreign Relations husband-wife team of Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney and urges direct engagement and rapprochement with the Iranian government. Maloney, who previously had the Iran portfolio at the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, and Takeyh are among the army of scholars and experts whose gloss of authority helps legitimate the Iranian party line in U.S. policy making circles.
Dr. Takeyh, who is featured in a number of articles carried on the NIAC website, consistently downplays the seriousness of Iran’s outlaw behavior and instead characterizes the perpetrator as victim, asserting that “the leadership in Tehran has been thoroughly demonized.” He adds that in any case, Iran’s “rhetoric is worse than its conduct” 61 and emphasizes the need for U.S.-Iran negotiations as well as Israeli “restraint” in the face of Iran’s genocidal threats.
A December 29, 2008 opinion piece by Takeyh was featured in the Washington Post. In it, he writes hopefully of the prospect of “direct dialogue” with Iran. His plaintive query, “What does Iran want?” (which, in a moment of candor, he terms “a critical unknown”) is beyond disingenuous. With not a word of condemnation for Iran’s intransigence on its nuclear weapons program, support for terrorism or continuing role in destabilizing Iraq and killing U.S. troops there, Takeyh presents a pleasantly soothing agenda for potential bilateral talks.
Blithely suggesting that “As Tehran gains power and influence in the Gulf, it may prove moderate on more distant terrain,” Dr. Takeyh also dispenses summarily with Tehran’s genocidal threats against the state of Israel. He contends, without any evident basis in fact that “The Islamic Republic will never recognize Israel, but it may limit its mischievous interventions in Palestinian affairs.”62 (This article is also featured on the home page of the Payvand
Iran News, a news site that is never critical of the Tehran regime.)
Takeyh’s purpose, like that of his similarly-minded media and think tank associates, appears to be to lull the American public and its leadership into a false sense of security with regard to Iran by portraying its behavior as pragmatic, non-threatening and even on the road to internal reform — if only given the chance to do so by the United States. The cumulative effect of such efforts is insidiously to edge U.S. foreign policy on Iran closer and closer to the one most preferred by Tehran’s clerical clique: acceptance of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East and an end to all pressure for the regime to comply with international norms of behavior. Such a policy would be greatly detrimental to U.S. national security interests and those of its partner and ally, Israel.
Council for American‐Islamic Relations
The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was, like NIAC established as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization, founded in Washington, DC in 1994 with a stated mission “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”63
In truth, CAIR has had a very different agenda. It has been linked in the Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents to the latter’s North American network and has been named in two federal terrorist trials as an unindicted co-conspirator for participation in the illicit channeling of funding to Hamas.64 Based on its activities, associations, and statements, CAIR’s unspoken objectives seem to be directed to blurring the aggressive and violent history of Islam and attacking all official U.S. government efforts to crack down on Islamist terrorism and its associated financial and recruitment activities in the United States, as well as using America’s own legal system to silence critics.
CODE PINK
ess well appreciated is CAIR’s de facto alliance with the movement to steer U.S. foreign policy towards rapprochement with the Iranian mullahs’ regime in Tehran. It is clear that senior CAIR representatives were speaking and writing actively on behalf of the mullahs’ regime as early as the late 1990s. 65 In fact, CAIR as an organization also has consistently supported Tehran regime positions, as in the following instances:
In December 1997, CAIR condemned the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance for a display that featured Adolf Hitler juxtaposed with the Ayatollah Khomeini. In March 1999, CAIR attacked an article by Elaine Sciolino that appeared in the New York Times the previous month because the piece had criticized Iranian discrimination against women.66
Dr. Anisa Abd el Fattah (Caroline Keeble)
Dr. Anisa Abd el Fattah (nee Caroline Keeble) was a member of CAIR’s board of directors in 1999 when she co-hosted a panel sponsored by the United Association for Studies and Research (a no-shuttered Hamas front group and another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials) entitled “U.S. and Iran: Time to Talk.” The Iranian ambassador to the UN, Sayyid Hadi Najad had been invited to appear, but was barred from the event by the Department of State.
In addition, CAIR promotes the normalization of U.S. relations with Iran. Its March 17, 2000 press release applauding Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s statements of abject apology to the Tehran regime is a representative example of its views in this regard. 67
As noted above, CAIR’s aggressive legal harassment of analysts, bloggers, speakers, writers and others who seek to expose the spread of the Islamic Jihad agenda in the United States is well-documented and constitutes a prime sample of the phenomenon dubbed “lawfare,” whereby litigation, treaties and international as well as domestic courts are turned into weapons used against America and its interests.
CAIR has also turned its attention to journalists and even cartoonists who have had the temerity to criticize Iranian support for terrorism across the Middle East. A case in point is the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez, whose September 2007 depiction in the Columbus Dispatch of cockroaches scurrying out of a sewer grate labeled “Iran” and “Extremism” and across a map of the Middle East, prompted CAIR to post an Action Request upon its website, urging the organization’s members and friends to register their criticisms of the artist.68
Khatami and Awad of CAIR
CAIR’s consistent advocacy on behalf of Tehran kicked into high gear with the Department of State’s decision in 2006 to issue a visa to former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami so he could attend the Alliance of Civilizations meeting at the UN. The decision by then-Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns to allow Khatami to participate in the sixth annual commemoration of the 9/11 attacks seems downright obscene in light of the fact that this consummate regime insider was president during the years when Iran accelerated its nuclear weapons program, that he presided over the so-called “chain murders” of Iran’s most prominent scholars and academics in 1998, of Iran’s most prominent scholars and academics in 1998, that he crushed the student uprising of 1999, and that he represents a regime that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers, as well as safe haven to al-Qaeda killers fleeing Tora Bora.
IRI Bribing Public Officials
That was not, of course, the way CAIR saw it. National CAIR leaders, including Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s director of Strategic Communications, executive director Nihad Awad, and national vice chairman of the board of directors Ahmad Al-Akhras were all on hand to welcome Khatami to a private dinner and reception at the Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel in Crystal City, Virginia on September 8, 2006. Sharing the dais with Khatami were AIC President Hooshang Amirahmadi and the Sudanese Ambassador to the United States.
Supreme leader and John Bryson Chane
Kahatmi & John Bryson Chane
The Episcopal Bishop of Washington’s National Cathedral, John Bryson Chane, also had hosted the terror regime’s former president earlier that same day. Khatami used his “Dialogue of Civilizations” speech before a packed crowd in the Cathedral of 1,200 to defend Iran’s nuclear program as “peaceful” and suggested the world should focus instead on Israel’s nuclear arsenal.69 After Bishop Chane accepted a reciprocal invitation to visit Iran in 2007, he returned to convene a panel discussion on “The U.S. and Iran: A Difficult History” at the Cathedral on October 29, 2007. Featured panelists were a number of the Iran Lobby’s “usual suspects” including: former Tehran hostage Ambassador Bruce Laingen, NIAC’s Trita Parsi and the panel moderator, NIAC advisory board member and former U.S. Congressman Wayne Gilchrist.70 Other participants were former New York Times reporter and author Stephen Kinzer and Dr. Abbas Amanat, a Yale University Professor of History and International and Area Studies.
The following interconnected organizations and their leaderships will illustrate even more clearly the varied and complex relationships nurtured both subtly and overtly by NIAC, CAIR and others on behalf of the Tehran regime.
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
Abbas Edalat CASMII
The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) was founded by Abbas Edalat, an adjunct professor at Sharif University in Tehran, and a group of “Iranian and non-Iranian academics, students and professionals of different political and ideological persuasions” at a meeting in London in December 2005.71 The U.S. branch was established in early 2006 under the leadership of Rostam Pourzal, whose profile notes that he advocates direct and sustained dialogue without pre-conditions between Iran and the United States. Pourzal visits Iran regularly.72
CASMII describes itself as a campaign organization whose purpose is to oppose all forms of international pressure on Iran and identifies lobbying and public advocacy as its chosen means to disseminate its views. It is difficult to find information about the CASMII official leadership structure on its website, but what is there shows a pre-dominance of Persian names.73 There is also some overlap between CASMII and NIAC. For instance, Alexander Patico, a founder of NIAC, a member of its board of directors until 2008 and currently a member of its advisory board, serves on CASMII’s board of directors. Daniel Pourkesali is listed as a member of the CASMII International Steering Committee and is also an active member of NIAC.
Trita Parsi and Karim Sadjadpour
A perusal of articles posted on the website is more illuminating, however. Found there are pieces by Trita Parsi and articles featuring interviews with regime apologists such as the Iranian-born Carnegie Endowment analyst, Karim Sadjadpour. Typical of Sajadpour’s pro-Tehran regime advocacy is an October 2008 Carnegie Policy Brief that he authored, entitled “Foreign Policy for the Next President.” In it, Sadjadpour opines that the “relevant question is not whether to talk to Iran but how to talk to Iran” His advice is simply to ignore those pesky areas of conflict in the U.S.-Iran relationship, such as Iran’s nuclear weapons program and Israel.74 NIAC returns the favor by carrying on its website a number of pieces that feature Sadjadpour calling for more engagement with Iran.
Center for a New American Security
Another relatively new organization on the Washington think tank scene that has weighed in with policy recommendations on Iran for the Obama administration is the Center for a New American Security, established in February 2007. Prior to her appointment as the Obama administration’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice was among CNAS’s impressive board of directors. Dr. Rice also formerly served as a Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, whose sympathies for rapprochement with Tehran have been addressed previously.
Among the policy experts tapped to contribute to the CNAS Iran report are names notable as much for their Linkages to other individuals and groups affiliated with the Washington Iran Lobby as for their policy recommendations seeking dialogue with Tehran.
Vali Nasr
In September 2008, CNAS produced a report intended specifically for the next U.S. administration, although the Obama victory was still some six weeks in the future at its publication. Entitled “Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options,” the report boasts a clutch of Iran and U.S. foreign affairs experts among its authors: James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, Kurt M. Campbell, Dennis Ross, Suzanne Maloney, Ashton B. Carter, Vali Nasr, and Richard N. Haas.
Of these, one deserves a closer focus here: Dr. Vali Nasr (a.k.a. Dr. Sayeed Vali Reza Nasr), s a former professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He served as professor at the Fletcher School, Tufts University prior to his recent designation as a senior advisor to President Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. Born in Iran but raised in Scotland and the United States after his family’s departure from Iran in 1979, Nasr is the son of Iranian-American scholar Professor Sayeed Hossein Nasr, with whom he has authored several texts on Shia doctrine and philosophy. His 2006 book, The Shia Revival, is a study of the intra-Islamic split between Sunnis and Shiites. Glowing book reviews from Georgetown’s John Esposito and Karen Armstrong can be found on the dust jacket.
Nasr’s chapter in the CNAS report is entitled, “The Implications of Military Confrontation with Iran,” and catalogs in some detail the likely response of the Iranian regime to a military attack by the United States. Nasr emphasizes that Iran possesses substantial, if largely asymmetrical, means of causing damage to U.S. interests in retaliation for any such attack.75 This conclusion leaves the impression that a strike on Iran – either to target its nuclear weapons infrastructure or to attempt regime change – is extremely ill-advised. That assessment is also in keeping with the extensive record of Nasr’s other publications, congressional committee testimony and White House briefings in which he maintains that Iran is already too powerful a regional actor for the United States even to consider taking on because of its control over Iraqi Shiite terror militias and its Lebanese Hizballah proxy. According to Nasr, the best course for future U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran is one of accommodation with the mullahs’ regime – even if, and especially after, it achieves nuclear weapons status.
Tehran revealed its favorable view of Dr. Nasr in a glowing October 2006 article that appeared on the regime-controlled online news outlet Baztab. The piece notes Dr. Nasr’s esteemed family connections, his glittering academic credentials and also details his valued association as an expert advisor for the U.S. Department of State and then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Baztab also approvingly characterized Dr. Nasr’s views on U.S.-Iran relations, which call for diplomacy, negotiations and a renewed political relationship.76
In keeping with themes favored by regime-controlled media such as Baztab, Dr. Nasr is featured elsewhere on the news site as co-author with Council on Foreign Relations Iran scholar Ray Takeyh of an opinion piece that criticizes what they call the United States’ “policy of coercion” towards Iran, while advocating instead a “policy of engagement.” Implausibly, the two also claim that Iran “… abandoned the goal of exporting its revolution to its Persian Gulf neighbors at the end of [the] 1980s and has since acted as a status-quo power.” Their bottom line might have been penned in Tehran: “the United States should propose dialogue without conditions with the aim of normalizing relations.” 77
Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran
Yet another new entrant in the Iran Lobby’s efforts is the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran CNAPI bills itself as:
a transpartisan coalition of diverse groups which share the objective of promoting responsible and effective U.S. diplomacy and leadership in resolving long-standing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Campaign supporters share the basic core beliefs outlined in the mission statement and urge direct, sustained, and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the United States and Iran as a realistic way to resolve all outstanding issues…Supporters of CNAPI believe sustained, direct, bilateral, and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the United States and Iran represent a realistic way to resolve long-standing conflicts that destabilize the Middle East and by extension, threaten the global economy.78
CNAPI’s official partners include more than three dozen organizations, among them CASMII, CAIR, the Episcopal Church, NIAC, and the Open Society Policy Center. The list of CNAPI “Experts” is likewise an interesting one that includes: Amb. James Dobbins, Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation and a retired career State Department diplomat; Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; Phil Giraldi, former CIA counterterrorism specialist; the writer Stephen Kinzer; Amb. William Miller, Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Amb. Thomas Pickering and, of course, the ubiquitous Trita Parsi.
Ommani
CNAPI launched its pro-Iran activities in February and March of 2008 with a cross-country event called “The Folly of Attacking Iran Tour” which crisscrossed the United States. NIAC was among the Tour’s “Partner Organizations”, while its “Endorsers” included: Code Pink; Common Cause; Payvand Iran News (a pro-Khatami news organization operated by Iranian expatriates out of the San Francisco Bay area); the American Iranian Friendship Council in Portland (whose online website suggests its affinity with NIAC and Payvand Iran News); Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s District Office; the Middle East Institute at Columbia University; and many others. The featured speaker at each stop along the way was Stephen Kinzer, the former New York Times foreign correspondent and author of Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.
The not-so-subtle message of the “Folly” tour was: “Together, we can push our elected leaders to support real talks with Iran without pre-conditions – and to oppose a military attack. Join the effort by asking your congressional representatives to support diplomacy, not confrontation, with Iran.”79
Reza Asalan
Other tour speakers included such familiar figures associated with the Iran Lobby as: Barbara Slavin, now an editor with the Washington Times; retired Brig. Gen. John Johns; Rep. Earl Blumenauer; NIAC’s Trita Parsi; and retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard. Among the other participants were author Dr. Reza Aslan, William A. Nitze, an energy and environmental policy expert, and Dr. Ervand Abrahamian, an Iranian-born Armenian scholar and author.
Stephen Kinzer
As an example of the Coalition for a New American Policy on Iran’s pro-Tehran stance, a snapshot of the busy schedule of Stephen Kinzer will serve. “CNAPI Expert” Kinzer, the former New York Times reporter who now teaches journalism and political science at Northwestern University, is an outspoken advocate of a U.S. foreign policy of rapprochement with Iran. Writing in the Chicago Tribune in May 2008, he beats the familiar drums for “direct, bilateral, comprehensive and unconditional negotiations” with Iran and speculates that were such talks to occur, “the U.S. might soon discover that these two countries share many security interests.”80
Kinzer may or may not be aware of the Tehran regime links and agenda among his CNAPI colleagues – or know that CNAPI official partner CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terror funding case. Since he is a veteran foreign affairs correspondent for a paper like the New York Times, however, it strains credulity to suppose that he would not be knowledgeable about these facts. For instance, a simple online check shows that at the same time the Payvand Iran News ebsite carried approving accounts of Kinzer’s pro-Iran activism on Capitol Hill, including his meetings with congressmen and support for a 2008 Congressional Resolution (Con Res 321) that called for direct diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Iran,81 Payvand’s homepage also carried links to Tehran regime media outlets such as Baztab, Ettela’at, Jomhouri Eslami, Quds, Kayhan, and IRNA.82
As with other Iran Lobby initiatives, CNAPI and its fellow advocates for direct talks with Iran’s mullahs have made inroads onto Capitol Hill. As described above, one key ally there is Minneapolis’ Muslim Democratic congressman, Rep. Keith Ellison, who hosted a “Public Forum on U.S. Foreign Affairs with Iran” in Minneapolis in May 2008. Ellison’s co-panelist was NIAC’s Trita Parsi.
Then on June 10, 2008, CNAPI co-sponsored a “National Call-in Day for Diplomacy with Iran” together with CAIR. The event and press conference, called “Time to Talk with Iran,” was held on Capitol Hill on the terrace outside the Cannon House Office Building. The idea of this stunt was to make live calls “to ordinary Iranians in Tehran” using a “row of 60’s-era red ‘hotline’ telephones” set up especially for the event. CAIR’s National Director Tahra Goraya plugged the call-in, saying, “Increasing understanding through dialogue is a critical step in preventing a potential U.S.-Iran conflict.”83 CNAPI speakers called for direct, bilateral and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the United States and Iran.
American Foreign Policy Project
Close to indistinguishable from the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) in purpose and some membership names is the American Foreign Policy Project which launched on November 18, 2008 with the issuance of a “Joint Experts’ Statement on Iran” at a Capitol Hill panel presentation held in the Senate Hart Office Building. The event was moderated by NIAC’s Trita Parsi and featured talks by: AFPP “Experts” Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and James Dobbins; arms control advocate Joseph Cirincione, who was identified in the program as “an advisor to the Obama transition team”; and several others.
Led by Executive Director Richard Parker (who is a School of Law professor at the University of Connecticut), AFPP’s Experts list reads like a remix from other Iran Lobby entities and includes: Ambassadors James Dobbins, William Miller, and Thomas Pickering; Professors Gary G. Sick and Juan R. Cole, Philip Giraldi, Stephen Kinzer, Trita Parsi, and James Walsh.
Explicitly billed as a program of advice for then President-elect Obama, the statement touted the extensive experience of its scholars, experts, and diplomats and urged the new administration to “deal successfully with Iran in the future.”84 Given the complexion of the signers, it should hardly come as a surprise that their “five-step strategy” urges the United States to abandon any thought of regime change in Tehran, acknowledge and acquiesce to Iran’s bid for hegemony in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the region, and re-engage in the Arab-Israeli “peace process.”85 Notable among the AFPP experts is former CIA counterterrorism expert Philip Giraldi On November 14, 2007, Giraldi appeared on a panel co-hosted by the American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA, about which more will be said in a moment) and the Nixon Center with the theme of finding alternatives, any alternatives, to threats of U.S. military action against Iran.
In lockstep with fellow panelist, Trita Parsi, Giraldi downplayed Iran’s progress toward acquisition of a nuclear weapon, and called on U.S. policymakers “to stop the demonization process.” In any case, he declared obligingly, “I do not believe Tehran poses a real threat to the United States.”86
Interestingly, in September 2007, Giraldi had written an essay on the antiwar.com website, entitled, “What World War III May Look Like” that makes clear that Iran could certainly threaten the United States and its interests – assuming the latter attacked the former. The article presented a worst-case scenario in the event so-called neoconservatives in Washington got their way in pursuing a hard line against Iran. The article works through a cascade of unintended consequences that wind up with rioting, fighting, and suicide bombings building inexorably to a nuclear crisis across the region.87
Another of Giraldi’s screeds, this one a vintage anti-Israel diatribe carried on the NIAC-affiliated CASMI website, dismisses the Iranian threat against Israel, attests to the essential rationality of the mullahs’ regime, and waxes histrionic about Washington neoconservatives.88 Giraldi, who served as CIA Chief of Base in Istanbul in the 1980s, should know better. In an exceptionally frank interview with Balkanalysis.com Director Christopher Deliso in September 2006, the former clandestine agent recounts working against the Iranian intelligence agencies and describes their success in discovering and assassinating the CIA’s agents in Iran, many of them regime dissidents.89 Yet, this is the regime he would now have the U.S. accommodate.
The presentation of AFPP’s Joint Experts’ Statement marks the latest realization of the Iran Lobby’s concerted, multi-year effort to gain access to the top foreign policymaking circles in Washington. . Offered in the confident expectation that the Obama administration will want to stake out a foreign policy on Iran that would be distinctly different from that of the Bush administration (which “the Experts” portray as needlessly confrontational and insufficiently respectful of Iran’s developing regional stature), the Statement’s Key Steps urge an approach that is conciliatory and multilateral. The Statement also addresses what it terms “Basic Misconceptions about Iran” and devotes a 2-page annex to addressing eight so-called “myths” about Iran. The entire publication might have been written in Tehran, so closely does it hew to the regime’s own propaganda. Its authors call into question the quality of their expertise by claiming that Iran is really not such a threat to U.S. interests, does not really want to “wipe Israel off the map,” does not actually mean [to acquire] nuclear weapons and is not ideologically motivated.
American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA)
This public policy group is the creation of Grover Norquist, an anti-tax conservative activist with a record of ties to Muslim Brotherhood leaders and Islamist front groups.90 It was founded in early 2008 and, until recently, housed in Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform offices. 91 ACDA Board Members include Samah Norquist, secretary (also Grover Norquist’s wife); Peter Gemma, treasurer; and Philip Giraldi, the Francis Walsingham Fellow.
Norquist’s role in Islamist influence operations is an ominous one. He founded a front organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute in 1998 together with a Muslim activitist long associated with Muslim Brotherhood operatives named Khaled Saffuri “to promote a better understanding of Islam in America.”92
Among others who contributed start-up money to the Islamic Free Market Institute was the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood front group with headquarters in Herndon, Virginia. In 2008, IIIT was the focus of a Department of Justice investigation for alleged terror support activities.93 Norquist’s lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies LLC, formerly was officially registered as a lobbyist for IIIT as well as for Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and former executive director of a prominent Brotherhood front known as the American Muslim Council (AMC).94 Saffuri was Deputy Director of the AMC under its then-head, Alamoudi. The latter is currently serving a twenty-three year federal prison term on charges of terrorism financing and illicit dealings with Libya.95
During the presidential campaign of 2000, Norquist arranged a meeting between Alamoudi and then- Republican presidential candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush.96 Later, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush appeared at a prayer service with Alamoudi and apparently remained unaware of his terrorist links for a number of years after that.97
Another troubling connection is Grover Norquist’s close relationship with Faisal Gill, Policy Director of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division for the Department of Homeland Security under President Bush. In 2004, it was discovered that Gill, who was a political appointee, had failed to disclose his own formerly close working relationship with Alamoudi, whom he apparently served as spokesman for the American Muslim Council. Nevertheless, Gill was permitted to retain his government position.98
Although the American Conservative Defense Alliance claims to advocate for a strong U.S. national defense policy, it eschews any initiative that would entail “imposing American-styled ‘democracy’ abroad” or engaging in “nation-building.”99 ACDA’s place within the Iran Lobby network can be discerned from a look at key figures among its leadership boards, website links to other Iran Lobby entities and posted statements by its associates that scoff at evidence of the Tehran regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and involvement in supporting terrorist militias in Iraq.100
For example, the ACDA website homepage features a “Special Projects Campaign for a New Policy with Iran” tab that links directly to the CNAPI website. On that CNAPI page is a Welcome message that addresses the Obama Transition Team with policy recommendations for establishing a dialogue with Iran. A notice for the June 10, 2008 CNAPI “Time to Talk with Iran” event and press conference also advertises for the “National Call-In to Congress Day” and quotes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, to the effect that the U.S.” should find a way to open dialogue with Iran.”101
Another member of the ACDA board is its Treasurer, Peter Gemma. Gemma’s ACDA bio page also features a link to the CNAPI website. Gemma also has written a glowing book review carried on the ACDA website for Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States,
a 2007 book by NIAC President Trita Parsi. The Gemma review writes approvingly of Parsi’s position that, “It is in the best interest of the U.S., and ultimately Israel, to reconcile with Iran” and takes no issue with the latter’s claim that “Tehran is not necessarily motivated by opposition to Israeli or even religious ideology….”102
ACDA board member Philip Giraldi’s association with NIAC and Trita Parsi has been described previously in this paper. Giraldi’s contributions to the Iran Issues link at the ACDA website include several written pieces that minimize the Iranian threat to U.S. national security and urge that the U.S. adopt a policy towards Iran that “takes into account Iran’s own interests and its legitimate security concerns.”103
An April 2008 posting at the ACDA website displays a March 2007 open letter entitled “No War with Iran” and addressed to Members of Congress. The letter marshals a number of the Iran Lobby’s familiar arguments to persuade Congress to oppose consideration of a military strike against Iran and “support diplomacy between the United States and Iran without preconditions.” Among its positions are preposterous statements that “There is little credible intelligence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon” and “Claims that Iran is directly assisting insurgents in Iraq remain unsubstantiated and implausible since the majority of identified insurgents are Sunnis (including al-Qaeda), while the Iranians are Shia.” The letter is co-signed by ten representatives of various policy groups, including Philip Giraldi, listed as “contributing editor, The American Conservative,” and Trita Parsi for NIAC.104
The ACDA links with NIAC’s Trita Parsi also include a November 14, 2007 event at the Nixon Center that was co-sponsored by ACDA and featured a panel discussion about U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. Panelists included Philip Giraldi and Trita Parsi. The event was posted on the personal website of Michael D. Ostrolenk, ACDA President and Board Member. Ostrolenk’s homepage also highlights an October 17, 2007 discussion with Trita Parsi about his then just-released book, Treacherous Alliance.105
Conclusion
The foregoing makes clear that the Iran Lobby has spawned myriad organizations, many of which are staffed or associated with the same individuals, for the purpose of advancing Tehran’s policy agenda in America. The numerous conferences, articles, panel discussions, press conferences and other gambits they initiate have in common a largely unchanging and small pool of actors but the same, consistent bottom line: The Iranian regime must be accommodated, not confronted. It poses no threat except if attacked. Those who challenge these contentions pose a threat to America and her interests, not the mullahs and their proxies.
As the Obama administration begins to staff up, it is especially disquieting to see how many of the figures named in this paper are being tapped for important jobs where they will deal directly with Iran and other critical Middle East issues. The Iran Lobby will soon no longer have to try to influence official U.S. government policy from the outside. All other things being equal, its operatives and their friends will be shaping it from inside key national security agencies across Washington.
Consider the implications of just one personnel decision: Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman’s reported appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which prepares the Intelligence Community’s collective National Intelligence Estimates (NIE). It will be recalled that the December 2007 NIE on Iran concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, thus effectively precluding any Bush administration military action to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is inconceivable that a man as publicly and closely aligned with the views of Iran and its agents of influence in America will be able to exercise truly independent judgment about what the mullahs are up to, let alone offer objective intelligence analysis about how best to contend with them.
Others who have been associated in one way or another with the Iran Lobby who have or are expected to secure key jobs in the Obama administration include:
• Fletcher School professor and Middle East scholar, Dr. Vali Nasr, who will, as noted above, be Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s senior advisor – a position that will assuredly involve decisions about dealings with Afghanistan’s neighbor.
• Dr. Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s new Ambassador to the United Nations. Amb. Rice served on the board of directors for the Center for a New American Security. While CNAS is not formally connected directly with either NIAC or Trita Parsi, the foreign policy positions of its affiliates correspond strongly to the preferred policy positions of Tehran’s mullahs.
• Ambassador Dennis Ross, who will be a senior advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for Iran policy, was previously an “Expert” for CNAS.
• Council on Foreign Relations Committee president and another CNAS “Expert” Richard Haas, reportedly is under consideration for a top job in the Obama foreign policy team.
In short, the pattern outlined in this paper is one of penetration of our national security infrastructure by agents of influence, be they witting or unwitting, whose actions, intentionally or unintentionally, serve to support the objectives of a hostile foreign power. To date, however, there has been no serious public review of the activities of this Iran Lobby or its affiliates from a counterintelligence perspective. And yet, given the serious nature of the complex challenges that Iran – and especially a nuclear-armed Iran – can be expected to pose in coming months, it is more important than ever to consider the consequences of appointing aggressive advocates, or at least apologists, for this terrorist regime to high posts within U.S. national security leadership. That so many respected Middle East and foreign policy experts seem to have bought into the Iranian regime’s agenda is testament to the extraordinarily effective information operation that has been waged against U.S. national security interests by the Iran Lobby’s network over the last several years.
If the Obama administration does not hear a persuasive alternative position, cogently presented, and soon, Iran’s carefully-crafted clandestine intelligence operation to exercise effective control over America’s Iran policy could succeed – to the profound detriment of U.S. national interests and those of our friends and allies in the Middle East region and around the world.
__________________________________________________________________
Pro Iran (Islamic Republic) Websites and Links
Articles of Interest on IRI Lobby
Please refer back to original article
CLARE M. LOPEZ
Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies. Ms. Lopez received her B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio and a M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. She speaks and writes widely on Middle East issues.
Disclaimer:
All credits of this paper go to the owner of the blog, Dr. Arash Irandoost and to the author, Clare M. Lopez. I am posting this ‘article’ as close to the original that I can minus pdf hyperlinks to share and to preserve it. Knowledge is Power!
Obama Signed Executive Order Declaring War On Iran
Obama Signed Executive Order Declaring War On Iran
This comes after US agreed to back a UN resolution to back the UN in military use of force against IRAN !
.
.
On February 5, 2012, President Obama invoked the NDAA, which authorizes the use of military force, and issues an executive order declaring the “threat” of Iran a National Emergency. The video below shows this issuance of President Obama executive order which declares Iran’s threat to cut off oil supplies a national emergency.
.
.
.
.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
February 06, 2012
Executive Order — Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– - – - – - -
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN
AND IRANIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) (NDAA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies in Iran’s anti-money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation, and the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran’s activities, hereby order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) All property and interests in property of any Iranian financial institution, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(c) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to: (a) the making of any
contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. (a) The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
(b) The prohibitions in section 1 of this order do not apply to property and interests in property of the Government of Iran that were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, and thereafter made subject to the transfer directives set forth in Executive Order 12281 of January 19, 1981, and implementing regulations thereunder.
Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 6. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “Government of Iran” means the Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Iran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran;
(e) the term “Iran” means the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements; and
(f) the term “Iranian financial institution” means a financial institution organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran (including foreign branches), any financial institution in Iran, any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, and any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by any of the foregoing.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order, other than the purposes described in section 11. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions and authorities to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(d)(1)(A) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent necessary to exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this section and may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 11. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of National Intelligence, is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(d)(4)(D) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by sections 1245(e)(1) and 1245(e)(2) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent necessary to exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this section and may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 13. The measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the 1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later actions.
Sec. 14. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on February 6, 2012.
BARACK OBAMA
.
Obama Freezes Iran Finance, Property
US President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Monday that freezes all property belonging to the Government and Central Bank of Iran, and all other Iranian financial institutions.
.
.
.
US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely
• Growing view that strike, by Israel or US, will happen
• ‘Sweet spot’ for Israeli action identified as September-October
• White House remains determined to give sanctions time
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012
Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.
.
Zbigniew Brzezinski on Iran
( CFR member, creator of Rapid Deployment Force aka Central Command, chief foreign policy adviser for the Obama for President campaign and Former National Security Advisory.)
Warns of false flag attack to trigger War on Iran
.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: An Israeli attack on Iran would be a disaster
January 17, 2010
Puppet Master
.
Pingback to
Elite View The World In The Globalist Map Room
NEW WORLD ORDER
.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it”
We know that this false flag is campaign propaganda. Would the puppet masters blow up the universe to win the election for their means to an end?
Like this:
GUIDE TO THE GEORGE SOROS NETWORK
-
GUIDE TO THE GEORGE SOROS NETWORK
by DiscvoverThe Networks.org
George Soros is one of the most powerful men on earth. A New York hedge fund manager, he has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $13 billion (as of 2009). His company, Soros Fund Management, controls at least another $25 billion in investor assets. Since 1979, Soros’s foundation network — whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) — has dispensed more than $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. With assets of $1.93 billion as of 2008, OSI alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these various groups. Following is a sampling of the major agendas advanced by groups that Soros and OSI support financially. Listed under each category heading are a few OSI donees fitting that description.
Organizations that accuse America of violating the civil rights and liberties of many of its residents:
- The Arab American Institute impugns many of the “sweeping” and “unreasonable” post-9/11 counterterrorism measures that have unfairly “targeted Arab Americans.”
- The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has persuaded the political leadership in more than 400 American cities and counties to pledge noncompliance with the anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act, on grounds that the legislation tramples on people’s civil liberties.
Organizations that depict America as a nation whose enduring racism must be counterbalanced by racial and ethnic preferences in favor of nonwhites:
- The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fundcalls itself “the nation’s leading Latino legal civil rights organization.”
- The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law provides “legal services to address racial discrimination.”
- The NAACP and its Legal Defense and Educational Fund uses “litigation, advocacy, and public education” to promote “structural changes” and “achieve racial justice in the United States”
- The National Council of La Raza charges that “discrimination severely limits the economic and social opportunities available to Hispanic Americans.”
Organizations that specifically portray the American criminal-justice system as racist and inequitable:
- The Sentencing Project asserts that prison-sentencing patterns discriminate against nonwhites, and seeks “to reduce the reliance on incarceration.”
- Critical Resistance contends that crime stems from “inequality and powerlessness,” which can be rectified through wholesale redistribution of wealth.
- The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights charges that criminal laws “are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased.”
Organizations that call for massive social change, and for the recruitment and training of activist leaders to help foment that change:
- The Center for Community Change is “dedicated to finding the [progressive] stars of tomorrow and preparing them to lead.”
- The Gamaliel Foundation teaches social-change “techniques and methodologies.”
- The Ruckus Society promotes “nonviolent direct action against unjust institutions and policies.”
- The American Institute for Social Justice aims to “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on social-welfare programs.
- The Institute for America’s Future “regularly convenes and educates progressive leaders, organizations, candidates, opinion makers, and activists.”
- People for the American Way, founded by television producer Norman Lear to oppose the allegedly growing influence of the “religious right,” seeks “to cultivate new generations of leaders and activists” who will promote “progressive values.”
- Democracy For America operates an academy that has taught more than 10,000 recruits nationwide how to “focus, network, and train grassroots activists in the skills and strategies to take back our country.”
- The Midwest Academy trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, confrontation, and intimidation. Author Stanley Kurtz has described this academy as a “crypto-socialist organization” that was “arguably the most influential force in community organizing from the seventies through the nineties.”
Organizations that disparage capitalism while promoting a dramatic expansion of social-welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes:
- The Center for Economic and Policy Research asserts that “the welfare state has softened the impact” of “the worst excesses and irrationalities of a market system” and its “injustices.”
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advocates greater tax expenditures on such assistance programs as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, and low-income housing initiatives.
- The Economic Policy Institute believes that “government must play an active role in protecting the economically vulnerable, ensuring equal opportunity, and improving the well-being of all Americans.”
- The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights was founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones. This anti-poverty organization claims that “decades of disinvestment in our cities,” coupled with America’s allegedly imperishable racism, have “led to despair and homelessness.”
- The Emma Lazarus Fund: In 1996 George Soros said he was “appalled” by the recently signed welfare-reform law that empowered states to limit legal immigrants’ access to public assistance. In response to this “mean-spirited attack on immigrants,” he launched an Open Society Institute project known as the Emma Lazarus Fund and endowed it with $50 million.
Organizations that support socialized medicine in the United States:
- Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is a vast network of organizations supporting, ideally, a “single-payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system. During the political debate over “Obamacare” in 2009 and 2010, HCAN’s strategy was to try to achieve such a system incrementally, first by implementing a “public option”—i.e., a government insurance agency to “compete” with private insurers, so that Americans would be “no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.” Because such an agency would not need to show a profit in order to remain in business, and because it could tax and regulate its private competitors in whatever fashion it pleased, this “public option” would inevitably force private insurers out of the industry. In August 2009, Soros pledged to give HCAN $5 million to promote its campaign for reform.
Organizations that strive to move American politics to the left by promoting the election of progressive political candidates:
- Project Vote is the voter-mobilization arm of the notoriously corrupt ACORN, whose voter-registration drives and get-out-the-vote initiatives have been marred by massive levels of fraud and corruption.
- Catalist seeks “to help progressive organizations realize … electoral success by building and operating a robust national voter database.”
- The Brennan Center for Justice aims to “fully restore voting rights following criminal conviction”―significant because research shows that ex-felons are far likelier to vote for Democratic political candidates than for Republicans.
- The Progressive States Network seeks to “pass progressive legislation in all fifty states by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state legislators.”
- The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, to which George Soros personally donated $8,000 in 2010, works “to elect bold progressive candidates to federal office … more often.”
Organizations that promote leftist ideals and worldviews in the media and the arts:
- The American Prospect, Inc. is the owner and publisher of The American Prospect magazine, which tries to “counteract the growing influence of conservative media.”
- Free Press is a “media reform” organization co-founded by Robert McChesney, who calls for “a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system” and to “rebuil[d] the entire society on socialist principles.”
- The Independent Media Institute aims to “change the world” via projects like AlterNet, an online news magazine calling itself “a key player in the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision.”
- The Nation Institute operates synergistically with the far-left Nation magazine, which works “to extend the reach of progressive ideas” into the American mainstream.
- The Pacifica Foundation owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and anti-capitalism.
- Media Matters For America: For a number of years, the Open Society Institute gave indirect funding―filtering its grants first through other Soros-backed operations―to this “progressive research and information center” which “monitor[s]” and “correct[s] conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” In October 2010, Soros announced that he would soon donate $1 million directly to Media Matters.
- Sundance Institute: In 1996, Soros launched his Soros Documentary Fund to produce “social justice” films that would “spur awareness, action and social change.” In 2001, this Fund became part of actor-director Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute. Between 1996 and 2008, OSI earmarked at least $5.2 million for the production of several hundred documentaries, many of which were highly critical of capitalism, American society, or Western culture generally. In 2009, Soros pledged another $5 million to the Sundance Institute.
Organizations that seek to inject the American judicial system with leftist values:
- The Alliance for Justice consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “radical right-wing[ers]” and “extremists” whose views range far outside the boundaries of mainstream public opinion.
- The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy seeks to indoctrinate young law students to view the Constitution as an evolving or “living” document, and to reject “conservative buzzwords such as ‘originalism‘ and ‘strict construction.’”
- Justice at Stake promotes legislation that would replace judicial elections with a “merit-selection” system where a small committee of legal elites, unaccountable to the public, would pick those most “qualified” to serve as judges. OSI has spent at least $45.4 million on efforts to change the way judges are chosen in many American states.
Organizations that advance leftist agendas by infiltrating churches and religious congregations:
- Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good advocates a brand of “social justice” that would counteract the “greed, materialism, and excessive individualism” that are allegedly inherent in capitalism.
- Sojourners characterizes wealth redistribution as the fulfillment of a biblical mandate. Jim Wallis, the founder of this evangelical Christian ministry, has expressed his hope that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.”
- People Improving Communities through Organizing uses “people of faith” as foot soldiers in its crusade for the “transformation” of “people, institutions, and … our larger culture.”
- Catholics for Choice―formerly known as Catholics for a Free Choice―is a nominally Catholic organization that “believes in a world where everyone has equal access to … safe and legal abortion services.”
Think tanks that promote leftist policies:
- The Institute for Policy Studies has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world. It seeks to provide a corrective to the “unrestrained greed” of “markets and individualism.”
- The New America Foundation tries to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism, energy policy, and global governance.
- The Urban Institute favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.
Organizations that promote open borders, mass immigration, a watering down of current immigration laws, increased rights and benefits for illegal aliens, and ultimately amnesty:
- The American Immigration Council―formerly known as the the American Immigration Law Foundation―supports “birthright citizenship” for children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S.
- Casa de Maryland periodically sponsors “know your rights” training sessions to teach illegals how to evade punishment in the event that they are apprehended in an immigration raid.
- The Immigrant Legal Resource Center belongs to the sanctuary movement that tries to shield illegal aliens from the law.
- The Migration Policy Institute advocates a more permissive U.S. refugee admissions and resettlement policy, as well as more social-welfare benefits for illegals residing in the U.S.
- LatinoJustice PRLDF is a legal advocacy group that “protects opportunities for all Latinos … especially the most vulnerable―new immigrants and the poor.”
- The Immigration Policy Center states that “[r]equiring the 10-11 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the U.S. to register with the government and meet eligibility criteria in order to gain legal status is a key element of comprehensive immigration reform.”
- The National Immigration Forum opposes the enhancement of the U.S. Border Patrol and the construction of a border fence to prevent illegal immigration.
- The National Immigration Law Center works to help low-income immigrants gain access to government-funded welfare programs on the same basis as legal American citizens.
Organizations that oppose virtually all post-9/11 national-security measures enacted by the U.S. government:
- The Center for Constitutional Rights, founded by four longtime supporters of communist causes, has condemned the “immigration sweeps, ghost detentions, extraordinary rendition, and every other illegal program the government has devised” in response to “the so-called War on Terror.”
- The National Security Archive Fund collects and publishes declassified documents (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) to a degree that compromises American national security and the safety of intelligence agents.
- The American Civil Liberties Union has depicted the U.S. government’s post-9/11 national-security measures as excessively harsh and invasive generally, and also as discriminatory against Muslims in particular. Moreover, the organization has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to limit the government’s ability to locate, monitor, and apprehend terrorist operatives.
- Human Rights Watch has derided the U.S. war on terror as a foolhardy endeavor rooted in blindness to the realization that terrorism stems, in large measure, from America’s failure “to promote fundamental rights around the world.”
Organizations that defend suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters:
- The Constitution Project has supported such notorious figures as Salim Ahmed Hamdan (Osama bin Laden‘s bodyguard and chauffeur) and Jose Padilla (an American Islamic convert and terrorist plotter). Moreover, the Project contends that it is illegal for the U.S. government to detain terror suspects if the evidence against them was obtained through “torture.”
- The Lynne Stewart Defense Committee was established to support Lynne Stewart, who is a criminal-defense attorney and an America-hating Maoist. Stewart was convicted of illegally helping her incarcerated client, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, pass messages to an Egypt-based Islamic terrorist organization. In September 2002, the Open Society Institute gave $20,000 to this committee; OSI vice president Gara LaMarche characterized Ms. Stewart as a “human rights defender.”
Organizations that depict virtually all American military actions as unwarranted and immoral:
- Amnesty International: In 2005, this group’s then-executive director William Schulz alleged that the United States had become “a leading purveyor and practitioner” of torture. Irene Khan, who charged that the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the U.S. was housing several hundred captured terror suspects, “has become the gulag of our time.” Schulz’s remarks were echoed by Amnesty’s then-secretary general
- Global Exchange was founded by Medea Benjamin, a pro-Castro radical who helped establish a project known as Iraq Occupation Watch for the purpose of encouraging widespread desertion by “conscientious objectors” in the U.S. military. In December 2004, Benjamin announced that Global Exchange would be sending aid to the families of terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Iraq.
Organizations that advocate America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending:
- The American Friends Service Committee, which views America as the world’s chief source of international strife, has long had a friendly relationship with the Communist Party USA. Lamenting that “the United States spends 59% of the discretionary federal budget on military-related expenses,” the Committee seeks to “realig[n] national spending priorities and to increase the portion of the budget that is spent on housing, quality education for all, medical care, and fair wages.” In 2000, George Soros himself was a signatory to a letter titled “Appeal for Responsible Security” that appeared in The New York Times. The letter called upon the U.S. government “to commit itself unequivocally to negotiate the worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons,” and to participate in “the global de-alerting of nuclear weapons and deep reduction of nuclear stockpiles.”
Organizations that promote radical environmentalism:
Groups in this category typically oppose mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing enterprises, development and construction in wilderness areas, the use of coal, the use of pesticides, and oil and gas exploration in “environmentally sensitive” locations. Moreover, they claim that human industrial activity leads to excessive carbon-dioxide emissions which, in turn, cause a potentially cataclysmic phenomenon called “global warming.” Examples of such Soros donees include Earthjustice, Green For All, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance for Climate Protection, Friends of the Earth, and the Earth Island Institute.
Another major recipient of Soros money is the Tides Foundation, which receives cash from all manner of donors―individuals, groups, and other foundations―and then funnels it to designated left-wing recipients. Having given more than $400 million to “progressive nonprofit organizations” since 2000, Tides is a heavy backer of environmental organizations, though its philanthropy extends also into many other areas.
Organizations that oppose the death penalty in all circumstances:
In 2000, George Soros co-signed a letter to President Bill Clinton asking for a moratorium on the death penalty, on grounds that it tended to be implemented disproportionately against black and Hispanic offenders.
Consistent with the billionaire’s opposition to capital punishment, his Open Society Institute has given millions of dollars to anti-death penalty organizations such as New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, Witness to Innocence, Equal Justice USA, the Death Penalty Information Center, People of Faith against the Death Penalty, and the Fair Trial Initiative.
Organizations that promote modern-day feminism’s core tenet―that America is fundamentally a sexist society where discrimination and violence against women have reached epidemic proportions:
- The Feminist Majority Foundation “focus[es] on advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women’s advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists…”
- The Ms. Foundation for Women laments that although “women are more than half the [U.S.] population … they don’t have equal opportunity, voice or power.”
- The National Partnership for Women and Families asserts that “women today are still paid only $0.77 to a man’s dollar”―an assertion that is grossly misleading and substantively untrue.
Organizations that promote not only women’s right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, but also political candidates who take that same position:
- Soros donees in this category include the Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and Choice USA.
Organizations that favor global government which would bring American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations or other international bodies:
According to George Soros, “[W]e need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy.” Consistent with this perspective, the Open Society Institute in 2008 gave $150,000 to the United Nations Foundation, which “works to broaden support for the UN through advocacy and public outreach.” Moreover, OSI is considered a “major” funder of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which aims to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures in certain cases to an international prosecutor who could initiate capricious or politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials and military officers.
Organizations that support drug legalization:
Dismissing the notion of “a drug-free America” as nothing more than “a utopian dream,” George Soros says that “the war on drugs” is “insane” and, “like the Vietnam War,” simply “cannot be won.” “I’ll tell you what I would do if it were up to me,” says Soros. “I would establish a strictly controlled distribution network through which I would make most drugs, excluding the most dangerous ones like crack, legally available.” In 1998 Soros was a signatory to a public letter addressed to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, declaring that “the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself.” The letter blamed the war on drugs for impeding such public-health efforts as stemming the spread of HIV, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases, as well as human-rights violations and the perpetration of environmental assaults. Other notable signers included Peter Lewis, Tammy Baldwin, Rev. William Sloan Coffin, Jr., Walter Cronkite, Morton H. Halperin, Kweisi Mfume, and Cornel West.
Soros and his Open Society Institute have given many millions of dollars to groups supporting drug-legalization and needle-exchange programs. In 1996, former Carter administration official Joseph Califano called Soros “the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization.” According to a Capital Research Center publication, “It’s no exaggeration to say that without Soros there would be no serious lobby against the drug war.”
A leading recipient of Soros funding is the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which seeks to loosen narcotics laws, promotes “treatment-not-incarceration” policies for non-violent drug offenders, and advocates syringe-access programs “to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.” Soros himself formerly sat on the DPA board of directors. As recently as 2010, Soros contributed $1 million to support a California ballot measure known as Proposition 19, which would have legalized personal marijuana use in the state; the measure, however, was rejected by voters on election day.
Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do), speculates on the possible reasons underlying Soros’s support for drug legalization:
“One very possible answer is that he hopes to profit from them [drugs] once they become legal. He has been particularly active in South America, buying up large tracts of land and forging alliances with those in a position to mass-produce narcotics should they become legalized in the United States. He has also helped fund the Andean Council of Coca Leaf producers. Needless to say, this organization would stand to benefit enormously from the legalization of cocaine. He has also taken a 9 percent stake in Banco de Colombia, located in the Colombian drug capital of Cali. The Drug Enforcement Administration has speculated that the bank is being used to launder money and that Soros’s fellow shareholders may be members of a major drug cartel.”
Organizations that support euthanasia for the terminally ill:
Soros has long promoted the cause of physician-assisted suicide in an effort to change public attitudes about death. Toward that end, in 1994 he began giving money to the (now defunct) Project on Death in America (PDA), whose purpose was to provide “end-of-life” assistance for ailing people and to enact public policy that will “transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement.” In 2000, the Open Society Institute pledged $15 million to PDA over a three-year period.
Notably, PDA’s mission was congruent with the goals of those who support government-run health care, which invariably features bureaucracies tasked with allocating scarce resources and thus determining who will, and who will not, be eligible for particular medications and treatments. Such bureaucracies generally make their calculations based upon cost-benefit analyses of a variety of possible treatments. Ultimately these decisions tend to disfavor the very old and the very sick, because whatever benefits they might gain from expensive interventions are likely to be of short duration, and thus are not judged to be worth the costs. Soros himself has suggested that “[a]ggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.” Additional pro-euthanasia groups funded by Soros and OSI are the following:
- The Death with Dignity National Center seeks to allow “terminally ill individuals meeting stringent safeguards to hasten their own deaths” by way of lethal drug prescriptions.
- The Compassion in Dying Federation of America advocates “aid-in-dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.”
Organizations that have pressured mortgage lenders to make loans to undercapitalized borrowers, a practice that helped spark the subprime mortgage crisis and housing-market collapse of 2008:
- The Greenlining Institute―by threatening to publicly accuse banks of racially discriminatory lending practices―has successfully negotiated loan commitments of more than $2.4 trillion from America’s financial institutions.
- The Center for Responsible Lending, according to Americans for Prosperity vice president Phil Kerpen, has “shak[en] down and harass[ed] banks into making bad loans to unqualified borrowers.”
The Open Society Institute is not the only vehicle by which George Soros works to reshape America’s political landscape. Indeed, Soros was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or “Shadow Party,” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of labor unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network’s activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation.
The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes – all identified with the Democratic Party left. Other key players included:
- Morton H. Halperin: Director of Soros’ Open Society Institute
- John Podesta: Democrat strategist and former chief of staff for Bill Clinton
- Jeremy Rosner: Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-foreign policy speechwriter for Bill Clinton
- Robert Boorstin: Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-national security speechwriter for Bill Clinton
- Carl Pope: Co-founder of America Coming Together, Democrat strategist, and Sierra Club Executive Director
- Steve Rosenthal: Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, and former chief advisor on union matters to Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich
- Peter Lewis: Major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur
- Rob Glaser: Major Democrat donor and Silicon Valley pioneer
- Ellen Malcolm: Co-founder and President of America Coming Together, and founder of EMILY’s List
- Rob McKay: Major Democrat donor, Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation President
- Lewis and Dorothy Cullman: Major Democrat donors
To develop the Shadow Party as a cohesive entity, Harold Ickes undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left’s traditional alliance of the “oppressed” and “disenfranchised.” By the time Ickes was done, he had created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a seventh called MoveOn.org. Together, these seven groups constituted the administrative core of the newly formed Shadow Party:
- America Coming Together
- America Votes
- Center for American Progress
- Joint Victory Campaign 2004
- Media Fund
- MoveOn.org
- Thunder Road Group
These organizations, along with the many leftist groups with which they collaborate, have played a major role in helping Soros advance his political and social agendas.
According to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the 2006 book The Shadow Party:
“The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is … George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control…. It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, ‘Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it…’”
OCCUPY WALL STREET & THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
OCCUPY WALL STREET & THE CON CON
By Kelleigh Nelson
October 26, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787
“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” –John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814
The group often credited with sparking Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is Adbusters, the Canadian anti-capitalist magazine founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. This July, Lasn and Schmalz issued a call to flood lower Manhattan with 90,000 protesters. Lasn has been accused of anti-Semitism regarding some of the articles in Adbusters. [Link]
Kalle Lasn previously called for a protest at the upcoming G20 while demanding a one-percent tax on financial transactions. You can read The Daily Call article on this here: “Occupy Wall Street Demands Global UN Tax and Worldwide G20 Protest.”
They don’t even try to hide their affinity to the UN, they’re taking the UN’s call for the tax to the streets and screaming for its implementation. As one of the founders of Occupy Wall Street, Lasn is also in bed with the power elite Soros crowd, which helps fund his magazine, as reported by Lew Rockwell.
Lawrence Morley writes in Adbusters:
“Revolt, if it is to be successful, must come from the mind; a growing unease and dissatisfaction with things as they are. Revolt may be leaderless, but it cannot be idea-less. … It could be said that any society has vested interests in the status quo which could not be unseated by argument. I disagree. For any revolution to succeed, even those interests must be shown to gain, or to lose less by cooperation than they would otherwise.
I, as a Progressive Anarchist, want the complete overthrow of present societies, but not now, not immediately, not violently, but gradually and peacefully as ideas gradually seep through one’s mind. The intention of this revolutionary is to assault your mind and destroy your beliefs.”
Another writer for Adbusters is Michael Hardt. He is an American literary theorist and post-Marxist philosopher perhaps best known for the book Empire, written with Antonio Negri and published in 2000. It has been called the Communist Manifesto of the 21st century.
For those of you who have studied and understand communism, Morley’s words and Hardt’s writings will ring those bells. Those involved in these protests remind me of the 60s and the Viet Nam protests, albeit, they aren’t as organized, nor are they as intellectual as those from the 60s. When asked questions about what they’d replace the free market with, they have no answers, other than the rich make too much money and they should share with those who are less fortunate. [Link] (Sounds like Obama’s redistribution plans to me).
The protesters include persons of a variety of political orientations, including liberals, political independents, anarchists, socialists, libertarians, and environmentalists. At the protest’s start, the majority of the demonstrators were young; however, as the protest grew the age of the protesters became more diverse, mostly related to the use of social networks.
The dominant theme is that the U.S. is broke and corporations have ruined it. Now they want to kill the corporate “personhood” and then the US will be good again and then there will be justice and prosperity for all. Dream on!
Celebrity Involvement
The usual left wing celebs who want to be seen as erudite politically, but only know how to mimic the left-wing lines, are gaining publicity with their involvement with the OWS. On September 19, Roseanne Barr, the first celebrity to endorse the protest, spoke to protesters calling for a combination of capitalism and socialism and a system not based on “bloated talk radio hosts and that goddamn Ayn Rand book.” (Uh, excuse me Roseanne, I think you’ve been eating too much sugar. We already have a combination of what little remains of capitalism and a huge new amount of socialism – a nice euphemism for full-fledged communism) .
Conservative activist and John Birch Society member, H.L. Hunt’s granddaughter, Leah Hunt-Hendrix, 28, a doctoral student at Princeton writing her dissertation on the history of solidarity, joined OWS protesters, and said. “We should acknowledge our privilege and claim the responsibilities that come with it.” I believe H.L. understood it far better than his granddaughter.
Filmmaker Michael Moore spoke against Wall Street, saying, “They have tried to take our democracy and turn it into a kleptocracy.” (Michael, we were once a representative republic who followed the “rule of law.” Now we are as you state, a “democracy” which is nothing more than “mob rule.”) Susan Sarandon and Kanye West were also there to add their two-cents worth.
Other celebs include folk singer, Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, Tao Rodríguez-Seeger, Tom Chapin, David Amram, and Guy Davis. Others who are in support of the OWS according to Wikipedia include the usual suspects, Noam Chomsky, George Soros, and Yoko Ono. Mother Jones Magazine reports the growing number of unions joining in the activist protests.
Karl Denninger, one of the original Tea Party founders believes there are many similarities between OWS and the Tea Party demonstrations since many Tea Partiers have joined in the ranks of the OWS. As we’ve seen with Tea Parties across the nation, many are being led by infiltrating change agents and haven’t a clue of where the real battles lie. This is just another example of the deliberately dumbed down electorate reacting like lemmings and being led by socialist propaganda.
Calling for a Constitutional Convention
The OWS not only is demanding the UN one-percent tax, but they are now also demanding a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of changing the entire social structure of the US. Those of you who read my articles know I’ve written several times about the dangers of a Constitutional Convention. See The Constitutional Convention Con and Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing? for the full ramifications of a Constitutional Convention. Leftist commentator, Cenk Uygur has announced the formation of Wolf-PAC to campaign for a Constitutional Convention. His call to action was featured on a website, Amped Status, run by David DeGraw who is one of the original founders of the OWS movement. Here is a video of Cenk’s dangerous Constitutional Convention announcement.
A Constitutional Convention has been the dream of US leftists for a century or more. Constitution.net tells us that as far back as 1932, the Socialist Party’s platform included proposed changes to the Constitution, and many of these changes seem to parallel what Cenk and others want now. From Constitution.net:
The Socialist Party’s 1932 platform included many proposed changes to the Constitution. One group concerned voting and elections, including popular election of the President and the ability to hold national referenda. Judicial review would be specifically barred. Workers’ rights would be protected and child labor barred; nationalization of industry would also be permitted and promoted. Finally, they advocated an easing of the requirements for ratification of constitutional amendments.
As I’ve stated many times before, a Constitutional Convention is fraught with risks and could easily spin out of control. It would very likely be hijacked by the elitists and then we’d end up with an anti-freedom agenda and a new constitution that would totally destroy the liberties our 1787 Constitution grants us. People…this means the entire Bill of Rights could disappear! Can you just imagine who we’d end up with on a Committee of Detail today, or the delegates from each state? It is the very people we oppose and that includes the phony right-wing like McCain, McConnell, and Boehner, and Snowe and Collins, not to mention Pelosi and Reid, Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer! God help us!
What few people understand is the fact that the right wing is pushing a Constitutional Convention as well and has been for a long time. Their tactics are subtle and disarming with the conservative sounding Balanced Budget Amendment that could easily lead to a Constitutional Convention. There has also been a desire of the leftists to eliminate the Electoral College. In doing so, the smaller states would not have a voice in elections and we’d end up having the president elected by the most leftist populated states. In the 2012 election, Obama would remain president. [Link]
Today the Vatican called for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the OWS demonstrators and other movements around the world who have used the economic downturn to stage socialistic or progressive protests to push the US and world further down the road to serfdom.
I believe Occupy Wall Street is another Trojan Horse designed to further the aims of the elitists pushing a One World Order. The Con-Con promoters have been at this for decades and it is now coming to the fore again after we fought it off in the 80s. The Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement are both expressions of people’s anger and rage over what our elitist politicians in both parties are doing to the American people via the right/left Hegelian Dialectic which provides the elite a way of controlling the masses.
As others have illustrated in numerous articles, there is considerable evidence that Occupy Wall Street is funded by these powerful elements. The great central banking families (and their political, military, religious and financial colleagues and enablers) have been plotting world government for more than a century and they see the US Constitution as an impediment. Leftism suits their purpose.
We need to remove the Fed and central banking and return the country to a competitive monetary system that goes back to gold and silver. We do not need a Constitutional Convention to do this.
We do need political and economic pressure on all of our state and local representatives and we need to warn them of the dangers of a Con-Con. Please use my previous articles to do same.
We have two gigantic dangers to the citizens of America. One is a Constitutional Convention which would not only destroy the Constitution we have now, but would give us a totally different country and eliminate our God given unalienable rights. The other is the massive all encompassing UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development that is already in full bloom across America and in nearly every city and town.
These are the two most important subjects we need to tackle today. If there are any good Tea Parties and freedom loving groups who are not infiltrated with change agents and neutralizing RINOs, please join the rest of us freedom-loving patriotic Americans in fighting these forces of evil.
As many of my close and dear friends fighting this behemoth say, FIRST WE MUST PRAY and repent for allowing God to be kicked out of America, as well as pleading for His Mercy on our nation. And then, we all need to get to work!
Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots.
E-Mail: proverbs133@bellsouth.net
Video of Uygur’s Dangerous Constitutional Convention Announcement
As we pointed out in today’s lead article, leftist commentator and ‘Young Turk’, Cenk Uygur, has come up with a dangerous new ploy to erode what’s left of American freedoms under the guise of increasing “fairness” and equity for the savaged US middle class. He wants to have a US constitutional convention.
A constitutional convention could end up with results that are much different than what was expected. And this does not address the REAL problem that the US – and the West – face. The number one problem is the power elite‘s central banking and bankers’ ability to print money from nothing. This causes tremendous euphorias and over time creates depressions. These are useful to the power elite, which wants to consolidate power on the way to creating world government.
Uygur doesn’t deal with any of this. On his Wolf-PAC.com website, Uygur “explains” how corporate power has grown, starting “in 1978, [when] the Supreme Court began to allow corporate money to influence politics … Corporate wealth and corporate power continues to grow unabated as the Supreme Court ruled last year in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations can now spend unlimited money in politics.”
This is truly farcical. The problems that the West, and America in particular, face go back at least to the Civil War when states lost the right to secede and Leviathan began to expand aggressively until today it swallows up to 50 percent of a person’s income in taxes and removes as much or more over time via central bank-induced price inflation.
The problems in the US have to do with a lack of FREEDOM, and this can be (and should be) remedied by fewer laws, by attacking a corrupt judiciary and especially by “ending the Fed,” the central banking system itself.
(Video from YouTube user channel: TheYoungTurks)
Pingback to
Dangers of a Constitutional Convention
Obama’s Executive Orders
Subject Index for Barack Obama – 2009-Present
A
- Abortion; enforcing and implementing restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: EO 13535
- Armed Forces, U.S.
- Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, White House Initiative on; establishment: EO 13515
- Belarus; waiver under the Trade Act of 1974: EO 13510
- Bosnia and Herzegovina; International Organizations Immunities Act, provision extension: EO 13568
- Business and industry; automotive communities and workers, policy coordination: EO 13578
- Commissions, Boards, Committees, Task Forces, etc.
- Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, President’s Advisory Commission on; establishment: EO 13515
- Automotive Communities and Workers, White House Council on; establishment: EO 13509
- Bioethical Issues, Presidential Commission for the Study of; establishment: EO 13521
- BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, National Commission on the; establishment: EO 13543
- Community Solutions, White House Council for; establishment: EO 13560
- Council of Governors; establishment: EO 13528
- Detainee Disposition, Special Interagency Task Force on; establishment: EO 13493
- Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska, Interagency Working Group on Coordination of; establishment: EO 13580
- Domestic Policy Council; amendments to Executive Order 12859: EO 13500
- Economic Council, National; amendments to Executive Order 12835: EO 13499
- Economic Recovery Advisory Board, President’s; establishment: EO 13501
- Educational Excellence for Hispanics, White House Initiative on; establishment: EO 13555
- Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, President’s Advisory Council for; establishment: EO 13498
- Federal advisory committees, certain; continuance: EO 13511
- Federal Labor-Management Relations, National Council on; establishment: EO 13522
- Financial Capability, President’s Advisory Council on; establishment: EO 13530
- Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force; establishment: EO 13519
- Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, National Commission on; establishment: EO 13531
- Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition, President’s Council on; amendments to Executive Order 13265: EO 13545
- Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force; establishment: EO 13554
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities, President’s Board of Advisers on; establishment: EO 13532
- Insular Areas, Interagency Group on; establishment: EO 13537
- Intellectual Property Enforcement Advisory Committees; establishment: EO 13565
- Jobs and Competitiveness, President’s Council on; establishment: EO 13564
- Ocean Council, National; establishment: EO 13547
- President’s Management Advisory Board; establishment: EO 13538
- Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council, National; establishment: EO 13544
- Rural Council, White House; establishment: EO 13575
- Science and Technology, President’s Council of Advisors on; establishment: EO 13539
- State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities Advisory Committee; establishment: EO 13549
- Veterans Small Business Development, Interagency Task Force on; establishment: EO 13540
- Women and Girls, White House Council on; establishment: EO 13506
- Defense, national
- Biological select agents and toxins; use and security of: EO 13546
- Biological weapons attack; medical countermeasures: EO 13527
- Classified national security information: EO 13526
- Classified National Security Information Program for State, local, tribal, and private sector entities; establishment: EO 13549
- Controlled Unclassified Information: EO 13556
- Guantanamo Bay Naval Base; closure of detention facilities and review of detentions: EO 13492; EO 13567
- Interrogation of individuals in U.S. custody or control in armed conflicts; standards and practices: EO 13491
- Environment
- Executive orders
- Executive Order 12425; amendment: EO 13524
- Executive Order 12824; amendment: EO 13569
- Executive Order 12835; amendment: EO 13569
- Executive Order 12859; amendment: EO 13569
- Executive Order 13183; amendment: EO 13517
- Executive Order 13390; amendment: EO 13512
- Executive Order 13462; amendment: EO 13516
- Executive Order 13494; amendment: EO 13517
- Executive Order 13532; amendment: EO 13569
- Executive Order 13498; reestablishment: EO 13569
- Executive Order 13507; revocation: EO 13569
- Technical amendments: EO 13503
- Faith-based and neighborhood organizations; principles and policymaking criteria for partnerships: EO 13559
- Government agencies and employees
- Agriculture, Department of; order of succession: EO 13542
- Construction projects; use of project labor agreements: EO 13502
- Contract employees
- Customer service and service delivery; improvement and streamlining: EO 13571
- Defense, Department of; order of succession: EO 13533
- Disabilities, individuals with; expanding Federal employment opportunities for: EO 13548
- Efficient, effective, and accountable Government; delivery: EO 13576
- Environmental, energy, and economic performance; Federal policy regarding: EO 13514
- Executive branch appointees; ethics commitments: EO 13490
- Export Enforcement Coordination Center; establishment: EO 13558
- Federal programs; efforts to eliminate payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse: EO 13520
- Half-day closing of Executive Departments and Agencies on December 24: EO 13523
- Justice, Department of; order of succession: EO 13557
- Rates of pay; adjustments: EO 13525; EO 13561
- Regulation and independent regulatory agencies: EO 13579
- Regulation and regulatory review; improvement: EO 13563
- SelectUSA Initiative; establishment: EO 13577
- State, Department of
- Students and recent graduates, recruiting and hiring: EO 13562
- White House Office of Health Reform; establishment: EO 13507
- White House Office of Urban Affairs; establishment: EO 13503
- Veterans; expansion of employment opportunities in the Federal Government: EO 13518
- Haiti; ordering selected reserve and certain individual ready reserve members of the U.S. Armed Forces to active duty to assist in earthquake relief efforts: EO 13529
- Health care; biological weapons attack, medical countermeasures: EO 13527
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities, White House Initiative on; establishment: EO 13532
- Iran
- Iraq; Iraq Strategic Partnership Office, establishment: EO 13541
- Kosovo; International Organizations Immunities Act, provision extension: EO 13568
- Libya; blocking property and prohibiting certain transactions related: EO 13566
- North Korea
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; enforcing and implementing restrictions on abortion: EO 13535
- Presidential Records Act; policies and procedures: EO 13489
- Regulatory planning and review; revocation of previous Executive orders: EO 13497
- Somalia; blocking property of certain persons contributing to the conflict: EO 13536
- Stem cells; removing research barriers: EO 13505
- Syria
- Trade
- Transportation; text messaging while driving, Federal efforts to reduce: EO 13513
- Veterans; employment opportunities in the Federal Government, expansion: EO 13518
Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
Barack Obama (2009-Present)
EO’s 13489 – 13583 | Subject Index
George W. Bush (2001-2009)
EO’s 13198-13488 | Subject Index
William J. Clinton (1993-2001)
EO’s 12834-13197 | Subject Index
George Bush (1989-1993)
EO’s 12668-12833
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
EO’s 12287-12667
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
EO’s 11967-12286
Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)
EO’s 11798-11966
Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
EO’s 11452-11797
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
EO’s 11128-11451
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
EO’s 10914-11127
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
EO’s 10432-10913
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
EO’s 9538-10431
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
EO’s 6071-9537
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
EO’s 5075-6070
.
Executive Orders FAQ’s
Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.
The text of Executive orders appears in the daily Federal Register as each Executive order is signed by the President and received by the Office of the Federal Register. The text of Executive orders beginning with Executive Order 7316 of March 13, 1936, also appears in the sequential editions of Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
NOTE: The total number of Executive orders issued for each administration includes number-and-letter designated orders, such as 9577-A, 9616-A, etc.
American Native!
”I am a Freedom Fighter and Oath Keeper that advocates for and fights to Defend the Constitution, Restore the Republic, Preserve our Liberties, Freedoms and our Nation’s Sovereignty.”
Hokaheh, Hoka hey, Hoka hay
“A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague” -Tullius Cicero
“Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!” ~Michael Badnarik
“Those who give up their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither and lose both”
~Benjamin Franklin
“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.”
~ Ayn Rand
The preamble to the United States Constitution
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
-
BonfiresBuzz Channel
Greetings
Music Playlist
Live Precious Metal prices
Oath Keepers
Operation Sleeping Giant
Patriot Coalition
The Patriot Code
SoCal Patriots
U.S. Border Patrol
Border Invasion Pics
Border Invasion Pics Channel
Secure Border Intelligence
U.S. Evolutions Channel
Blue Servo
M3 Report
Borderland Beat
San Diego Minutemen
Diggers Realm
Patriot Guard Riders
Sons Of Liberty Riders
GOOOH
American Indian Tea Party
Yurok Tribe
Survivor Topics
Oath Keepers Testimonials- Behold A Pale Horse _ Charlie Daniels on the New World OrderWow! Hot new documentary movie, with Tenth Amendment teeth. Charlie Daniels leads the charge against the New World Order. View the trailer here.
- President Ronald Reagan’s D-Day Speech 1984"The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers -- the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machineguns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would […]
- Karen Kwiatkowski’s Memorial Day MessageThis weekend, and I hope every day, let us remember the ideals of a free and noble America, and know that these ideals are worth fighting for. Let us say a silent prayer for our fellow veterans, our brothers and sisters in arms. Let us make time to aid and assist the widows and widowers, the children who have lost a parent, and the parents who have lost thei […]
- Stewart Rhodes will Speak on NDAA at Educational session for North Carolina LegislatureOath Keepers, we are proud to announce that NC. state Representative Glen Bradley, a Founding Member of Oath Keepers, has introduced a resolution against the NDAA before the N.C. Legislature (based on the model legislation co-authored by Stewart Rhodes, Richard Frye, and Jeff Lewis). Stewart Rhodes will address the North Carolina Legislature, May 30, 2012.
- Breaking! North Carolina NDAA/PATRIOT ACT Press ReleaseMore on this shortly, but first, here is the video!
- Behold A Pale Horse _ Charlie Daniels on the New World Order
National Terrorism Advisory System
County Sheriff Project
CSPOA
Support Joe Arpaio
Let’s Say Thanks
Wounded Warrior Project
MIAP
Special Operations Warrior Foundation
Veteran Defenders olf America
Support LTC Terry Lakin
Eagle Forum University
Tenth Amendment Center
NullifyNow!
Gun Owners of America
JPFO
The Daily Bell
Publius-Huldah’s Blog
The Federal Observer
Registered Sex Offenders
Amber Alerts
Animal Recovery Mission
Eagle Nest Cam
-
Recent Comments
- InfoWars
- Alex Jones Banned From Bilderberg Hotel, Calls For Press MobPaul Joseph Watson | Media not welcome at site of power brokers' confab.
- Mass Illegal Immigration Voter Fraud in Florida… and the Feds Don’t Care.Minuteman PAC | As many as 180,000 illegals are estimated to have already registered to vote in Florida alone.
- Facebook Shares Hit New Low Falling Below $30Washington Post | After Zuckerberg's pump and dump scandal, the social network's shares have been slowly tumbling down.
- Live Video and News from Bilderberg 2012Infowars.com | Check this page for the latest news and information on Bilderberg 2012.
- Drones Shot Down Over TexasPaul Joseph Watson | Surveillance drones blasted out of the sky in protest against 4th amendment intrusion.
- Ancient Roots of Bilderberg Reveal Prusso-Teutonic Agenda for World DominationJurriaan Maessen | Just a few days from now, the world’s economic, political and scientific elites will gather near Chantilly, Virginia.
- Alex Jones Banned From Bilderberg Hotel, Calls For Press Mob
- Live Counters
- livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms. March 23, 2012livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms.
- livecounters: When will state governments ever learn, that catering to illegal immigrants or any illegal group invites fraud. http://t.co/73ne5Wg0 January 31, 2012livecounters: When will state governments ever learn, that catering to illegal immigrants or any illegal group invites fraud. http://t.co/73ne5Wg0
- livecounters: "Real" change is coming to America, not just words in an acceptance speech. This time it will be real. http://t.co/PwftG9D5 January 6, 2012livecounters: "Real" change is coming to America, not just words in an acceptance speech. This time it will be real. http://t.co/PwftG9D5
- livecounters: The Obama/DOJ immigration lawsuits say the states can't use a "patchwork" across the country. Really? What's this? http://t.co/RuktHIsH January 4, 2012livecounters: The Obama/DOJ immigration lawsuits say the states can't use a "patchwork" across the country. Really? What's this? http://t.co/RuktHIsH
- livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms. March 23, 2012
