Accuracy in Media

GEORGE SOROS TRIES TO BUY CONGRESS

Speaking at a Washington symposium on the continuing threat posed by illegal drugs to American society, Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation declared billionaire George Soros to be an “extremely evil person” who wants to legalize dangerous mind-altering drugs. Fay said that Soros, an atheist who is a major funder of the Democratic Party and liberal-left causes, is “our common enemy” and that he is determined to subvert traditional values and undermine America’s families.

Soros, convicted of insider trading in France, is a financial speculator and hedge-fund operator who manipulates the currencies of the nations of the world in order to make himself rich. Some of his fortune, estimated at $7 billion, has been put into causes such as abortion rights, gay rights, drug legalization, voting rights for felons, euthanasia, and rights for immigrants and prostitutes. His Open Society Institute even helped underwrite attorney Lynne Stewart, subsequently convicted of helping terrorists. In 2004, he spent about $25 million in an unsuccessful effort to defeat President Bush for re-election.

In this election cycle, according to Roll Call newspaper, Soros has been cutting checks “to organizations expected to launch attacks on GOP House and Senate candidates in the run-up to the Nov. 7 elections.” The money is going to a liberal group called Majority Action, “which is targeting GOP candidates?”

In an appearance at the same anti-drug event that featured Calvina Fay, Marc Wheat, staff director and chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, described Soros as someone who has no sense of guilt or responsibility for his actions. He noted that, during a December 20, 1998, interview with 60 Minutes, Soros acknowledged that as a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Hungary, his identity was protected and that he actually assisted in confiscating property from Jews as they were being shipped off to death camps. Asked by interviewer Steve Kroft if he had any sense of guilt over what he did, Soros replied, “no.”   

In the interview, Soros compared his actions to the operation of economic markets, saying, “?if I weren’t there, of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would?would?would be taking it away anyhow.” Soros then insisted he was only a “spectator” and had “no role in taking away that property.” That is why, he said, “I had no sense of guilt.”

Drawing attention to “The Guilt-free Record of George Soros,” Wheat noted that Soros has said, in regard to his manipulation of currency markets, “I am basically there to?to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of?of what I do,” and “I don’t feel guilty. Because I’m engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt.” 

He makes money by exploiting human suffering.

Target America

Wheat said it is his belief that Soros has found America to be “a hard nut to crack” in terms of weakening America’s traditional cultural values and institutions, and that the billionaire would be spending more time and money on activities in Europe, in an effort to fan anti-Americanism there.

Nevertheless, Wheat said he still considered Soros to be the number one danger to traditional values in the U.S. at this time. 

Earlier this year, Wheat’s boss, Rep. Mark Souder, became aware through an article by AIM that Soros-funded pro-drug groups had infiltrated the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington and were even being featured as speakers by CPAC organizers. He put a statement in the Congressional Record expressing alarm and asking, “What on earth were the CPAC organizers thinking?” He accused Soros of trying to manipulate conservatives, in the same way that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had done.

One CPAC official has since come forward to say that Soros-funded groups will not be allowed to be part of CPAC next year.

If CPAC is purging the Soros influence at its conference, the same cannot be said for the national Democratic Party. As David Horowitz and Richard Poe maintain in their new book, The Shadow Party, Soros is engaged in an alliance with Senator Hillary Clinton not only for the purpose of controlling the Democratic Party but taking control of Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008.

Rights For Prostitutes

One of the most bizarre areas of interest for Soros is prostitution. In the name of solving the AIDS problem, Soros-supported prostitutes are demanding their “rights.” The topic may seem strange to those unfamiliar with the Soros agenda. Rather than oppose dangerous conduct, such as using illegal drugs, the Soros approach is to legalize such behavior and “reduce the harm” associated with it, such as by providing free needles to addicts. This approach, which actually encourages the dangerous behavior and puts more people at risk of contracting serious diseases and even death, is now being applied to prostitution. The Soros plan is to legalize prostitution and then provide free condoms. In the cases of illegal drugs and prostitution, the behavior would not only be legalized but taxed and regulated and thus approved by government.

It didn’t get any attention from the major media, but the cause of “sex workers” was a prominent topic at the recently concluded 16th International AIDS Conference. And one of the main forces behind this movement is the Open Society Institute (OSI) “Sexual Health and Rights Project,” which pushes special “rights” for prostitutes. OSI boasts that its staff and grantees participated in over 25 conference presentations, satellite sessions and press conferences at the AIDS event.

The official conference newspaper highlighted a workshop at the conference on the subject of sex workers, HIV and human rights. The moderator, Melissa Hope Ditmore, was one of those consulted by the OSI in the June 2006 OSI study, “Sex Workers Health and Rights: Where is the Funding?” The report highlighted the role of OSI and various Soros foundations, as well as the Ford Foundation, in subsidizing “a large number of sex workers organizations,” and attacked the Bush Administration policy for refusing to fund such groups.

Newsday Columnist and commentator James Pinkerton came across some of these organizations at the AIDS conference in Canada, noting with some surprise that “The effort to ‘mainstream’ prostitution is not at all a fringe issue here. It is being waged by those at the pinnacle of the AIDS establishment?for example, Melinda Gates, who delivered the keynote speech here last Sunday, alongside her husband, Bill Gates.” He found one group, called “Stella,” which “acknowledges funding from George Soros’s Open Society Institute.”

Pinkerton said the activists see AIDS and prostitution as “a chance to turn tragedy into an opportunity to re-engineer societies around the world?”

Subverting America’s Traditions

The Soros agenda is to transform American society into one in which the use of dangerous drugs and the practice of prostitution are accepted and protected by the government.

This certainly seems newsworthy. A billionaire trying to help the Democratic Party take control of both Houses of Congress has an agenda that includes legalization of drugs and prostitution.

But, led by the Washington Post, the national press has seemed preoccupied with other matters, such as the “racially insensitive” remarks uttered by Virginia Senator George Allen when he singled out a Jim Webb campaign operative as a “macaca” at one of his campaign rallies. The term was deemed derogatory by the Post and other media. That is the name of the media game?get Republicans and let Soros do his dirty work.

Meanwhile, Thomas Edsall, who was the senior political reporter for the Post for many years, was a recent guest on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, where he acknowledged that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the national press was probably in the range of 15 or 25 to 1.

Edsall, who recently left the Post to work for the liberal New Republic, said, “there is a real difficulty on the part of the mainstream media being sympathetic, or empathetic, whatever the word would be, to the kind of thinking that goes into conservative approaches to issues?”

This is why George Allen gets savaged while Soros gets a free pass.

The one exception was a September 17 Soros interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, where the billionaire was asked about his comparison of the Bush Administration to the Nazis.

In his book, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror, Soros charges that “The Bush administration and the Nazi and Communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the technique used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.”

Under questioning, Soros eventually conceded that, “?maybe I did go over the line, but I think that on the whole, my assessment is a balanced one. And the fact that, frankly, when President Bush said, you are either with us or you are with the terrorists, that’s when I was reminded, but I should have probably kept it to myself.”

He went on to say that while he won’t spend as much money on political races this year as he did in 2004, “I think it would be very healthy for our democracy if the House at least was in Democratic hands.”

 

BILL CLINTON’S KOSOVO WHOPPER

Of all the whoppers told by former President Clinton in his now famous September 24 Fox News Channel interview with Chris Wallace, perhaps the most outrageous was his claim that he was involved in “trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo?” In fact, Clinton’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia killed more people than died in this “genocide.” And his policy benefited Osama bin Laden and the global Jihad. Yet Clinton insisted to Wallace that he had tried to kill bin Laden.

In the year before the bombing, according to U.N. and other sources, some 2,000 people had been killed in a civil war in Kosovo. By contrast, a conservative estimate offered by Rep. Curt Weldon is that 6,000 were killed by U.S. and NATO bombs. Some estimates go far higher. 

It’s strange as well that Clinton complained to Wallace about the “neocons” attacking him when many of the same neocons in 1999 supported Clinton’s war on Yugoslavia. The war was never approved by the U.N. or the U.S. Congress and in fact violated the War Powers Act. The main beneficiary of the intervention was a Muslim terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), with links to bin Laden, who had declared war on America in 1996, bombed our embassies in Africa in 1998, and would later, of course, orchestrate 9/11.

When former CIA official Michael Scheuer came forward after the interview to say that the Clinton Administration “had eight to ten chances” to kill bin Laden and “they refused to try,” he is making a statement that goes far beyond acknowledging Clinton Administration incompetence or a lack of will. The fact is that Clinton had a pro-Muslim foreign policy that actually benefited bin Laden and facilitated 9/11. Most Republicans don’t mention this because too many of them were duped into backing Clinton’s misguided policy in Kosovo. President Bush, then a candidate, even backed U.S. military intervention through NATO there.

Yet Scheuer’s CIA also has a lot to answer for. It is noteworthy that the CIA issued a January 2000 report that essentially whitewashed the terrorist nature and Islamic connections of the KLA. The only public release of this dubious report came through Rep. Eliot Engel, in a posting on the website of the National Albanian American Council, which supports an Albanian Muslim takeover of Kosovo.

The Hoax-Begotten War

That report was prepared under CIA Director George Tenet, who gave February 2, 1999, testimony referring to the Serb “massacre at Ra?ak,” which provided the pretext for NATO intervention against Serbia but which turned out to be a hoax. (See our April-A 2000 AIM Report, “The Hoax-Begotten War.”)

Tenet was, of course, kept on by President Bush. Not only were Tenet’s fingerprints all over the failed and deceptive policy in Kosovo, he told Bush that finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a slam dunk.

Interestingly, Al-Jazeera celebrated the fifth anniversary of 9/11 by airing several al-Qaeda videos, one of which showed two of the 9/11 hijackers saying their actions were designed to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya. Nothing demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Clinton policy more than that. Not only did Clinton order the CIA to help the KLA in Kosovo, he ordered the CIA to arm and train the Bosnian Muslims and even approved Iranian arms shipments to them so they could establish a Muslim state there. Still, that wasn’t good enough for the Jihadists. Nothing appeases them.

The Clinton policy of supporting the same extremist Muslim forces in Europe that subsequently attacked us on 9/11 is far more controversial than the policy of regime change in Iraq, which was officially a policy of Clinton, Bush and the Congress. Kosovo was never a threat to the U.S., and Serbia didn’t even pretend to have weapons of mass destruction.

Kosovo Vs. Iraq

At least in Iraq, despite some questionable intelligence, the cause is just. The U.S. removed a dictator and is fighting for democracy and against the terrorists. Such a policy may in the short term provoke a strong anti-American reaction, as Al-Jazeera rallies the foreign fighters to Iraq to kill Americans, but it is vastly preferable to the Clinton policy of helping Muslim radicals come to power in places like Bosnia or Kosovo. What’s more, as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) acknowledges, in a statement that has been played down by most of the media, a victory in Iraq would deflate the forces of global Jihad.

Our media like to talk about Iraq, because they think the issue will damage Bush, but Kosovo gets no mention, except when Clinton himself or former officials of his administration bring it up and claim it as a foreign policy success. There is no coverage of the anti-Christian Jihad underway there. But seven years after the illegal Kosovo intervention, the September 15 Washington Post reported on a new World Bank study on fragile or failing states that “can breed terrorism.” One of them is listed as Kosovo, which is not a state?not yet. Actually, in the report itself, Kosovo is identified as a “territory,” not a province of Serbia, but the point remains valid. Kosovo was identified as being “outside the control of a recognized and reputable government,” offering “fertile soil on which terrorism could thrive.” Terrorism is thriving there, of course, because it was Clinton’s official policy to support the terrorist KLA and remove Kosovo from Serbian control.

Let The U.N. Do It

The result was captured by the summer 1999 U.N. Association newsletter, The Interdependent, which showed Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the cover with her thumb in the air. The headline was: “Kosovo: The U.N. Takes Charge.”

Seven years later, the U.N. is still in charge. And the U.N. is sponsoring talks about whether Kosovo should now be an independent state. Clinton holdovers in the Department of State, such as Nicholas Burns, are said to favor Kosovo independence.

The growing danger in Kosovo is compounded by the fact that the problem gets almost no attention in our media, which reported the false charges of genocide that provided the pretext for the military intervention in the first place but still refuse to correct the record and hold Clinton, Albright and then-NATO Commander, General Wesley Clark, responsible for what they have done.

Albright’s Whopper

The media black-out is what enables Albright, in a lecture on religion and international affairs at Georgetown University on September 18, to declare, “Of all that we accomplished during my time in office, I’m proudest of what we did in Kosovo because we stopped the killing, and people are back in Kosovo living a free life.”

A free life when Christian Serbs are fleeing and their homes and churches in Kosovo are being destroyed?

Albright’s outrageous comments provide the answer in stark terms to the question: Whose side was the Clinton Administration on in the clash of civilizations between Islam and the West? All of the “missed opportunities” to kill bin Laden, and the interventions on behalf of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, didn’t give us anything but more anti-American attacks, more terrorism, and, finally, 9/11.

Compounding the failure of the Clinton policy in Kosovo, the George Soros-funded International Crisis Group recently released a report saying that the international community “must avoid creating a weak state” and that the territory must have its own army. Left unsaid is that it would be an army dominated by former members of the KLA. That would be the ultimate reward for terrorism. The terrorists would become the official army of Kosovo. 

Buried in the report, on page 8, you will find an interesting piece of information. It states that “A tiny but growing minority is turning to Wahhabi Islam,” the dangerous brand of Sunni Islam underwritten by Saudi Arabia, which is also financing the building of many mosques in Kosovo. But this should come as no surprise. That element was always there, nurtured by the Clinton policy. Now it gathers force again, just as it did before 9/11.

It won’t be enough to oppose independence for Kosovo. The terrorism problem will remain regardless of whether it is a province, territory or a state. But a U.S. position against independence will at least reflect belated recognition that the Clinton policy of encouraging terrorism in Kosovo has finally come to an end. The Bush Administration must side with Serbia in this important chapter in the clash of civilizations.

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Professor Doris Graber, Brian Williams of NBC News, and Christopher Burnham of the United Nations.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments