1

NET NEUTRALITY IS A FAKE TERM COINED BY ESTABLISHMENT AGENT TO CREATE FAKE

DEBATE , WITH ESTABLISHMENT / ROTHSCHILDS AGENTS / FREEMASONS ON BOTH SIDES , TO
ARRIVE AT THE SOLUTION WHICH WAS DECIDED MUCH EARLIER THAN THE BEGINNING OF THE
DEBATES . ITS CALLED CONTROLLED OPPOSITION .
WHO STAND FOR NET NEUTRALITY , AGAINST BIGGEST CORPORATES ------- GEORGE SOROS , FORD
FOUNDATION , HILLARY CLINTON , NETFLIX , CATHOLIC BISHOPS ETC ETC ---------ALL
ROTHSCHILDS AGENTS , FREEMASONS/ OUTFITS . HILLARY CLINTON = PROMINENT IN INSTITUTE
FOR POLICY STUDIES , FOUNDED BY SKULL AND BONES FREEMASONRY OUTFIT . SO CALLED LEFT.
MORE ON GEORGE SOROS -------- PAGE 29
WHO STAND AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY ------ AT&T , VERIZON , COMCAST ETC ETC ----------- ALL
ROTHSCHILDS AGENTS, FREEMASONS / OUTFITS . SO CALLED RIGHT .
WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS COMPLETE OVERT SLAVERY . WE HAD OVERT SLAVERY . ABRAHAM
LICOLN PUT AN END TO OVERT SLAVERY . WE STILL HAVE OVERT SLAVERY FOR EXAMPLE IN
MILITARY , POLICE ETC .BUT IT WAS A STEP TOWARDS COVERT SLAVERY . WE HAVE COVERT
SLAVERY NOW , FOR EXAMPLE EXECUTIVES and WORKERS IN ARAB COUNTRIES.
FUTURE OF NET HAS BEEN DECIDED AS ALWAYS . MUCH BEFORE INTERNET HAS BEEN MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE PEOPLE. WE WILL HAVE A VERY MUCH CONTROLLED NET , TOO SOON.

FIND BELOW CONVENTINAL / MAINSTREAM DEBATE BETWEEN CONTROLLED OPPOSITIONS.

Net Neutrality is actually Obama-Government-Speak to regulate the Internet apart from the real neutrality involved
with a Market Economy.
The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that
remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.
On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which
consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based
businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."
But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like
a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the "public interest" when providing a
mobile connection to your home or phone.
The reality is now the government can control what is read or seen by rules and regulations. Does that sound like Net
Neutrality and Internet Freedom?
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may
abuse it."
* Regulations give power to lobbyists and give rise to regulatory capture as each corporation will game the hundreds
of pages of regulations to their pecuniary benefit
* Regulations will chill competition and make it harder, not easier for new entrants, who will face daunting regulatory
compliance costs

* Regulations open a Pandoras Box. The FCC can regulate pricing, access, limit the ability of new innovative services
to try different business models
* FCC could impose a fairness doctrine on the internet (as they once did on radio) and regulate content.
* FCC could impose price regimes and pricing controls as well as controls on terms of service, as title II allows, adding
to overall costs on business
* FCC would likely end up putting more taxes and fees on consumers, just as you get on phone bills (Derived
from: Internet Freedom Comes from Markets Not Government; By Freedoms Truth (Diary); Red State; 2/26/15
02:17 PM)
Further Reading:
FCC Approves Socialism for Broadband Townhall.com 2/27/15
GOP Blasts New FCC Rules as 'Trojan Horse' for Internet Takeover Newsmax2/26/15
Obama Helps FCC Pass Net Neutrality Find Out What that Could Do to Freedom on the Internet American
Prosperity News Network
Could Net Neutrality Ruin the Internet? Toms Guide: Tech for Real Life 2/25/15
FCC Member Blasts Upcoming Net Neutrality Vote and WH Influence Newsmax2/25/15

VIDEO: FCC's Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist"
Net Neutrality is "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist," says Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Pai is an outspoken (sic) opponent of expanding government control of the internet, including FCC Chairman Tom
Wheeler's plan to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under the same Title II rules that are used to govern
telephone-service providers as public utilities. Under current FCC regulations, ISPs are considered providers of
"information services" and subject to essentially no federal regulation.
He is also sharply critical of President Barack Obama's very public push to influence policy at the FCC, which is
technically an independent agency. Last year, it was widely believed that Wheeler, a former head of the National Cable
& Telecommunications Association, would not push for Title II. Pai calls the president's actionswhich included
"creating a YouTube video of with very specific prescriptions as to what this agency should do"unprecedented in his
experience. Coupled with the fact that "the agency suddenly chang[ed] course from where it was to mimic the
presidents plan," says Pai, "suggests that the independence of the agency has been compromised to some extent."
Pai explains his opposition to Title II reclassifcation (sic) to Reason's Nick Gillespie. Citing independent studies of
American competitiveness and booming investment in telecommunications infrastructure compared to Europe, Pai
argues that consumers are thriving and the market is doing its job.
Regulating the internet like a utility company, says Pai, will threaten the kind of innovation we've taken for granted
over the past 20 years. "Do you trust the federal government to make the Internet ecosystem more vibrant than it is
today?" Pai asks. "Can you think of any regulated utility like the electric company or water company that is as
innovative as the Internet?"

George Soros Tells Obama to Take Over the Internet

"New Internet Regulations Finally Released By The Federal Communications Commission Make 46 References To
A Group Funded By Billionaire George Soros And Co-Founded By A Neo-Marxist." -The Daily Caller
But please... keep reading... because what you're about to see may be the most shocking thing that you've read in years.
Almost two weeks after voting on secret regulations to facilitate Barack Hussein Obama's takeover of the Internet,
Barack Obama's FCC finally released 400 pages of these so-called Net Neutrality regulations to the public and it's far
worse than we could have ever imagined.
Based on references in the regulations alone, it is clear that Barack Obama's takeover of the Internet was actually
written -- in large part -- by radical Marxist-leaning organizations; and it has also come to light that radical
socialist-leaning organizations funded by Billionaire Socialist George Soros and others have spent approximately
200 MILLION DOLLARS ($200,000,000.00) to make Barack Obama's tyrannical and dictatorial takeover of the
Internet a reality.

The organization whose net neutrality arguments are cited at least 46 times in the Obama-FCC dictatorial regulations is
ironically named Free Press. Free Press is funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundation and other left-wing
groups like the Ford Foundation; and it was founded by Robert McChesney, an avowed Socialist who is presently a
communications professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
And to McChesney so-called Net Neutrality is simply a means to an end. Specifically, it's the first step to be taken to
fundamentally transform the United States into a socialist tyranny.

Read what McChesney says about it for yourself:

According to DiscovertheNetworks.org, McChesney "told the website SocialistProject that 'unless you make
significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.'"
Back in 2009, McChesney wrote that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily
be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself... to remove brick by brick the capitalist
system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles... We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist
propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it."
DiscovertheNetworks.org again: "In a November 2000 Monthly Review article titled 'Journalism, Democracy,
and Class Struggle,' he [McChesney] wrote: 'Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for
democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.'"
Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market group American Commitment says that Chesney's goal is "to empower
the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet's
content."
And McChesney said, back in 2009, when the concept of Net Neutrality was focused on more traditional means
of communication: "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and
cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone
and cable companies and to divest them from control."
Make no mistake, so-called Net Neutrality was always about giving the government total control over the media and
there's only one way to stop it now that Barack Obama's FCC has essentially decreed it -- by dictatorial fiat -- to be the
law of the land.

Here's what the FCC says about First Amendment rights in Section 544:
"The rules we adopt today do not curtail broadband providers' free speech rights. When engaged in broadband Internet
access services, broadband providers are not speakers, but rather serve as conduits for the speech of others."
Here's a question: Do local AM radio stations not "serve as conduits for the speech of others." Come to think of it, is
your radio not a "conduit" for the speech of others?
Now, let's be clear. These 400 pages of Obama-FCC regulations only apply to the Internet (at least for now), but the
analogy should serve to illustrate EXACTLY what Barack Obama, George Soros and the FCC are thinking when it
comes to your First Amendment rights.
If you're not a "speaker," the First Amendments doesn't apply to you. And who determines whether or not you're
a "speaker" Why... none other than Barack Hussein Obama.
The thinking is straight out of George Orwell's Animal Farm. Barack Obama doesn't need to control your speech if he
can control the "conduits" of your speech.
And that's exactly what he intends to do. If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet and if you like your First
Amendment rights, you can keep your First Amendment rights... You can say whatever you want but lots of luck when
it comes to anyone actually hearing what you have to say or you hearing what others have to say to you because Barack
Obama will control the "conduits" of speech.
Rush Limbaugh perhaps said it best:
"Do you want the people who gave you ObamaCare running your Internet service? Do you want them in charge of
what you can get and when you can get it and how much it's gonna cost you?"

FCC Chairman Strongly Hints Hell Favor Internet Reclassification CES

Chairman Tom Wheeler didnt say so directly, but he left little doubt that he and fellow Democrats on the FCC will
stand up to cable and telco Internet providers next month by adopting net neutrality rules that redefine broadband as a
regulated, communications service. ISPs have said that such a move would chill investment. But for the last 20 years
the wireless industry has been regulated under so-called Title 2 rules with provisions limiting the FCCs ability to
set prices and it has been monumentally successful, Wheeler said today at the International CES conference in
Las Vegas. There is a way to do Title 2 right A model has been set in the wireless business.
The trade show reinforced his belief that the FCC needs to prohibit Internet service providers from playing favorites,
for example by offering speedier service to some content providers over others. The message that comes across is that
the Internet of things opportunities that are out there on the floor demand open networks, Wheeler says. Thats the
path were going down. Last year a federal Appeals Court remanded net neutrality rules the FCC adopted in 2010.
Justices said that the agency had overreached its authority as long as it defines the Internet as a lightly regulated
information service.
Wheeler says hell circulate his net neutrality proposal on February 5, aiming for a vote on February 26.
PRO NET NEUTRALITY ------------Net neutrality will mean a UN takeover of the internet and other Republican myths
byJoan McCarter
The Federal Communications Commission meets Thursday morning to vote on net neutrality, and will almost certainly
vote to reclassify broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, giving the agency the regulatory
power to ensure that internet service providers act in the "public interest" and conduct business in ways that are "just

and reasonable." Since Republicans are not interested in either the public interest or businesses being just and
reasonable, they're gearing up for a big fight in Congress to legislate those rules, and they're telling a lot of lies to do it.
THE CLAIM: "President Obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet."
Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.
THE FACTS: It's a shift for sure, but the FCC hasn't proposed regulating Internet content or controlling access to
websites. The question is how to regulate Internet service so providers don't block or slow web traffic for financial gain.
[]
THE CLAIM: FCC Chairman "Wheeler has chosen to ignore the unprecedented Internet innovation, investment and job
creation that have all thrived without government intervention and regulation." -- Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, a member of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a Feb. 19 statement.
THE FACTS: It is true that the Internet has flourished and is lightly regulated compared with other industries. It's also
true that this exponential growth occurred under a system in which broadband providers mostly agreed not to
discriminate against Web traffic.
Providers operated under the threat of regulation for several years until late 2010, when the FCC adopted open Internet
rules. Those rules were in effect until early 2014, when a federal court struck them down. So it's not true that there
hasn't been any government regulation.
There's also the claim that it will it raise taxes by $18 billion. The FCC says it won't. There's also federal law, the
Internet Tax Freedom Act, that bans taxes on Internet service.
The best one so far, though, is clearly designed to terrify the tea-party, black helicopter crowd, you know, the "death
panel" people. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) says this net neutrality regulation could result in China and Russia forcing the
UN to take over the internet. Really. He says that.

10

So get ready for the crazy to be fully unleashed on this one, as the Republicans line up to do big telecom's bidding. One
battle for the internet has been won, and it's a huge, huge win. But we'll need to take that momentum and win again in
Congress.
Please, help us protect all that we've built with this amazing campaign. Call your members of Congress today urging
them to "Let the FCC do its job" to create net neutrality rules and protect an open internet.
Can't call? Sign and send a petition to your member of Congress: Don't kill net neutrality.
"The NSAs capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any
privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church
"When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

=================
Obamas FCC Internet Takeover Will Radically Change America
Net Neutrality is the first major step of federal control over the Internet.
With the FCCs decision Thursday to give the federal government massive control over the regulation of the Internet,
this has now happened.
As Dick Morris explains in Power Grab, this is truly a pivotal move.

11

Major Internet companies are now subservient to an FCC controlled by Obama and his most liberal minions.
Even after decisive victories for the GOP in the midterm elections, the radical agenda of Obama is being advanced
daily.
Morris predicted all of this in Power Grab.
Morris powerful expos of Barack Obama Power Grab: Obamas Dangerous Plan for a One-Party Nation
rips the lid off of Obamas scary plan to re-create our nation with a ruling single party: the Democratic Party and its
most liberal wing!
Obama was not concerned about the congressional elections. He is concerned about the levers of Democratic
power, such as getting illegal aliens to vote, increasing entitlements and dependency, intimidating political
enemies, and controlling the very circuits of a free society. . . such as the Internet!
This is why Dr. Ben Carson is joining with Dick Morris and warning Americans about this new threat.
Ben Carson said: I read Power Grab and couldnt put it down. It thoroughly reveals President Obamas hidden
agenda.
In this blockbuster book, Morris exposes Obamas ultimate agenda to turn America into a banana republic ruled by
one party.
Ben Carson says it bluntly: Power Grab is a must-read for all Americans.
Dire Warning: Obama Close to Goal
Dick Morris and his co-author, Eileen McGann, say their book is a dire warning to the nation about Obamas real
intentions.

12

Power Grab makes a convincing case that Obama has an overarching strategy in pushing his liberal agenda one
that grabs power from our traditional and bipartisan institutions in favor of a single party: his Democratic Party.

According to Morris and McGann, Obama has promulgated his plan by:
Implementing the biggest power grab of all, Obamacare one that creates a new, permanent dependency class
Pushing for immigration reform that will quickly tip the delicate balance of power in favor of Democrats, giving
them a permanent lock on the White House
Pushing red states aside by gaining federal control over state-run education systems using the Common Core
curriculum
Asserting more control over private business by granting the EPA global governance in the name of climate change,
affecting every aspect of our lives
Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill, effectively blocking energy independence thereby slowing economic growth
and breeding more dependency. And it was predicted in Power Grab.
Gutting welfare reform and keeping millions on the dole
Silencing critics by turning over regulation of the Internet to the FCC and eventually the United Nations

13

The authors write: Obama is a left-wing president who is desperately determined to impose his radical agenda to
transform our democratic government and free market economy into his socialist-style ideal before leaving office in
2016.
Hes a president who is obsessively fixated on keeping the left in permanent power by turning our two-party system
into a one-party monopoly.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was
established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international
communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
However, in Mr. Fund's WSJ article we read:
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White
House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.
What possibly could have required the FCC Chairman to meet personally with the President 11 times? And is the White
House willing to release any transcripts or information that was recorded during those meetings. Did the topic of net
neutrality come up and if yes, why? I thought independence meant not being influenced by another's opinion or
thought?
Are we to believe that Mr. Obama did not express his opinion or thoughts on the issue of net neutrality?

14

Behind the innocent-sounding name and expressed aims of the FCC's Net Neutrality initiative, voted in by the
Commission yesterday by a 3-2 partisan vote, is a very sinister leftist agenda. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has
done excellent work researching the origins of the policy, and what he has found is shocking.
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a
University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's
agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable
companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in
the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
Not having private companies in control means having the government in control. McChesney is pretty specific about
what this means:
A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the
media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."
Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged
that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."
For a man with such radical views, Mr. McChesney and his Free Press group have had astonishing influence. Mr.
Genachowski's press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free Press. The FCC's chief
diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.
Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that helped the lobby invent the purported problem that
net neutrality is supposed to solve.

15

Net Neutrality clearly is aimed at choking off the free flow of ideas that characterizes the internet, because that is an
obstacle to a complete takeover of the media by leftists.
Thomas Sowell -------"Intellectuals and their followers have often been overly impressed by the fact that intellectuals tend, on average, to
have more knowledge than other individuals in their society. What they have overlooked is that intellectuals have far
less knowledge than the total knowledge possessed by the millions of other people whom they disdain and whose
decisions they seek to override."

2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HILLARY CLINTON ENDORSES GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF INTERNET

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON SIGNALED SUPPORT FOR THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION UPCOMING VOTE TO MAKE THE INTERNET A TITLE II PUBLIC
UTILITY.
Democrats have always been opposed to fundamental American rights like the Second Amendment, they are not
overly fond of the First Amendment, the right to free speech against the government, either. By taking over and
regulating the flow of free speech on the Internet, the greatest communication medium this world has ever seen, the
government will be able to effectively squash the tide of truth that the main stream media has long since stopped
reporting on.
Hillary Clinton as president of these United States? Welcome to Barack Hussein Obamas third term.
When asked directly by Re/Codes Kara Swisher if she supported the FCCs upcoming vote,she said she supported
President Obamas position on the issue.

16

I would vote for net neutrality, because as I understand it, its Title II with a lot of changes within it in order to avoid
the worst of the utility regulation, she said. Its a foot in the door, its a value statement, I think the president is right
to be upfront and out front on that.
Net neutrality is just code for giving the government powers to regulate the Internet similar to what they did to radio
decades ago. Today, the content of what gets broadcast on terrestrial radio is heavily regulated. If you broadcast
without a license, the feds will come after you. If you have a license and broadcast content people in power dont like,
they have the authority to revoke your broadcasting license and make your life a living hell.
Washington Examiner:
Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administrations net
neutrality agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.
And now, as the Federal Communications Commission nears approving a type of government control over the Internet,
the groups are poised to declare victory in the years-long fight, according to the report from MRC Business, an arm of
the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center.
While Net Neutrality advocates complain about corporate interests like Comcast, in a May 14, 2014 column entitled
Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?, entrepreneur Joshua Steimle retorted:
If monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world?
Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. If Net
Neutrality comes to pass, how can we trust it will not be written in a way that makes it harder for new companies to
offer Internet services? If anything, were likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before.
Steimle also exposed this dirty secret, revealed in Glenn Greenwalds new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden,
the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. The U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing

17

process to aid its spying programs. Dont be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install
its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic.
WASHINGTON SECRETS: TECHNOLOGY
Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House
Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administrations net
neutrality agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.
And now, as the Federal Communications Commission nears approving a type of government control over the Internet,
the groups are poised to declare victory in the years-long fight, according to the report from MRC Business, an arm of
the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center.
The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society
Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality
groups between 2000 and 2013, said the report, authored by Media Research Centers Joseph Rossell, and provided to
Secrets.
These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for
American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five
individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC, said the report which
included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.
It quoted critic Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, saying, The biggest money in this debate is from the
liberal foundations that lavish millions on self-styled grassroots groups pushing for more and more regulation and
federal control.

18

Groups funded by Soros and Ford include the Center for American Progress, the American Civil Liberties Union, and
Media Matters for America. They received a total of $54,226,097 from the Ford and Open Society Foundations.
Some of those supported by the two groups funding have also worked the White House, notably John Podesta, former
Center for American Progress head and now expected to run Hillary Clintons presidential campaign.
MRC Business regularly follows the spending and activity of Soros, and even has an initiative to keep an eye on his
advocacy called the Soros Project.

New internet regulations finally released by the Federal Communications Commission make 46 references to a group
funded by billionaire George Soros and co-founded by a neo-Marxist.
The FCC released the 400-page document on Thursday, two weeks after it passed new regulations, which many fear
will turn the internet into a public commodity and thereby stifle innovation.
Leveling the playing field in that way has been a clear goal of Free Press, a group dedicated to net neutrality which
was founded in 2003.
As Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market group American Commitment, first noted, Free Press is mentioned
repeatedly in the FCC document. Most of the references are found in footnotes which cite comments by Free Press
activists supporting more internet regulation.
The term Free Press is mentioned 62 times in the regulations. Some are redundant mentions referring to the same
Free Press activists comments in favor of more oversight. In total, the FCC cited Free Press pro-net neutrality
arguments 46 times.

19

The FCC received more than 4 million public comments as it was weighing the net neutrality initiative, but Free Press
and other activist groups have received the most attention by pressuring the FCC and the White House on behalf of
their cause.
One argument made against the FCCs regulatory push is that the general public is largely happy with its internet
service. Support for net neutrality was seen as the domain of special interest groups like Free Press.
The activist group has big money behinds its effort. It has received $2.2 million in donations from progressive
billionaire George Soros Open Society Foundations and $3.9 million from the Ford Foundation.
And one of Free Press co-founders, Robert McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, has not been shy about his desire to see the internet regulated heavily
But internet regulation appears to be only part of McChesneys more radical agenda of completely revamping how the
media operate in the U.S.
The news is not a commercial product. It is a public good, necessary for a self-governing society. Once we accept
this, we can talk about the kind of media policies and subsidies we want, McChesney once argued.
Sentiments such as these have raised questions about whether the FCCs new regulations will eventually lead to
oversight of internet content.
The unthinkable has become thinkable, and the free-market Internet one of freedoms greatest triumphs is set to be
reduced to a public utility, subject to pervasive economic regulation and, in turn, to content control, American
Commitments Kerpen wrote in an open letter to McChesney after the FCC voted 3-2 in favor of the regulations.
McChesney, who is currently on Free Press board of directors, made a series of progressive proposals in a 2010 book,
The Life and Death of American Journalism. He suggested spending $35 billion on federal subsidies for public media

20

outlets. He also proposed creating a journalism branch of AmeriCorps and said it would be a good idea to give each
American a $200 news voucher which could be given only to publicly-owned media outlets.
Advertising is the voice of capital, McChesney said in a 2009 interview with the Socialist Project. We need to do
whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against
hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of digital communications.
What the press has called the parallel FCC at the White House opened its doors to a plethora of special-interest
activists: Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few,
Pai wrote.
US Bishops join Obama, Ford Foundation, Soros to champion Net Neutrality
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) A recent vote in Washington on a complicated issue
portends sweeping ramifications for online news outlets and reporters nationwide particularly those of faith, and those
who cover life and family issues.
These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for
American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five
individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC, said the report which
included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.
It quoted critic Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, saying, The biggest money in this debate is from the
liberal foundations that lavish millions on self-styled grassroots groups pushing for more and more regulation and
federal control.
Among the organizations supporting net neutrality are the Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation, two
entities well-known for funding extreme left-wing causes. The former was founded by George Soros, notorious in

21

political circles for funding liberal policy positions like open borders and the legalization of prostitution. The latter
has a history of anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic activity, and took on abortion corporation Planned Parenthood's CEO,
Cecile Richards, as a board member in 2010.
Individuals in favor of net neutrality include Lawrence Lessig, founder of Mayday PAC and a political activist who has
served on the boards of several technology-focused companies; Vint Cerf, called one of the inventors of the internet,
now the "chief internet evangelist" for Google; and Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple. Silicon Valley contributed
overwhelmingly to Barack Obama's 2012 presidential campaign, with Apple and Google at the front of the line.
The FCC is currently defending its new "strong, enforceable rules" for the internet in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has expressed "great confidence" in legislative hearings that the
FCC will prevail this time, after having failed twice before.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, meanwhile, has joined George Soros and the Ford Foundation in
supporting net neutrality. On the day of the FCC vote, USCCB Communications Committee chairman Bishop John C.
Wester released a statement praising "open internet," "where neither the telephone or [sic] cable company providing
access can tamper with access by consumers to any legal website or other web content."
The USCCB emphasized the threat to religious liberty as one of its primary reasons for supporting net neutrality:
From the inception of the Internet until the mid-2000s, Internet service providers were not permitted to discriminate or
tamper with what was said over those Internet connections. Today, the FCC restores this protection for speakers,
protection particularly important to noncommercial religious speakers.

22

UN Takeover of the Internet?

FCC moves on net neutrality could lead to United Nations takeover of the web
For years, successive American governments have rejected a greater role for the United Nations regulating the internet
by arguing that it is not a telecommunications service and therefore the UN's International Telecommunication
Union should have no role, but Thursday's vote by the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify internet
service as such could pave the way for a UN takeover.
David Gross, a lawyer and former ambassador to the ITU under President George W. Bush, told National Journal that
the FCC's expected vote Thursday could change everything.
"If they were to find that Internet service is a telecommunications service, that would undoubtedly make the job of my
successors much more complicated," Gross said.
Gross is not alone in seeing the danger.
National Journal also cites Republican John Thune of South Dakota as being worried about the implications of the
reclassification. Thune, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, says the FCC move will make it more difficult
for the United States to push back against countries that want centralized control of internet service and content.
Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or
another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.
"It seems like reclassifying broadband, as the administration is doing, is losing a valuable argument," Thune said at
his panel's hearing on Internet governance. "How do you prevent ITU involvement when you're pushing to
reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent
contradiction?"

23

Net neutrality is being sold by President Obama and other supporters as a way to keep the internet free and open to
innovation by giving the government greater control.
How U.S. net neutrality could be an international human rights fight
Two human rights professors at the George Washington University Law School have come up with that rarest of
unicorns in the debate over net neutrality: a novel argument.
The Federal Communications Commission, is in the last stages of coming up with rules aimed at ensuring that all online
content is treated equally by internet providers. But the GW professors are warning Wednesday that the United States is
at real risk of getting itself into international hot water by violating both human rights laws and trade agreements that
the United States backs.
That argument comes in the form of a new filing today to the FCC from Arturo J. Carrillo, director of GW's
International Human Rights Clinic, and professor Dawn C. Nunziato. Anything less that an outright ban on all forms of
paid prioritization -- which are fees that allow the providers of some online content, such as Netflix, to have their digital
content treated better by internet providers -- exposes the United States to complaints at the United Nations and the
World Trade Organization, they say. The absence of such bans on paid prioritization, says Carrillo, "sets the stage for
conflict."
The package of proposed rules that Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC, floated to kick off this current round of
rule-writing in May, argue the professors, "would operate as an impermissible restriction on freedom of expression by
making access to certain kinds of content more difficult for some users, based on a prioritization of services due to the
privileged socio-economic status of the content provider."

24

They go on. "Only those companies and organizations with deep enough pockets will be able to afford to pay for 'fast
lanes,' making their information, ideas, and opinions more readily accessible to Internet users, while less well-funded
information, ideas, and opinions will be relegated to 'slow lanes.'"
Carrillo and Nunziato's argument has two prongs. The first is has to do with human rights agreements that guarantee a
freedom of expression, including the ability to "receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers," according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United States in 1948.
And two years ago, the U.N. General Assembly's human rights council adopted a striking resolution concluding that
"the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression."
The second is that, when it comes to trade, anything short of a ban on paid deals would violate the principle, laid
out in World Trade Organization agreements, that participating nations should have "non-discriminatory access" to
telecommunications networks in other member countries.
The FCCs proposed Net Neutrality regulations grew out of the work of a socialist professor who wants to take
control of the Internet out of private hands by declaring it a public utility.
What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.
We want an Internet where you dont have to have a password and that you dont pay a penny to use. It is your right to
use the Internet.
(Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney
The Bullet Socialist Project, August 9, 2009)

25

Advertising is the voice of capital. We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize
it, and perhaps even eliminate it. The fight against hyper-commercialism becomes especially pronounced in the era of
digital communications.
(Media Capitalism, the State, and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles: An Interview with Robert McChesney
The Bullet Socialist Project, September 8, 2009)
Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it,
socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall
Street and Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class.
(Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle Monthly Review, November 2000)
There is no real answer (to the U.S. economic crisis) but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself,
rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.
(A New New Deal under Obama? (with John Bellamy Foster) Monthly Review, December 21, 2008)
Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism.
(The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers Nation, March 18, 2009)
McChesneys managing director at Free Press, Craig Aaron, had this to say:
We need a law that says, no matter what kind of network youre onwired, wireless, I forget, theres some other
network coming in the futurethat net neutrality applies.
(Interview with Robert McChesney Media Matters Public Radio show, March 22, 2009)
And McChesneys former policy director at Free Press, Ben Scott, also said:
Increasingly the Internet is no longer a commercial service, its an infrastructureWhat were witnessing at the FCC
now is the logical next step which is we are going to create a regulatory framework for the Internet which recognizes it
is an infrastructure now and not a commercial service.
(C-SPAN: The Communicators C-Span, September 25, 2009)

26

Free Press has welded extraordinary influence over the Obama administration for the past several years.
[Former FCC Chairman Julius] Genachowskis press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations
at Free Press, The Wall Street Journal reported. The FCCs [former] chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored
a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.
Lloyds report, entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, advocated draconian measures to limit free
speech on AM and FM stations under the guise of balanced radio programming, i.e. a fairness doctrine.
While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the
airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast, the report stated, oversimplifying politics into
a false left/right paradigm. These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format,
but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public
airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.
The FCC wants to similarly restrict political free speech on the Internet.
AT&T calls net neutrality advocate a conspiracy theorist
In a letter to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), AT&T tried to rubbish points made by the group, calling
them "not exactly true". The argument revolves around the notion of "paid prioritisation" of Internet connectivity,
something that net neutrality activists are fiercely against.
AT&T claims that the Free Press, in supporting Diffserv, is in direct contradiction to its support of equal packet rights.
Diffserv is one of a number of mechanisms proposed to provide differing quality of service (QoS), though typically it is
run on customers' routers.
The telecom behemoth argues that paid prioritisation will not create an Internet 'rich club', saying that small to medium
businesses voluntarily take AT&T up on the offer. However the fact that a few firms purchase managed connectivity

27

from AT&T doesn't really change the fact that applying such policies at the network core is something that will concern
the majority of users. Judging by the lengths to which AT&T goes to promote it, those fears won't be allayed any time
soon.
Aside from the letter to the FCC, Hank Hultquist of AT&T came out all guns blazing on its Public Policy
Blog, saying "Yet now Free Press seems to suggest that ISPs would restrict prioritization to only a few 'deep-pocketed
Internet giants.' While I enjoy the Da Vinci Code conspiracy theories as much as the next blogger, I do expect at least
some superficial consistency."
AT&T labeling Free Press as conspiracy theorists like Dan Brown savours involved in a plot considerably thicker than
any of his novels smacks of desperation. Not surprisingly, Free Press said that AT&T's letter was "a confusing and
misleading letter [to] the FCC in an attempt to justify charging content companies for priority access to its Internet
subscribers."
In a rebuttal, S Derek Turner, research director of Free Press said, "Paid prioritization is the antithesis of openness, and
any regulatory framework that does not prohibit such arrangements as harmful to consumers and competition would not
be real net neutrality, but fake net neutrality brought to you by AT&T."
Those harsh words are not all that surprising given the language used by AT&T, calling statements made by the Free
Press "grossly inaccurate" and urging the FCC to "reject calls from Free Press and others to ban or significantly restrict
the provision of paid prioritization services". Apparently regulating net neutrality will harm "innovation and growth"
and go against the interests of businesses regardless of size, according to AT&T.
This particular argument boils down to the fact that AT&T and its competitors want to be able to sell 'parts of the pipe'
to customers, allowing them to charge more for Internet access and content delivery. Last year the FCC banned paid
prioritisation so it's not surprising to see AT&T try to pull a fast one to get the ban overturned.

28

AT&T's claims that net neutrality would harm innovation and growth comes weeks after it called net neutrality
oppressive. Indeed, it will impose constraints on firms that want to divvy up the bandwidth pie and flog the pieces for
more than they can charge for the whole.
One has to wonder why AT&T and the big ISPs like Verizon are lobbying so hard to ensure that net neutrality doesn't
happen. After all, they're the incumbent carriers who are most likely to benefit from stable regulatory rules for the
Internet, so if there's not much in it for them to oppose setting some standards, why bother?
============
Enter the similarly-misnamed net neutrality movement, which advocates total government control of Internet
browsing. Net Neutrality would forbid Internet service providers from regulating traffic on their networks, and would
place that regulatory control in the hands of the FCC.
While the left bemoans restrictions by private companies on their subscribers use of the Internet, progressives have
few qualms with allowing the federal government a say in what we can or cannot see, do, or say on the Internet.
The centralized control of Internet use by the federal government would provide a powerful tool for the censorship of
websites deemed politically unfavorable.
There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. The left is seeking Net Neutrality as a means of consolidating
control over the Internet, the same way it sought consolidated control over the airwaves with the Fairness Doctrine,
and the same way it is now seeking that same objective in the guise of diversity and localism. Those on the centerright should not be fooled into thinking that localism or net neutrality promote free enterprise or free speech.

29

GEORGE SOROS IS a Hungarian Jew. Soros was born in Budapest in 1930 as Gyorgy Schwartz.
When young Gyorgy Schwartz enrolled in the London School of Economics in 1947 he changed his surname to Soros.
In 1956 Soros settled in NYC. George Soros then built his multi-billionaire international hedge fund called
the Quantum Fund.
Geroge Soros is known for saving George Bush Jr from a 1990 bankruptcy. Soros still works with Bush Sr in
the Carlyle Group a powerful financial organization & international weapons dealer controlled by the Rothschilds who
own Vickers Munitions Here.
Soros has been equally active in many changes of governments throughout the world including the overthrow of
Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in 2003 a devout Orthodox Christian.
An area of interest for Soros is rights for prostitutes. This is part of his efforts to subvert traditional Christian values
and undermine Americas families.
Soros wants to legalize prostitution and then provide free condoms Here. Soros also promotes American open borders,
mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws.
SOROS & THE ROTHSCHILD CONNECTION
SOROS BUILT HIS ROTHSCHILD ALLIANCE through these Jews:
Richard Katz: Former head of Rothschild Italia and an officer of NM Rothschild & Sons in London. Katz is now a
member of Soros Quantum Fund committee.
Nils Taube: Partner of the Rothschild investment group St James Place Capital which now belongs to Nathaniel
Rothschild, son and heir of Jacob Rothschild. Taube is also a member of Soros Quantum Fund.

30

Michael Cicurel: Michael Cicurel. He is the manager of Rothschilds Societe Generale Bank & has a seat on the board
of Rothschild & Cie Banque.
SOROS AS ROTHSCHILD AGENT IN THE BALKANS
PREPARING THE GROUND for the Rothschilds to control the Balkans, Soros works through his Serbian
organizations to undermine historic Serbian Christian society.
Soros is seeking to drive out of Serbia the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Serbian language, the Cyrillic alphabet,
Serbian history, and Serbian nationalism Here.
In the early 1990s, Soros launched his 3 Anti-Christian organizations in Serbia: The Open Society Fund, The Helsinki
Committee, and The Serbian Centre for Anti-War Action, in order to undermine Christian society in Serbia. This was
strategically done by Soros at the very outset of the fall of communism in Russia.
Soros Open Society Fund financially supports Serbian Gay Rights Movements such asQueeria, & Gay Serbia Here.
Soros is also active in promoting Serbian membership in the Rothschild-controlled European Union.
GEORGE SOROS AND THE ROTHSCHILD CONNECTION
Who was George Soros?
[H: Better yet: Who IS this man? Meet one of the most prominent of the players in your downfall. He very much was
but he also IS and did, in fact wreck the economy of Southeast Asia in very short order. He is a top player in such as
Bilderbergers and all the other controlling groups while doing nothing illegal. But then no one can do anything
illegal if you and your colleagues make the laws.]
The now sixty-four year old Hungarian with a U.S. passport is a superstar amidst the great speculators. When the last

31

Forbes list of the best-paid managers and financiers was published, Soros was in the lead by a huge margin. In the last
year he earned 550 million US$, twenty times as much as the Disney boss. When Soros opens the hunt, the
international money markets get moving and the reserve banks start worrying.
In September 1993 he succeeded over the Bank of England. He was certain that the bank would have to take the pound
that came under pressure out of the European exchange mechanism and devalue it. He gambled ten billion US$ - with
success. He made one billion US$ which the British taxpayers now have to come up with. He himself openly likes to
be knows as the man who wants to influence the big money markets of the world.
This is a very unusual stance for an investor to take, who should rather be interested in using situations unobservedly
that the competitors have not yet discovered. In March 1993 Soros activities became known when he predicted a rise
in the price of gold. It is assumed since this started a buying spree in precious metals that this drove the price up
20% over the highest price since the Gulf War.
In the beginning of June 1993 he wrote an open letter to the business editor of the London Times, Anatole Kaletsky,
announcing that he intended to urge the money markets to sell large amount of German government bonds in favor of
French stocks. Which means: Down with the German mark and attack on the Bundesbank! In several newspapers
across the world Soros is praised as a kind of Robin Hood of the Computer Age since by speculation he takes from the
rich nations in grand style to hand out to Eastern Europe and Russia via several Soros Foundations, to prepare the way
for democracy in those poor countries that had been bled dry by Communism.
Who then is Soros? The official story says that he was born in 1930 to Jewish parents and as a teenager had been
chased from Budapest by the Nazis. He enrolled at the London School of Economics and in the mid-50s came to the
U.S. There he was magically drawn to Wall Street, but his career until 1969 was rather unspectacular. Then with a
partner he took over an investment fund. He sold stocks he didnt own as futures, hoping that their price would fall
nearer the qualifying date and that he could acquire them at a price lower than his selling price.

32

From this fund, the Quantum Group evolved, a family of investment funds operating for the Dutch West Indies.
Quantum is one of the most impressive investment machines in the world. In eight of the last twenty-four years it
made an official profit of over 50%, in two of those years even over 100%. In the meantime Soros handed business
over to a group of managers and limits himself to designing the great campaigns. He put down his principles in the
book The Alchemy of Finance, where he says what financial speculators this is more important than real economic
facts.
But this is but the picture the media and we know who owns them paint of him. Who is he in reality?
William Engdahl knows this to say about him:
Soros speculates on the worlds financial markets via his secret off-shore company Quantum Fund NV, a private
Investment fund that handles a portfolio of four to seven billion US$ for several clients. The Quantum Fund is
registered in the tax haven of the Netherlands Antilles in the Caribbean. In order to evade control of his financial
activities by the U.S. administration not a single U.S. citizen sits on the board of Quantum. Its directors are a curious
mixture of Swiss and Italian financiers.
Soros has been identified as a front man of the Anglo-French Rothschild banking group. Understandably neither he
nor the Rothschilds want this important fact to be public, so the tight links to his friends in the London City, in the
British foreign ministry, in the state of Israel and to his mighty friends in the American Establishment would stay
concealed.
Among the members of the board of the Quantum Fund is one Richard Katz. He is at the same time head of the
Rothschilds Italia S.p.A. in Milan and is also on the board of the commercial bank N.M. Rothschild & Sons in London.
Another member of the board is Nils O. Taube.

33

He is a partner in the London investment group St. James Place Capital which counts Lord Rothschild among its main
partners. A frequent partner of Soros in several of his speculations especially in the driving up of the gold quotation
is Sir James Goldsmith, a relative of the Rothschild dynasty. On the board of Quantum we also find the heads of
some highly discreet Swiss private banks (who help the syndicated of organized crime weapons and drugs to
launder their money).
Then there is Edgar D. de Piccioto, head of the Geneva private bank CBI-TDB Union Bancaire Privee, a main player
on the gold and investment markets, Isidoro Albertini, head of the Milan stockbroking company Albertini & Co., Beat
Notz of the private bank Banque Worms at Geneva, Albertl Foglia, head of the Banca del Ceresio at Lugano.
In the course of the recent political corruption scandals in Italy it was found that several Italian politicians kept their
money at the Banca del Ceresio. Apparently Soros had more than just insider knowledge about the weak points in
Italian politics when he attacked the lira in September 1994.
William Engdahl explains:
Soros connection to the ultra-secret international finance circles of the Rothschilds is not just an ordinary or
accidental banking connection. The extraordinary success Soros has on the high-risk financial markets cannot simply
be explained with gamblers luck.
Soros has access to information channels, both government and private.
Ever since the Second World War the Rothschild family tried to disseminate an aura of insignificance about
themselves. But behind this [is] one of the mightiest and most obscure financial groups of the world. The
Rothschilds spend a lot of money to cultivate a picture of a wealthy aristocratic family leading a quiet life where one
loves French wines and another engages in charitable trusts.
To experts on the City N.M Rothschild & Sons is most influential in the faction of the British secret service

34

establishment closely linked with the neo-liberal Thatcher wing of the Tory party. In the 80s N.M Rothschild & Sons
made several billion US$ from the privatization of British state-owned industries they conducted for Mrs. Thatcher.
The Rothschild bank is also at the center of world gold trade: In this bank the gold price is fixed twice a day by the
five most influential gold trading banks.
But N.M Rothschild & Sons is also entangled in some very dirty secret service operations dealing with drugs vs. arms.
Because of its good relations to the highest places in the British secret services, the Rothschilds succeeded in
preventing that their complicity with one of the worse illegal secret service networks, the BCCI (Bank of Credit and
Commerce International) was never mentioned. In reality the Rothschild bank belonged to the inner circle of these
international money laundering banks of the CIA and MI6 that financed in the 70s and 80s CIA projects like the
Contras in Nicaragua.
[H: Please a brief interruption on the topic of BCCI and GEORGE BUSH, Russell Herman, V.K. Durham, et al.: One
day Mr. George Bush needed a Herman signature on a document which would also include that of V.K. Durham. He
called and reached V.K. who asked What the Hell did he want?
In the conversation the names got a bit worse and finally the question was asked as to where Mr. Bush was at the time.
He said he was sitting at his desk in MY BANK BCCI. This was strange since is being President it was hardly
kosher to have a bank, etc. The signatures were not forthcoming and that shortened Mr. Hermans life-span by quite
a bit.
I will also note that we personally wrote to Mr. George Soros within the past three years when Mr. Soros was weeping
and wailing about the damage having been done to Southeastern Asia through his antics, and thus and so. We offered
to share with him in exchange for participating in bringing back stability to the area. Son-of-a-gun, you know what?
He declined! JUST AS HAS MR. BUSH, ET AL.

35

Gee whiz, and they want to help so much they say. At the present time George W. Bush Jr. and Secretary of State
(U.S. of course) Colin Powell addressed the Council of the Americas the group of financiers and corporate Elite
behind the drive to expand NAFTA into a continental trading bloc. This is being well orchestrated by Bilderbergers
such as David Rockefeller with the string-pulling. My goodness, readers, there is so much to share and so little time, I
think the saying goes.]
William Engdahl: Was stecky hinter den Wahrungskriegen des George Soros? (What is behind the currency wars of
George Soros?). EIRNA-Studie Derivate Die finanzielle Wasserstoffbombe der 90er Jahre (Derivatives The
Financial Hydrogen Bomb of the 90s).
[H: Oh, by the way, the whole intent of this large American bloc which will eat up everyone in reach is to place
everything under the dollar. You know that dollar which had NO VALUE, NO BACKING AND NO
OPPOSITION!]
The influential chairman of the banking commission in the U.S. House of Representatives, Henry Gonzales, chided
the Bush and Reagan administrations for refusing to prosecute the BCCI. In addition, the Department of Justice
repeatedly declined to co-operate in the Congressional investigations into the BCCI scandal and the closely linked
scandal of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL). This bank had made billions of dollars from loans that Bush had
granted the Iraqi government shortly before the Gulf War.
[H: CHOKE, CHOKE, CHOKE AND FROM WHERE DID BUSH GET THE FUNDS? WOW, COULD IT BE:
BONUS 3392-181? As a matter of fact, Bush and Saddam had at least one JOINT ACCOUNT with around $250
billion in its little account. When will you wake up, chelas?]

36

Gonzales said that the Bush administration had had a Department of Justice which he thought the most corrupt, most
unbelievably corrupt Department of Justice that I have ever experienced during my 32 years in Congress.
[H: And, yes, indeed, we did try to get Mr. Gonzales involved but we suppose he chose to simply stay alive a bit
longer.]
After the BCCI had been openly accused in the media for transgression of several laws, the New York prosecuting
attorney Henry Morgenthau announced official charges against the BCCI. Morgenthau accused the BCCI of the
biggest banking fraud of the financial world.
"The BCCI during its nineteen year history operated as a corrupt criminal organization. One of the directors of the
BCCI, the Saudi Arabian Sheikh Kamal Adham, had been the head of the Saudi secret service during the time Bush
headed the CIA.
[H: I dont want you to go away under the perspective that we somehow got no cooperation. WE DID! Our people
found out how to deal with the Big Boys and even work out agreements which we certainly followed to the letter of
the instructions. Mostly in exchange for not naming the advisors. Among those contacts were some very high-level
players who asked to not be identified. I dont mean just little boys; I mean players on an international level of the
big loop.]
Not a single Western newspaper has so far uncovered the fact that the Rothschild group linked with George Soros was
at the hub of the vast illegal network of the BCCI. The key person in these activities was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the
managing director of the Swiss branch of the BCCI (Banque de Commerce et de Placement SA), head of the Zurich
Rothschild Bank AG and the member of the board of N.M Rothschild & Sons in London.

37

He was also on the board of the Swiss branch of the Italian BNL and was vice-chairman of the N.Y. Inter Maritime
Bank in Geneva. A friendly former secret service man who had worked on the Soros case disclosed that in September
1993 Soros had amassed together with a mighty group of silent partners a fortune in excess of 10 billion dollars
to use as a lever to unhinge the European currencies.
AMONG THE PARTNERS APPARENTLY WERE THE LITTLE KNOWN METAL AND OIL DEALER MARC
RICH [H: Now where have we heard about Mr. Rich lately, attached to Mr. Billy Clinton possibly?] AND THE
ISRAELI ARMS DEALER SHAUL EISENBERG.
For decades Eisenberg had been working for the Israeli secret service and has important arms deals in all of Asia and
in the near East. A third partner of Soros is Rafi Eytan who before was the Mossad connection to the British secret
service in London.
Basically George Soros is another tool for economic and political warfare in the hands of the Rothschilds. He is
among those circles who three years ago started a malicious Fourth Reich campaign against the reunited Germany;
Soros is very anti-German. In his 1991 autobiography Underwriting Democracy Soros warned of the danger that a
reunited Germany could disturb the (power) balance in Europe. It is easy to see how the situation that existed between
the wars could come up again. A reunited Germany becomes the strongest economic power and develops Eastern
Europe as its habitata terrible witches brew.
His U.S. contacts put Soros very close to the financial and secret service circles around George Bush. His most
important deposit bank and the main lender during attack on the European monetary system in September 1993 was
CITICORP, Americas largest bank. Soros called upon the international investors to unhinge the Deutsche Mark.
When in late 1989 a reunification became probable, a high-ranking Citicorp manager said:

38

German unity will be catastrophic for our interests. We have to take action to ensure a decline of the Deutsche Mark
by about 30% so that Germany will not be able to build up Eastern Germany to become the economic factor with a
new Europe.
According to his associates Soros has an incredible ego. He described how during the war in occupied Hungary he
could not have survived as Jew, so he had taken on a second identity. What he did no say, however, was that he let a
man shield him from persecution who did wealthy Jews out of their possessions, and that Soros lent him a hand. This
is how he survived the war. Leaving Budapest only two years after it had ended. Although he himself and the
Jewish-owned media are quick in attacking all his opponents, especially in Eastern Europe, as anti-Semitic, his
Jewishness is based on parts of the Talmud rather than on his links with Jewish religion or the Jewish people.
Outwardly, Soros supports a whole spate of social activities, like peace concerts with Joan Baez, stipends in Oxford
for young Eastern Europeans, etc.
But reality presents a different picture. Soros is personally responsible for the chaos the shock therapy caused in
Eastern Europe after 1989. He foisted ludicrous draconian measures upon the weak governments there, which enabled
him to buy up resources in wide parts of Eastern Europe and [at] rock bottom prices.
Take Poland as an example:
At the end of 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the Communist regime of Rakowski with the leaders of
the then illegal opposition union organization Solidarnosc. The plan he presented to both sides was as follows:
The Communists should let the opposition Solidarnosc take over the government to win the confidence of the people.
Then the state should deliberately drive its own state industries and agricultural businesses to ruin by applying
astronomical interest rates, by withholding the necessary state loans and by lumbering the companies with debt they
could never repay.

39

Then Soros would get his rich international business friends to come to Poland and buy up the now privatized state
companies.
The most recent example is the huge steel company Huta Warsawa which today, so steel experts say, would cost about
3 to 4 billion US$ to build if it was built by Western companies. A few months ago the Polish government agreed to
take over the debts of Huta Warsawa and to sell the company now free of debt for 30 million US$ to the Milan
company Lucchini. [H: Thats the way it works, chelas.]
To instigate his plan Soros used a young friend, the Polish-Jewish economic advisor Jeffrey Sachs who however could
not begin his advisory work in Poland because so far he could only show advisory work he did in Bolivia. So Soros set
up another one of his many foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation which then in turn was the official client for the
advisory work of Sacks in Poland (1989/90).
In Soros own words he has worked or still works with the main advisor of Lech Walesa, Bronislaw Geremek, with
General Jaruzelski, Professor Trxeciakowski, a secret advisor to the new Polish minister for finance and economy
Leszec Balcerowicz, and with the latter himself. Soros admits that he had known that his economic shock therapy in
Poland would lead to severe unemployment, to the closing of factories and to social tensions. That is why he insisted
that Solidarnosc take over the government.
Through his foundation he could approach the most important opinion makers in the media, like Adam Michnik, and
his collaboration with the U.S. embassy in Warsaw enable him to censor the media which proceeded one-sidedly to
support his shock therapy and opposed any criticism. What do you say now? Isnt that the old Talmud-Illuminati
strategy?
Russia and the CIS states:

40

Soros led a delegation to Russia, where he had been collaborating with Raissa Gorbachev since the 80s, to set up a
further Soros foundation, The Cultural Initiative Foundation. This is a further vehicle for him and his Western cronies
to enter the highest political echelons tax-free and proceed to buy the most important political and economic
personalities of the country.
After a failed attempt with Gorbachev 1988 to 1991 he changed over to the circles around Yeltsin. And again it was
Soros who introduced his shock therapy aided and abetted by his friend Jeffrey Sachs.
From January 2, 1992 onwards Sachs shock therapy brought an unprecedented chaos and a foreseeable hyperinflation to Russia which was followed by the best scientific research institutes fleeing to the West. Under the Soros
plan Igor Gajdar and the Yeltsin government shortened subsidies to industry and agriculture drastically, despite all of
economy being a state economy. The goal announced was a deficit-free budget within three months. There were no
more loans for industry; the companies accrued astronomical debts and the ruble inflation went out of control.
Soros and his friends immediately profited from the situation.
MARC RICH, THE WORLDS LARGEST ALUMINUM DEALER, STARTED TO BUY UP A LOT OF RUSSIAN
ALUMINUM AT INCREDIBLY LOW PRICES WITH WHICH IN 1993 HE PROCEEDED TO FLOOD THE
MARKET IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES AND THUS CAUSED THE PRICE FOR ALUMINUM TO
PLUMMET BY 30%.
This is just one example of the Soros exploitation.
[H: How many of you STILL think Bill Clinton just accidentally pardoned poor old suffering Marc Rich?]
Hungary:

41

When Istvan Csurka, parliamentarian of the national-socialist opposition tried to protest the destruction of the
Hungarian economy by the strategies of Soros and his friends, he was branded an anti-Semite and in June was
excluded from the governing Democratic Forum.
Yugoslavia:
At the beginning of 1990, Soros in cooperation with the IMF in what was then still Yugoslavia put down the
gauntlet for what then escalated into a war. Soros is also a friend of then deputy secretary of state Lawrence
Eagleburger, the former ambassador to Belgrade and patron of Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger was formerly
chairman of Kissinger Associates on whose board Lord Carrington (Committee of 300) also sits. The latters
mediations have directly fuelled the Serbian aggression against the Croats and the Bosnians. Today Soros has
foundations in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and a Yugoslav Soros Foundation in Belgrade/Serbia. In Croatia he uses
funds from his foundation to hire influential journalists of to discredit opponents of his shock therapy as anitSemites or neo-Nazis. (From the EIRNA study Derivatives)
You see how helpful it was for the Jewry to have introduced the term anti-Semitism?

Multi-billionaire funder of leftwing causes and groups

Founder of the Open Society Institute
The prime mover behind the Democratic "Shadow Party" network

See also: Guide to the George Soros Network

Organizations Funded by George Soros and his Open Society Institute
The Shared Agendas of George Soros and Barack Obama

42

Open Society Institute Democracy Alliance Shadow Party

INTRODUCING GEORGE SOROS

New York hedge fund manager George Soros is one of the most politically powerful individuals on earth. Since the
mid-1980s in particular, he has used his immense influence to help reconfigure the political landscapes of several
countries around the worldin some cases playing a key role in toppling regimes that had held the reins of government
for years, even decades. Vis vis the United States, a strong case can be made for the claim that Soros today affects
American politics and culture more profoundly that any other living person.
Much of Soros's influence derives from his $13 billion personal fortune,1 which is further leveraged by at least
another $25 billion in investor assets controlled by his firm, Soros Fund Management.2 An equally significant source of
Soros's power, however, is his passionate messianic zeal. Soros views himself as a missionary with something of a
divine mandate to transform the world and its institutions into something betteras he sees it.
Over the years, Soros has given voice to this sense of grandiosity many times and in a variety of different ways. In his
1987 book The Alchemy of Finance, for instance, he wrote: I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of
self-importanceto put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even
better, a scientist like Einstein.3Expanding on this theme in his 1991 book Underwriting Democracy, Soros said: If
truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, fantasies which I wanted to
indulge to the extent that I could afford.4 In a June 1993 interview with The Independent, Soros, who is
an atheist,5 said he saw himself as some kind of god, the creator of everything.6 Inan interview two years later, he
portrayed himself as someone who shared numerous attributes with God in the Old Testament [Y]ou know, like
invisible. I was pretty invisible. Benevolent. I was pretty benevolent. All-seeing. I tried to be all-seeing.7 Soros told his
biographer Michael Kaufman that his goal was nothing less ambitious than to become the conscience of the world
by using his charitable foundations,8 which will be discussed at length in this pamphlet, to bankroll organizations and

43

causes that he deems worthwhile.

I realized [as a young man] that it's money that makes the world go round, says Soros, so I might as well make
money. But having made it, I could then indulge my social concerns.9 Invariably, those concerns center around a
desire to change the world generallyand America particularlyinto something new, something consistent with his
vision of social justice. Claiming to be driven by illusions, or perhaps delusions, of grandeur,10 Soros has
humorously described himself as a kind of nut who wants to have an impact on the workings of the world.11 The
billionaire's longtime friend Byron Wien, currently the vice chairman of Blackstone Advisory Services, offers this
insight: You must understand [Soros] thinks hes been anointed by God to solve insoluble problems. The proof is that
he has been so successful at making so much [money]. He therefore thinks he has a responsibility to give money
awayto causes that are consistent with his values and agendas.12

GEORGE SOROS'S ROOTS AND DEVELOPMENT

George Soros was born to Tividar and Erzebat Schwartz, non-practicing Jews, in Budapest, Hungary on August 12,
1930. Tivadar was an attorney by profession, but the consuming passion of his life was the promotion of Esperantoan
artificial, universal language created during the 1880s in hopes that people worldwide might be persuaded to drop
their native tongues and speak Esperanto insteadthereby, in theory at least, minimizing their nationalist impulses
while advancing intercultural harmony. In 1936, Tivadar changed his family surname to Sorosa future-tense
Esperanto verb meaning will soar.13
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, Tivadar decided to split up his family so as to minimize the chance that all
its members would be killed together. For each of themhis wife and two sons
he purchased forged papers identifying them as Christians; paid government officials to concealhis family's Jewish
heritage from the German and Hungarian fascists; and bribed Gentile families to take them into their homes. As for

44

George in particular, the father paid a Hungarian government official named Baumbach to claim George as his
Christian godson, Sandor Kiss, and to let the boy live with him in Budapest. One of Baumbach's duties was to deliver
deportation notices to Hungary's Jews, confiscating their property and turning it over to Germany. Young George Soros
sometimes accompanied the official on his rounds.14 Many years later, in December 1998, a CBS interviewer would ask
Soros whether he had ever felt any guilt about his association with Baumbach during that period. Soros replied: I
was only a spectator ... I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt. 15
Soros today recalls the German occupation of Hungary as probably the happiest year of my life. For me, he
elaborates, it was a very positive experience. It's a strange thing because you see incredible suffering around you and
the fact you are in considerable danger yourself. But you're fourteen years old and you don't believe that it can actually
touch you. You have a belief in yourself. You have a belief in your father. It's a very happy-making, exhilarating
experience.16
In 1947 the Soros family relocated from Hungary to England, where George attended the London School of Economics
(LSE). There, he was exposed to the works of the Viennese-born philosopher Karl Popper, who taught at LSE and
whom Soros would later call his spiritual mentor.17 Though Soros never studied directly under Popper, he read the
latter's works and submitted some essays to him for review and comment. Most notably, Popper's 1945 book The Open
Society and Its Enemiesintroduced Soros to the concept of an open society, a theme that would play a central role in
Soros's thought and activities for the rest of his life.18
The term open society was originally coined in 1932 by the French philosopher Henri Louis Bergson, to describe
societies whose moral codes were founded upon universal principles seeking to enhance the welfare of all mankind
as opposed to closed societies that placed self-interest above any concern for other nations and cultures.19 Popper
readily embraced this concept and expanded upon it. In his view, the open society was a place that permitted its citizens
the right to criticize and change its institutions as they saw fit; he rejected the imposed intellectual conformity, central
planning, and historical determinism of Marxist doctrine.20 By Popper's reckoning, a society was closedand thus

45

undesirableif it assumed that it was in any way superior to other societies. Likewise, any belief system or individual
claiming to be in possession of ultimate truth was an enemy of the open society as well. Popper viewed all
knowledge as conjectural rather than certain, as evolving rather than fixed.
Thus, by logical extension, Popper did not share the American founders' confident assertion that certain truths were
self-evident, and that certain rightssuch as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as referenced in
the Declaration of Independencewere unalienable and thus not subject to doubt, because they had been granted to
mankind by the ultimate authority, the Creator.21 We shall see that George Soros, as he grew to maturity, would
likewise reject the founders' premise. Indeed Soros would harbor great disdain for modern-day American political
figures who displayed unshakable confidence in their own culture's nobility, and who embraced the tenets of the
Declaration and the U.S. Constitution as timeless, immutable truths. To Soros, Popper's greatest contribution to
philosophy was his teaching that the ultimate truth remains permanently beyond our reach. 22
After graduating in 1952 from LSE, Soros joined the London brokerage firm Singer and Friedlander, where he became
proficient in international arbitrage, which he defines as buying securities in one country and selling them in
another.23 Four years later, he relocated to New York to work as a stock trader on Wall Street. Because Soros did not
particularly care for the commercial, crass United States, he had no intention of settling permanently in America.
Rather, he had devised a five-year plan to save some $500,000 and then return to Europe.24 His plan changed,
however, when he found work as a portfolio manager at the investment bank Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder Inc., where
his careeras if to fulfill the prophecy embedded in the family surname his father had adopted two decades earlier
soared to new heights.
In 1959 Soros moved to Greenwich Village, New York, where early stirrings of the Sixties counterculture were already
being felt. In September 1960 he married Annaliese Witschak, who would be his wife until the couple divorced 23
years later.25 In 1961 Soros became a U.S. citizen, and two years later he and Annaliese had their first child, a son. In
the Village, it is likely that Soros was exposed to the ideas of the prominent socialist Michael Harrington,

46

who mingled with fellow radicals and socialists almost nightly at a tavern situated barely a stone's throw from Soros's
residence.26 In 1962 Harrington wrote The Other America, a book lamenting the fact that a substantial invisible
underclass continued to exist even as the country at large prospered, and suggesting that a war on poverty was needed
to rectify this. President Lyndon Johnson read and admired the book, and its ideas greatly influenced his Great Society
policies of government-imposed redistribution of wealth.
Another prominent Village personality of the erathe poet, New Left radical, and psychedelic-drug guru Allen
Ginsbergwould eventually become a lifelong friend of Soros. Though Soros may not have formally met Ginsberg
until around 1980long after his years in the Villagethe billionaire today credits Ginsberg for having opened his
eyes to the benefits of drug legalization, which has been one of Soros's pet projects throughout his philanthropic
career.27
In 1969 Soros established the Double Eagle Fund for Bleichroeder with $4 million in capital, including $250,000 of
his own money. Four years later, Soros and his assistant at Bleichroeder, Jim Rogers, set up a private partnership called
Soros Fund Management. They subsequently changed the Double Eagle Fund's name to The Soros Fund. In 1979 they
renamed it againThe Quantum Fund; its value grew to $381 million by 1980, and more than $1 billion by 1985. 28

SOROS THE PHILANTHROPIST

It was in 1979 that Soros began testing the proverbial waters of philanthropy. Five years later he launched, in the
country of his birth, the first of his many Open Society Foundationsnamed after the concept advanced by Karl
Popperto help build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens.29 But it
was not until 1987, the year he opened his Moscow office, that Soros began to disseminate truly large amounts of
money to various groups and causes. My spending rose from $3 million in 1987 to more than $300 million a year by
1992, he said.30 During this period, Soros established a series of foundations throughout Eastern Europe and Central

47

Asia.31 He happily observed that because of his extraordinary wealth, major political figures suddenly became very
interested in seeing me. [M]y influence increased.32 Today Soros's Open Society Foundations are active in more
than 70 countries around the world.33
In 1993 Soros established the flagship of the Soros foundation networkthe New York City-basedOpen Society
Institute (OSI). While OSI's philanthropy extends to a number of nations around the world, it is chiefly devoted to
injecting capital into American groups and causes. In his book Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros
explains that the open society which he seeks to advance by means of philanthropy, stands for freedom, democracy,
rule of law, human rights, social justice, and social responsibility as a universal idea.34 But of course, abstract concepts
like these, draped in vestments of lofty rhetoric, can mean radically different things to different people.
Entrusted with the task of defining the foregoing terms for the Open Society Institute, and for articulating the Institute's
agendas from the outset, was Aryeh Neier, whom Soros appointed to serve as president not only of OSI, but of the
entire Soros Foundation Network. Thirty-four years earlier, Neier had created the Students for a Democratic
Society (SDS), which became the largest and most important radical group of the 1960s. SDS aspired to overthrow
America's democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and undermine the nation's war efforts in
Vietnam. (A particularly militant faction of SDS would later break away to form the Weather Underground, a notorious
domestic terror organization with a Marxist-Leninist agenda.) Following his stint with SDS, Neier worked fifteen years
for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)including eight years as its national executive director. After that, he
spent twelve years as executive director ofHuman Rights Watch (HRW), an organization he founded in 1978.35

THE SOROS AGENDAS

Both the ACLU and HRW have long promoted one of the central contentions of Soros's Open Society Institute: the
notion that America is institutionally an oppressive nation and a habitual violator of human rights both at home and

48

abroadindeed, the very antithesis of the type of open society Soros reveres. Consider first the ACLU, whose
advisory board once included the former Weather Underground terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.36 The ACLU has opposed
virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government, depicting those measures not only as
excessively harsh and invasive generally, but also as discriminatory against Muslims in particular.37Moreover, the
organization has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to limit the government's ability to locate, monitor, and apprehend
terrorist operatives. It consistently depicts American society as one that is rife with intractable racial injustice. And it
works tirelessly to protect illegal immigrants against governmental abuse and discrimination.38 These (and many
other) ACLU activities and policy positions are entirely consistent with those of Aryeh Neier and George Soros, as
evidenced by the fact that between 1999 and 2008, OSI awarded $8.69 million in grants to the ACLU Foundation. 39
Neier's other training ground, Human Rights Watch, has a long history of pointing an accusatory finger at America's
allegedly numerous transgressions. Most notably, HRW 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.40 In a March 2007 speech, HRW executive director Kenneth Roth charged that
the United States, by routinely using torture and inhumane treatment to deal with its foes, had severely damaged its
credibility when it comes to promoting human rights in other nations.41 Between 2000 and 2008, the Open Society
Institute awarded grants and other contributions to HRW that collectively totaled $6,386,477.42 Then, in September
2010, Soros announced that he would soon be giving HRW another $100 million.43 Notably, Soros himself
once served on HRW's Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee.44
OSI's total assets today exceed $1.9 billion. Each year, the Institute awards scores of millions of dollars in grants to
organizations thatlike the ACLU and HRWpromote worldviews and objectives accordant with those of George
Soros.45 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:

49

The Arab American Institute impugns many of the sweeping and unreasonable post-9/11 counterterrorism
measures that have unfairly targeted Arab Americans.46
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.47

Organizations that depict America as a nation whose enduring racism must be counterbalanced byracial and ethnic
preferences in favor of nonwhites:

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund calls itself the nations leading Latino legal civil
rights organization.48
The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law provides legal services to address racial discrimination.49
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 States50
The National Council of La Raza charges that discrimination severely limits the economic and social
opportunities available to Hispanic Americans.51

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.52
Critical Resistance contends that crime stems from inequality and powerlessness, which can be rectified through
wholesale redistribution of wealth.53
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights charges that criminal laws are enforced in a manner that
is massively and pervasively biased.54

Organizations that call for massive social change, and for the recruitment and training of activist leaders to help
foment that change:

50

The Center for Community Change is dedicated to finding the [progressive] stars of tomorrow and preparing
them to lead.55
The Gamaliel Foundation teaches social-change techniques and methodologies.56
The Ruckus Society promotes nonviolent direct action against unjust institutions and policies.57
The American Institute for Social Justice aims to transform poor communities by agitating for increased
government spending on social-welfare programs.58
The Institute for America's Future regularly convenes and educates progressive leaders, organizations,
candidates, opinion makers, and activists.59
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.60
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.61
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. 62

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.63
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advocates greater tax expenditures on suchassistance programs as
Medicaid, the Childrens Health Insurance Program, food stamps, and low-income housing initiatives.64
The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights was founded by the revolutionary communistVan Jones. This antipoverty organization claims that decades of disinvestment in our cities, coupled with America's allegedly
imperishable racism, have led to despair and homelessness.65

51

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.66

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.67 During the political debate over Obamacare in 2009 and 2010, HCANs strategy was to try to achieve
such a system incrementally, first by implementing a public optioni.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.68 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.69

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.70
Catalist seeks to help progressive organizations realize electoral success by building and operating a robust
national voter database.71
The Brennan Center for Justice aims to fully restore voting rights following criminal conviction72significant
because research shows that ex-felons are far likelier to vote forDemocratic political candidates than for
Republicans.73

52

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.74
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.75

Organizations that promote leftist ideals and worldviews in the media and the arts:
In May 2011, the Media Research Center reported that from 2003-2001, Soros had spent more than $48 million
"funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news -- journalism schools, investigative journalism and even
industry organizations." Among the beneficiaries of Soros's money were such entities as: ABC, The American Prospect
Inc. (the owner and publisher of The American Prospect magazine), the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for
Investigative Reporting, theColumbia Journalism Review, the Columbia School of Journalism, the Committee to
Protect Journalists, Free Press, the Independent Media Center, the Independent Media Institute, The Lens, theMedia
Fund, Media Matters For America, the Nation Institute, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the National
Federation of Community Broadcasters, National Public Radio, NBC, the Organization of News Ombudsmen, the New
York Times, the Pacifica Foundation, ProPublica, and the Washington Post, . Below are some brief descriptions of a few
of these organizations:

The American Prospect, Inc. is the owner and publisher of The American Prospectmagazine, which tries to
counteract the growing influence of conservative media.76
Free Press is a media reform organization co-founded by Robert McChesney, who callsfor a revolutionary
program to overthrow the capitalist system and to rebuil[d] the entire society on socialist principles.77
The Independent Media Institute aims to change the world78 via projects like AlterNet, an online news
magazine calling itself a key player in the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision.79
The Nation Institute operates synergistically with the far-left Nation magazine, whichworks to extend the reach
of progressive ideas into the American mainstream.80

53

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 fundingfiltering its
grants first through other Soros-backed operations81to this progressive research and information center which
monitor[s] and correct[s] conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.82 In October 2010,
Soros announced that he would soon donate $1 million directly to Media Matters.83
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
Redfords 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.84 In 2009, Soros pledged another $5 million to the Sundance Institute.85

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.86
The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy seeks to indoctrinate young law students to view the
Constitution as an evolving or living document,87 and to rejectconservative buzzwords such as 'originalism'
and 'strict construction.'88
Justice at Stake89 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.90

Organizations that advance leftist agendas by infiltrating churches and religious congregations:

54

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.91
Sojourners characterizes wealth redistribution as the fulfillment of a biblical mandate.92Jim Wallis, the founder of
this evangelical Christian ministry, has expressed his hope that more Christians will come to view the world
through Marxist eyes.93
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.94
Catholics for Choiceformerly known as Catholics for a Free Choiceis a nominally Catholic organization that
believes in a world where everyone has equal access to safe and legal abortion services. 95

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.96
The New America Foundation tries to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism,
energy policy, and global governance.97
The Urban Institute favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for
higher income-earners.98

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 Councilformerly known as the the American Immigration Law Foundation
supports birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S.99
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.100

55

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center belongs to the sanctuary movement that tries to shield illegal aliens from
the law.101
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.102
LatinoJustice PRLDF is a legal advocacy group that protects opportunities for all Latinos especially the most
vulnerablenew immigrants and the poor.103
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.104
The National Immigration Forum opposes the enhancement of the U.S. Border Patrol and the construction of a
border fence to prevent illegal immigration.105
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.106

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,107 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.108
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.109

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

56

Project contends that it is illegal for the U.S. government to detain terror suspects if the evidence against them was
obtained through torture.110
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 $20,000 111 to this committee; OSI vice president Gara LaMarche
characterized Ms. Stewart as a human rights defender.112

Organizations that depict virtually all American military actions as unwarranted and immoral:

Amnesty International: In 2005, this group's then-executive director William Schulzalleged that the United States
had become a leading purveyor and practitioner of torture.113 Schulzs remarks were echoed by Amnesty's thensecretary general 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.114
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.115 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.116

Organizations that advocate Americas 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.117 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.118 In 2000, George Soros himself was a signatory to a letter titled Appeal for
Responsible Security that appeared in The New York Times. The lettercalled upon the U.S. government to

57

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.119
(NOTE: OSI is a member of the Peace and Security Funders Group.)
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 carbondioxide emissions which, in turn, cause a potentially cataclysmic phenomenon called global warming. Examples of
such Soros donees include the Alliance for Climate Protection, Earthjustice, the Earth Island Institute, Friends of the
Earth, Green For All, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Another major recipient of Soros money is the Tides Foundation, which receives cash from all manner of donors
individuals, groups, and other foundationsand then funnels it to designated left-wing recipients. Having given more
than $400 million to progressive nonprofit organizations since 2000,120 Tides is a heavy backer of environmental
organizations, though its philanthropy extends also into many other areas.
George Soros presents himself as an environmentalist of the first order and is quick to condemn industrial corporations
for allegedly trampling recklessly over the earth's ecosystems in pursuit of the almighty dollar. But in fact, Soros
himself has proven to be quite willing to despoil Mother Nature in exchange for profits of his own. Consider, for
example, his involvement in the Argentine beef industry, which environmentalists claim is responsible for massive
levels of water pollution and deforestation. Argentina's biggest landowner is none other than George Soros, with some
500,000 hectares of land and 150,000 head of cattle to his name.121 Moreover, Soros is a part owner of Apex Silver
Mines, which operates in a remote and ecologically sensitive region of Bolivia.122

58

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. 123
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 tenetthat 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...124
The Ms. Foundation for Women laments that although women are more than half the [U.S.] population they
dont have equal opportunity, voice or power.125
The National Partnership for Women and Families asserts that women today are still paid only $0.77 to a mans
dollar126an assertion that is grossly misleading and substantively untrue.127

Organizations that promote not only women's right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand,128 but also political
candidates who take that same position:

Soros donees in this category include the Center for Reproductive Rights, Choice USA,NARAL Pro-Choice
America, the National Abortion Federation, and Planned Parenthood.

59

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.129Consistent with this perspective, the Open Society Institute in 2008 gave
$150,000 to theUnited Nations Foundation, which works to broaden support for the UN through advocacy and public
outreach.130 Moreover, OSI is considered a major funder of the Coalition for an International Criminal
Court,131 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. 132
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.133 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.134 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."135 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 Tammy Baldwin, Rev. William Sloan Coffin,
Jr., Walter Cronkite, Morton H. Halperin, Peter Lewis, 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 Carteradministration official Joseph Califano called Soros the Daddy
Warbucks of drug legalization.136 According to a Capital Research Center publication, Its no exaggeration to say that
without Soros there would be no serious lobby against the drug war.137

60

A leading recipient of Soros funding is the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which seeks toloosen 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.138 Soros himself formerly sat on the DPA board of directors.139 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.140
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.141
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.142 Over a 9-year period, the Open Society Institute gave $45
million to PDA.143
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

61

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.144 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.145
The Compassion in Dying Federation of America advocates aid-in-dying for terminally ill, mentally competent
adults.146

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 147by threatening to publicly accuse banks of racially discriminatory lending
practiceshas successfully negotiated loan commitments of more than $2.4 trillion from America's financial
institutions.148
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.149

Organizations that exhort the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with, and to make concessions to, Arab terrorist groups and
regimes that have pledged to destroy America and Israel alike:

The International Crisis Group's (ICG) Mideast director, Robert Malley, has pennednumerous articles and op-eds
condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and
recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and
Hamas. Soros himself is a member of ICG's executive committee.

62

J Street has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter has been the
government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections in January 2006 and
especially since June 2007 when it took complete control. In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast
conflict chiefly to the notion that Israels settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been
an obstacle to peace.

SOROS'S POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Apart from the more than $5 billion that Soros' foundation network has donated to leftist groups like those cited above,
Soros personally has made campaign contributions to such notable political candidates as Joe Biden, Barbara
Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine,Howard Dean, Richard Durbin, Lane Evans, Al
Franken, Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Maurice Hinchey, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Patrick Leahy, Barack
Obama, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid,Ken Salazar, Charles Schumer, Joe Sestak, and Tom Udall. He also has given large
sums of money to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee Services
Corporation, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
SOROS MEETS THE CLINTONS
Around the time that George Soros initially launched his Manhattan-based Open Society Institute, he established what
would prove to be a warm and enduring relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton, the new American President and
First Lady. When the Clintons took office in early 1993, they faced the daunting task of helping the collapsed Soviet
empire rise from its ruins and cultivate a harmonious relationship with the United States. To lead this endeavor,
President Clinton appointed three men: Treasury Department official Lawrence Summers, Vice President Al Gore, and
soon-to-be State Department official Strobe Talbott. Talbott in particular was given a large degree of authority,
prompting some observers to dub him as Clinton's Russian policy czar. 150 It so happened that Talbot had an
exceptionally high regard for the financial expertise of George Sorosdescribing him as a national resource, indeed, a

63

national treasureand thus he recruited the billionaire to serve as a key advisor on U.S.-Russian matters.151
Soros, in turn, had connections with a young economist whom he had been fundingJeffrey Sachs, director of the
Harvard Institute for International Development. The U.S. Agency for International Development assigned Sachs'
Institute to oversee Russia's transformation to a market economy after more than seven decades of communism. As a
consequence of this assignment, Sachs and his team essentially represented the United States as official economic
advisors to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Soros worked closely with Sachs on this project, and the pair held
enormous sway over Yeltsin.152 So great was their influence, in fact, that on one occasion Soros quipped that the
former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.153 But before long, members of Sachs's team became involved
in massive corruption, exploiting for personal gain their access to Russia's political and economic leaders. Their actions
contributed to the collapse of the Russian economy and to the diversion of some $100 billion out of the
country.154 Though Sachs himself was not accused of profiting personally from these activities, he resigned as director
of the Harvard Institute in May 1999, under a dark cloud of scandal.155 The U.S. House Banking Committee
investigated the matter and called Soros to testify. The billionaire denied culpability but admitted that he had used
insider access in an illegal deal to acquire a large portion of Sidanko Oil.156 Soros further acknowledged in
Congressional testimony that some of the missing Russian assets had made their way into his personal investment
portfolio.157 House Banking Committee chairman Jim Leach characterized the entire sordid affair as one of the greatest
social robberies in human history.158
As the Nineties progressed, it became increasingly evident that Bill and Hillary Clinton embraced virtually all of the
values and agendas that George Soros was funding through his Open Society Institute. I do now have great access in
[the Clinton] administration, said Soros in 1995. There is no question about this. We actually work together as a
team.159
Soros and Mrs. Clinton in particular held one another in the highest esteem. In November 1997, when Hillary was in
Central Asia for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the newly built American University of Kyrgyzstan, she delivered a

64

speech in which she lavished praise on Soros's Open Society Institute, which had financed the school's
construction.160 One source close to Mrs. Clinton's inner circle, Center for American Democracy director Rachel
Ehrenfeld, reports that Soros visited Hillary at the White House during the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings of
1998-99, when the First Lady was receiving only her most trusted confidantes.161 A few years later, at a June 2004
Take Back America conference in Washington, Mrs. Clinton introduced Soros as a courageous man who loved his
country deeply. [W]e need people like George Soros, she said, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it
counts. Soros, in turn, indicated that he was very, very proud to be introduced by someone for whom he had such
great, great admiration. He described Hillary as someone who had been more effective than most of our statesmen in
propagating democracy, freedom, and open society.162

9/11, AND SOROS'S DEEPER IMMERSION INTO AMERICAN POLITICS

September 11, 2001 was a watershed moment not only in American history but also in George Soros's philanthropic
career. Soros viewed the 9/11 terrorist attacks as confirmation that U.S. foreign policyparticularly under President
George W. Bush, who had taken office eight months earlierwas moving in a dangerous direction, giving rise to antiAmerican hatred in the hearts of people all across the globe. By Soros's reckoning, Bush embodied the very antithesis
of the open society ideal. Specifically, the billionaire detested what he viewed as the arrogance the President
displayed when he publicly branded America's enemies as evil; when he unapologetically expressed his faith in the
exceptionalism of his own culture; and when he seemed disinclined to consider the possibility that the terrorists may
have had something valuable to teach Americans about how the rest of the world perceived the United States.
Moreover, Soros considered terrorism to be, in large measure, a consequence of economic inequity and the exploitation
of poor countries by their wealthier counterparts.
Reasoning from these premises, Soroswhile conceding that the retaliatory U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was
justifiable163maintained that the proper long-term response to 9/11 would be for America to launch a global war on

65

poverty. Such an undertaking would be modeled on the Great Society programs which the Johnson administration had
instituted in the 1960son the theory that by pouring rivers of taxpayer dollars into the nation's violence-torn ghettos,
the presumably justified rage of the rioters could be quelled. In a similar vein, Soros now held that the best way to fight
international terrorism would be for the affluent USA to send massive amounts of aid to impoverished regions around
the world where the phenomenon tended to originate. Indeed, he had long maintained that the root causes of terrorism
were poverty and ignorance.164 Just eight days after 9/11, Soros gave a speech where he said that the cornerstone
of his plan was to address the social conditions that provide a fertile ground from which [terrorist] volunteers who
are willing to sacrifice their lives can be recruited. This plan would call on rich countries to boost their levels of
international assistance, whichwhile unlikely to prevent people like bin Ladenfrom exercising their evil genius
would help to alleviate the grievances on which extremism of all kinds feeds.165
On subsequent occasions, Soros would reiterate his belief that terrorism was caused by a dearth of international
income redistribution and a growing inequality between rich and poor, both within countries and among
countries.166 A global open society, Soros stressed, requires affirmative action on a global scale.167 By contrast,
Soros was largely silent on the issue of Islam's longstanding tradition of jihad, which predated by many hundreds of
years any potentially objectionable U.S. foreign-policy initiatives. Rather, he called for a radical reordering of
American priorities, where [i]nstead of devoting the bulk of the budget to military expenditures to implement the
Bush doctrine, we would engage in preventive actions of a constructive nature.168The United States cannot do
whatever it wants, he scolded. ... Our nation must concern itself with the well-being of the world.169
In Soros's calculus, 9/11 represented an unusual opportunity to rethink and reshape the world. Observing that the
recent attacks had shocked Americans into realizing that others may regard them very differently from the way they
see themselves, Soros posited that his fellow countrymen were more ready to reassess the world and the role the
United States plays in it than in normal times.170 And acknowledging that [t]his awareness may not last long, he
said: I am determined not to let the moment pass.171

66

The urgency which Soros felt with regard to seizing the moment was further heightened on the night of January 29,
2002, when George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address. In that speech, the President made his first
controversial reference to Iraq as part of an axis of evil that posed a potentially deadly threat to America. Bush
intimated that he would soon turn his foreign-policy attention toward Saddam Hussein's regime, which continued to
flaunt its hostility toward America, support terror, and violate its international agreements. As the President
pledged not to wait on events while dangers gather, nor to stand by as peril draws closer and closer, speculation
about a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq began to coalesce.172 In Soros's view, such an invasion would be yet another
misguided and senseless endeavor, and he was determined to do whatever he could to prevent it.
The very next month, Soros appointed former Clinton administration official Morton Halperin to the post of Open
Society Institute director. Halperin, whom some State Department officials suspected of being a communist
agent,173 had been instrumental in derailing America's war effort during the Vietnam era, when President Johnson put
him in charge of compiling a classified history of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. Halperin's labor ultimately bore
fruitin June 1971with the publication of the notorious Pentagon Papers.174 Thereafter, Halperin went on to serve
(from 1975-1992) as director of an ACLU project called the Center for National Security Studies, which sought to slash
U.S. defense expenditures and undermine the nation's intelligence capabilities.175 InTarget AmericaJames L. Tyson's
1981 expos of the Soviet Union's elaborate propaganda campaign designed to weaken and demoralize America from
the insidethe author stated:
Halperin and his organizations have had a constant record of advocating the weakening of U.S. intelligence
capabilities. His organizations are also notable for ignoring the activities of the KGB or any other foreign intelligence
organization.... A balance sheet analysis of Halperin's writings and testimonies ... gives Halperin a score of 100% on the
side of output favorable to the Communist line and 0% on any output opposed to the Communist line.176
Like Halperin, George Soros stridently counseled against military intervention in Iraq, warning that an invasion would
actually be a victory for the terroristsbecause the inevitable killing of innocent civilians would give groups like al
Qaeda the kind of radicalization that they are looking for in order to justify a vicious cycle of escalating

67

violence.177 War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism, said Soros. Treating the
attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work,
not military action.178 Moreover, Soros characterized the so-called Bush doctrine of preemptive military action
against those who may pose a threat to the U.S. an atrocious proposition.179
By the time the U.S. invaded Iraq in early 2003, Soros's contempt for President Bush's imperialist vision had reached
a fever pitch.180 Accusing Bush of deliberately foster[ing] fear because it helps to keep the nation lined up behind the
president, Soros added cynically: Terrorism is the ideal enemy. It is invisible and therefore never disappears. An
enemy that poses a genuine and recognized threat can effectively hold a nation together.181 In August, Soros warned
that the very fate of the world depends on the United States, and President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction
with his false and dangerous doctrine.182 In the fall, Soros referred to Bush administration officials and Republicans
generally as extremists who dont believe in the system of democracy as we know it; and who embraced a very
dangerous ideology which held that the United States should impose its power, impose its will and its interests on
the world.183
Soros routinely condemned Bush for his unabashed pursuit of self-interest;184 for equat[ing] freedom with American
values; for holding the simplistic view that [w]e are right and they are wrong;185 and for harboring a false sense
of certitude that Americans had right on our side.186Each of these transgressions, Soros explained, violated the
principles of open society, which recognize that we may be wrong.187 The supremacist ideology of the Bush
administration, he added, is in contradiction with the principles of an open society because it claims possession of an
ultimate truth.188
As the Iraq War took an increasing toll in terms of both American and Iraqi lives, Soros wrote that the U.S. military
response to 9/11 had actually turned out to be a greater moral atrocity than the original crime that prompted it,
because the war has claimed more innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq than have the attacks on the World Trade
Center. In short, Soros characterized the Bush administration's pursuit of American supremacy as more dangerous

68

than Islamist terror.189

Not only did Soros believe that Bush was following a mindless and perilous policy, but he saw the President's motives
as wholly dishonorable. Soros repeatedly accused Bush of using intelligence that had been exposed as exaggerated or
even false to justify the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses.190 He denounced the exploitation of September 11
by the Bush administration to pursue its policy of dominating the world in the guise of fighting terrorism.191 He
expanded on this theme by accusing Bush of seeking to justify repressive measures on the home front while
establish[ing] a secure alternative to Saudi oil in the Mideast.192 The other important consideration, Soros added,
was Israel. He intimated that Bush, by flexing U.S. muscle in the Middle East, was signaling his readiness to
intervene in affairs that could potentially affect America's closest ally in the region. By so doing, said Soros, the
President was catering to the traditional pro-Israel lobby which included the evangelical rightand that is the core
of the presidents constituency.193
As Soros saw things, the President's arrogance and corruption had filtered down perceptibly into the ranks of the
military personnel who were carrying out Bush's mission. Thus Soros likened the conduct of American troops to that of
communist and fascist thugs, asserting that the picture of torture in Abu Ghraib was proof that the way President
Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators.194 Soros charged that not only had
America violated international law by invading Iraq without a second UN Resolution, but that it had violated
the Geneva Conventions by mistreating and even torturing prisoners.195
On numerous occasions, Soros drew parallels between the Bush administration and some of history's most infamous
totalitarian regimes. Bush's view that there is only one model of democracy, said Soros, was as false, and potentially
as dangerous, as that of the Communists belief that there is only one way to organize society. 196 Soros further likened
Bushs Orwellian assertion that [y]ou can have freedom as long as you do what we tell you to do, to Soviet rhetoric
about peoples democracies.197 When I hear President Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me
of the Germans, Soros stated. My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me.198 Who would have

69

thought sixty years ago, asked Soros, when Karl Popper wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies, that the United
States itself could pose a threat to open society? Yet that is what is happening, both internally and internationally.199
In a September 29, 2003 interview with BBC radio, Soros said it was imperative that there be a regime change in the
United Statesmeaning that President Bush must be voted out of power.200In November, Soros said that because
America, under Bush, is a danger to the world, the outcome of the forthcoming year's presidential race had become
the central focus of my life. And Im willing to put my money where my mouth is, Soros added, declaring that he
would willingly trade his entire multi-billion-dollar fortune if doing so could be guaranteed to unseat Bush.201 To his
litany of grievances against the President, Soros now added the infamous Florida recount debacle of 2000 and called
into question the very legitimacy of Bush's election victory. President Bush came to office without a clear mandate,
said Soros. He was elected president by a single vote on the Supreme Court.202
The types of changes America needed were crystal clear to Soros. Above all else, he wished to steer the country,
politically and ideologically, in a direction that was consistent with the agendas of the groups that he had been funding
for a decade through his Open Society Institute. Those agendas could essentially be distilled down to three overriding
themes: the diminution of American power, the subjugation of American sovereignty in favor of global governance, and
the implementation of redistributive economic policiesboth within the U.S. and across national borders. Toward these
ends, Soros saw the forthcoming elections as an excellent opportunity to deflate the bubble of American
supremacy.203 He would employ his wealth and his ideological fervor to capitalize on this opportunity, knowing that
the best time to implement radical change is during times of upheaval and crisisi.e., times like the aftermath of 9/11.
Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction, Soros himself had written in his 2000 book Open
Society: Reforming Global Capitalism.204

SOROS'S PREVIOUS POLITICAL INTERVENTIONS AROUND THE WORLD

70

By no means was this the first time that Soros had aimed to engineer the fall of a government which he deemed
oppressive. On several previous occasions, he had used his extraordinary wealth to bankroll popular movements
seeking to undermine communist and authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Specifically, Soros had
funded the training, organization and mobilization of many millions of demonstrators who took part in a series of
bloodless political revolutionscommonly known as velvet revolutions or color revolutions205that ultimately
brought down governments in those regions. Typically, these mobilizations consisted of massive street rallies
(sometimes with hundreds of thousands of participants) and carefully coordinated acts of civil disobedience such as sitins and general strikes. In several instances, such Soros-funded protesters challenged the results of popular elections
and accused incumbent leaders of election fraudcharges which were then echoed by Soros-funded exit pollsters and
Soros-funded media outlets, thereby greatly amplifying the effect of the accusations. A brief survey of Soros's most
noteworthy foreign interventions will be useful at this point.
Soros helped bankroll Charter 77, a 1976 document demanding that the Czech government recognize some basic
human rightsmost notably the freedom to express religious beliefs or political opinions without fear of retributive
discriminationthat were already guaranteed by the nation's constitution. This Charter and the political movement that
grew from it ultimately culminated in the velvet revolution that brought down Czechoslovakia's Communist regime in
late 1989.206
Soros funding played a critical role in promoting other upheavals in the former Soviet bloc as well. My foundations,
boasts Soros, contributed to Democratic regime change in Slovakia in 1998, Croatia in 1999, and Yugoslavia in 2000,
mobilizing civil society to get rid of Vladimir Meciar, Franjo Tudjman, and Slobodan Milosevic, respectively.207
Meciar, for his part, was a hardline nationalist whose authoritarian governmentcharacterized by demagoguery,
corruption, and hostility toward the Hungarian minoritybrought instability and isolation to Slovakia in the mid1990s.208 Croatian president Tudjman was likewise an autocrat infamous for his brutality, extreme nationalism,
indifference to civil rights, and manipulation of electoral processes.209 And Milosevic, who served as president of

71

Serbia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, was an infamous architect of military aggression, war crimes, and ethnic
cleansing.210 British journalist Neil Clark reports that from 1991 to 2000, Soros and his Open Society Institute
methodically laid the groundwork for the movement that ultimately led to Milosevic's resignation, channel[ing] more
than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and
independent media...211 In a 1996 speech, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman offered a profound insight into how
Soros typically injected his influence into the political workings of a given nation by patiently and systematically
infiltrating strategic organizations and governmental agencies:
[Soros and his allies] have spread their tentacles throughout the whole of our society. Soros had approval to
gather and distribute humanitarian aid. However, we allowed them to do almost whatever they wanted. They
have involved in their network people of all ages and classes trying to win them over by financial aid. [Their
aim is] control of all spheres of life setting up a state within a state.212
Soros also funded Soviet Georgia's Rose Revolution,213 a popular movement that forced Georgian president Eduard
Shevardnadze to resign in November 2003.214 According to Britain's Globe and Mail, in February of that year Soros
began laying the brick work for the toppling of Shevardnadze. That month, funds from his Open Society Institute
sent a [Georgian] activist to Serbia to meet with members of the [resistance] movement and learn how they used
street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic.215 That summer, Soros brought some of those Serbian
activists to Georgia to train student activists there. Meanwhile, a Soros-funded television station aired weekly
broadcasts of the documentary Bringing Down a Dictator, which presented a step-by-step account of the overthrow of
Milosevic and played a crucial role in training Georgian insurgents.216 In the autumn months, Soros spent some $42
million preparing the overthrow movement to mobilize. Then, in mid-November, large-scale anti-government
demonstrations spread like wildfire in most of Georgia's major cities. Shevardnadze, able to read the proverbial writing
on the wall, resigned within a matter of days.217 Soros later told the Los Angeles Times, I'm delighted by what
happened in Georgia, and I take great pride in having contributed to it.218 In November 2003, the editor of an Englishlanguage daily based in Georgia said, It's generally accepted public opinion here that Mr. Soros is the person who
planned Shevardnadze's overthrow.219 Notably, some people who worked for Soros' organizationsincluding two of

72

the Open Society Georgia Foundation's former executive directorslater assumed influential positions in the new
Georgian government.220
Soros thereafter would go on to fund the Orange Revolution, a series of protests and political events that took place in
Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, ultimately forcing Moscow's favored candidate, Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovych, to lose a controversial and hotly contested presidential election.221 Also in early 2005, Soros
helped finance the Tulip Revolutiona massive protest movement that led to the overthrow of President Askar
Akayev and his government in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan.222

NEW TARGET FOR "REGIME CHANGE": AMERICA

But right now, in 2003-04, Soros's primary focus was on the United States, whose government he considered to be at
least as dangerous and oppressive as those of the aforementioned communist and authoritarian regimes. I believe
deeply in the values of an open society, Soros said. For the past 15 years I have focused my energies on fighting for
these values abroad. Now I am doing it in the United States.223 Asserting that he could do a lot more about the issues
I care about by changing the government than by pushing the issues,224 Soros set out to puncture the bubble of
American supremacy.225 To accomplish this, he would create a political apparatus of extraordinary influence.
Soros had quietly laid the groundwork for this apparatus during the preceding eight years. Between 1994 and 2002, the
billionaire had spent millions of dollars promoting the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Actbetter known
as the McCain-Feingold Act 226which was signed into law in November 2002 by President Bush. Soros began
working on this issue shortly after the 1994 midterm elections, when for the first time in nearly half a century,
Republicans won strong majorities in both houses of Congress. Political analysts at the time attributed the huge
Republican gains in large part to the effectiveness of television advertisingmost notably the Harry and Louise
series (which cost $14 million to produce and air) where a fictional suburban couple exposed the many hidden, and

73

distasteful, details of Hillary Clinton's proposals for a more socialized national health-care system. Indeed the 1994
election became, to a considerable degree, a referendum on this attempted government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S.
economyand on the Democratic President who had tacitly endorsed it. George Soros was angry that such
advertisements were capable of overriding the influence of the major print and broadcast news media, which, because
they were overwhelmingly sympathetic to Democrat agendas, had given Hillary's plan a great deal of free, positive
publicity for months. Three weeks after the 1994 elections, Soros announced that he intended to do something about
the distortion of our electoral process by the excessive use of TV advertising.227 That something would be
campaign-finance reform.
Starting in 1994, Soros's Open Society Institute and a few other leftist foundations began bankrolling front groups and
so-called experts whose aim was to persuade Congress to swallow the fiction that millions of Americans were
clamoring for campaign-finance reform. This deceptive strategy was the brainchild of Sean Treglia, a former program
officer with the Pew Charitable Trusts.228 Between 1994 and 2004, some $140 million of foundation cash was used to
promote campaign-finance reform. Nearly 90 percent of this amount derived from just eight foundations, one of which
was the Open Society Institute, which contributed $12.6 million to the cause.229 Among the major recipients of these
OSI funds were such pro-reform organizations as the Alliance For Better Campaigns ($650,000); the Brennan Center
for Justice (more than $3.3 million); the Center For Public Integrity ($1.7 million); the Center For Responsive Politics
($75,000); Common Cause ($625,000);Democracy 21 ($300,000); Public Campaign ($1.3 million); and Public
Citizen ($275,000).230
The "research" which these groups produced in order to make a case on behalf of campaign-finance reform was largely
bogus and contrived. For instance, Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno had clearly admitted in his
February 19, 1999 grant proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of the proposed study was political, not
scholarly, and that the project would be axed if it failed to yield the desired results:

74

"The purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous
multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward. Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the
judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement."
The stated purpose of McCain-Feingold was to purge politics of corruption by: (a) putting restrictions on paid
advertising during the weeks just prior to political elections, and (b) tightly regulating the amount of money that
political parties and candidates could accept from donors. Vis vis the former of those two provisions, the new
legislation barred private organizationsincluding unions, corporations, and citizen activist groupsfrom advertising
for or against any candidate for federal office on television or radio during the 60 days preceding an election, and
during the 30 days preceding a primary. During these blackout periods, only official political parties would be
permitted to engage in express advocacy advertisingi.e., political ads that expressly urged voters to vote for or
vote against a specified candidate. Equally important, major media networks were exempted from McCain-Feingold's
constraints; thus they were free to speak about candidates in any manner they wished during their regular programming
and news broadcasts. This would inevitably be a positive development for Democrats, who enjoyed the near-universal
support of America's leading media outlets.231
In addition to its limits on pre-election political advertising, McCain-Feingold also placed onerous new restrictions on
the types of donations which candidates, parties, and political action committees (PACs) could now accept. Previously,
they had been permitted to take two types of contributions. One of these was hard money, which referred to funds
earmarked for the purpose of express advocacy. Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations stipulated that in a
single calendar year, no hard-money donor could give more than $1,000 to any particular candidate, no more than
$5,000 to a PAC, and no more than $20,000 to any political party.232
The other category of pre-McCain-Feingold donations was soft-money, which donors were permitted to give directly
to a political party in amounts unlimited by law. But to qualify for designation as soft money, a donation could not be
used to fund express advocacy ads on behalf of any particular candidate. Rather, it had to be used to pay for such
things as voter-education ads or issue-oriented adspolitical messages that carefully refrained from making

75

explicit calls to vote for or vote against any specific candidate. So long as an ad steered clear of uttering such
forbidden instructions, there was no limit as to how much soft money could be spent on its production and
dissemination.
McCain-Feingold raised the per-donor maximum for certain hard-money donations: A donor could now give up to
$2,000 to a candidate, $5,000 to a PAC, and $25,000 to a political party.233 But the new law banned soft-money
contributions to political parties altogether.
Historically, Republicans had enjoyed a 2-1 advantage over Democrats in raising hard money from individual donors.
Democrats had relied much more heavily on soft money from large institutions such as labor unions.234 Thus it seems
counter-intuitive that Soros, who clearly favored Democrats over Republicans, would seek to push legislation whose
net effectthe removal of soft moneywould be unfavorable to Democratic Party fundraising efforts.
But Soros's motive becomes clear when we look at the types of organizations whose fundraising activities were left
unaffected by McCain-Feingold. These were 527 committeesnonprofits named after Section 527 of the IRS code
which, unlike ordinary PACS, were not required to register with the FEC. Run mostly by special-interest groups, these
527s were technically supposed to be independent of, and unaffiliated with, any party or candidate. As such, they were
permitted to raise soft moneyin amounts unbound by any legal limitsfor all manner of political activities other than
express advocacy. That is, so long as a 527's soft money was not being used to pay for ads explicitly urging people to
cast their ballots either for or against any particular candidate, the letter of the McCain-Feingold law technically was
being followed. Practically speaking, of course, such things as issue-oriented ads and voter-education ads can
easily be tailored to favor one party or candidate over another, while carefully steering clear of express advocacy.
Once McCain-Feingold was in place, Soros and his political allies collaborated to set up a network of 527 committees
ready to receive the soft money that individual donors and big labor unions normally would have given directly to the
Democratic Party. These 527s could then use that money to fund issue-oriented ads, voter-education initiatives, get-out-

76

the-vote drives, and other party-building activitiesnot only to help elect Democratic candidates in 2004, but more
broadly to guide the Democratic Party ever-further leftward and to reject the closed society that Bush and the
Republicans presumably favored. By helping to push McCain-Feingold through Congress, Soros had effectively cut off
the Democrats' soft-money supply and diverted it to the coffers of an alternative network of beneficiarieswhich he
personally controlled.235 As Byron York observed, [T]he new campaign finance rules had actually increased the
influence of big money in politics. By giving directly to 'independent' groups rather than to the party itself, big-ticket
donors could influence campaign strategy and tactics more directly than they ever had previously.... And the power was
concentrated in very few handsmost notably Soros's.236

SOROS'S "SHADOW PARTY" TAKES SHAPE

While Soros's 527s were clearly devoted to Democratic Party agendas and values, they publicly professed to be
independent of any party affiliations. Their partisanship was somewhat shrouded in proverbial shadows. Gradually, a
number of journalists began to make reference to the emergence of certain pro-Democrat shadow organizations that
seemed geared toward circumventing McCain-Feingold's soft-money ban. In time, the term Shadow Party came into
use.237
George Soros set in motion the wheels of this Shadow Party when he gathered a team of political strategists, activists,
and Democrat donors at his Long Island beach house on July 17, 2003, to discuss how President Bush could be defeated
in the 2004 election. Attendees included such luminaries as OSI director Morton Halperin; EMILY's List founder and
abortion-rights activist Ellen Malcolm; former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta; Sierra Club executive director Carl
Pope; labor leader and former Clinton advisor Steve Rosenthal; former Clinton speechwriters Jeremy Rosner and
Robert Boorstin; and major Democrat donors such as Lewis and Dorothy Cullman, Robert Glaser, Peter Lewis,
and Robert McKay.238

77

The consensus was that voter turnoutparticularly in 17 swing or battleground states239would be the key to
unseating President Bush. Steve Rosenthal and Ellen MalcolmCEO and president, respectively, of a newly formed
but poorly funded voter-registration group called America Coming Together (ACT)240suggested that voters in those
swing states should be recruited and mobilized as soon as possible. Agreeing, Soros told the pair that he personally
would give ACT $10 million to help maximize its effectiveness. A few other attendees also pledged to give the
fledgling group large sums of money: Soros's billionaire friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation,
promised to give $10 million; Robert Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million; Rob McKay,
president of the McKay Family Foundation, committed $1 million; and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman
pledged $500,000.241
By early 2004, the administrative core of George Soros's Shadow Party was in place. It consisted of seven ostensibly
independent nonprofit groupsall but one of which were headquartered in Washington, DC. In a number of cases,
these groups shared one another's finances, directors, and corporate officers; occasionally they even shared office
space.242 The seven groups were:
1) America Coming Together (ACT): Jump-started by Soros's $10 million grant, ACT in 2004 ran what it called the
largest voter-contact program in history, with more than 1,400 full-time paid canvassers contacting potential voters
door-to-door and by phone.243
2) Center For American Progress (CAP): This entity was established to serve as a think tank promoting leftist ideas
and policy initiatives. Soros, enthusiastic about the Center's potential, pledged in July 2003 to donate up to $3 million to
help get the project off the ground.244 From the outset, CAP's leadership featured a host of former high-ranking officials
from the Clinton administration.245Hillary Clinton predicted that the organization would provide some new intellectual
capital with which to build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values.246 George Soros
and Morton Halperin together selected former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta to serve as president of CAP. Podesta
said his goal was to develop CAP as a think tank on steroids, featuring a message-oriented war room that will

78

send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right.247
3) America Votes: This national coalition coordinated the efforts of many get-out-the-vote organizations and their
thousands of contributing activists.248 Soros's support for America Votes would continue well past 2004. Indeed he
would donate $2.15 million to this coalition in the 2006 election cycle,249 another $1.25 million in advance of the 2008
elections,250 and yet another $1.25million in 2010.251
4) Media Fund: Describing itself as the largest media-buying organization supporting a progressive message in the
United States, this group produced and strategically placed political ads in the print, broadcast, and electronic media.252
5) Joint Victory Campaign 2004 (JVC): This fundraising entity focused on collecting contributions and then disbursing
them chiefly to America Coming Together and the Media Fund. In 2004 alone, JVC channeled $19.4 million to the
former, and $38.4 million to the latter.253 Soros personally gave JVC more than $12 million that year.254
6) Thunder Road Group (TRG): This political consultancy coordinated strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming
Together, and America Votes. Its duties included strategic planning, polling, opposition research, covert operations, and
public relations.255
7) MoveOn.org: This California-based entity was the only one of the Shadow Party's core groups that was not a new
startup operation. Launched in September 1998, MoveOn is a Web-based political network that organizes online
activists around specific issues, raises money for Democratic candidates, generates political ads, and is very effective at
recruiting young people to support Democrats.256 In November 2003, Soros pledged to give MoveOn $5 million to help
its cause.257
According to Ellen Malcolm of America Coming Together (ACT), the financial commitment which Soros made to
these Shadow Party groups in 2003 was a signal to potential donors that he had looked at what was going on and that

79

this was pretty exciting, and that he was going to stand behind it, and it was the real deal.258 As Byron York observed,
After Soros signed on, contributions started pouring in. ACT and the Media Fund alone took in some $200 million
including $20 million from Soros alone. This type of money was unprecedented in American politics. 259
Harold Ickes, who served as White House deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, had a hand in creating
every Shadow Party core group except MoveOn. He was also entrusted with the vital task of making these
organizations function as a cohesive entity. In 2004, Democratic strategist Harold Wolfson suggested that outside of the
official campaign of presidential candidate John Kerry, Ickes is the most important person in the Democratic Party
today.260
In addition to its seven core members, the Shadow Party also came to include at least another 30 well-established
leftwing activist groups and labor unions that participated in the America Votes coalition. Among the better-known of
these were ACORN; the AFL-CIO; the AFSCME; theAmerican Federation of Teachers; the Association of Trial
Lawyers of America; the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund; EMILY's List; the Human Rights Campaign; the League
of Conservation Voters; the NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America; the National Education Association; People for the
American Way; Planned Parenthood; the Service Employees International Union; and the Sierra Club.261
New Mexico's then-governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, observed that these groups were crucial to the anti-Bush
effort. Now that campaign-finance reform is law, he said, organizations like these have become the replacement for
the national Democratic Party.262 And no donor was more heavily invested in these organizationsor in defeating
President Bushthan George Soros, who contributed $27,080,105 to pro-Democrat 527s during the 2004 election
cycle. The second leading donor was the billionaire insurance entrepreneur Peter Lewis ($23,997,220), followed by
Hollywood producer Stephen Bing ($13,952,682) and Golden West Financial Corporation founders Herbert and Marion
Sandler ($13,007,959).263

80

FAILURE AND RESILIENCY: BIRTH OF THE DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE

When President Bush won re-election in 2004, George Soros was devastated; his massive financial investments and
herculean organizing efforts had all gone for naught. Adding insult to injury, the hated Republicans had retained control
of both houses of Congress. As Soros contemplated what course of action he ought to pursue next, the answer came to
himsomewhat unexpectedlyin the form of Democrat political operative Rob Stein, former chief of staff to
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown during the Clinton administration. For the preceding two years, Stein had been busy
devising a strategy by which Democrats might reclaim supremacy in the executive and legislative branches of
government. He began working on this strategy shortly after the Republicans had gained eight House seats and two
Senate seats in the 2002 midterm elections. Lamenting that he was living in a one-party [Republican]
country,264 Stein at that point resolved to study the conservative movement and determine why it was winning the
political battle. After a year of analysis, he concluded that a few influential, wealthy family foundationsmost notably
Scaife, Bradley, Olin, and Coorshad spearheaded the creation of a $300 million network of politically influential
organizations. Stein featured these facts in a comprehensive PowerPoint presentationtitled The Conservative
Message Machine Money Matrixwhich mapped out, in painstaking detail, the conservative movement's networking
strategies and funding sources.265
Next, Stein set out to show his presentationmostly in private meetingsto political leaders, activists, and prospective
big-money donors of the left. He hoped to inspire them to join his crusade to build a new organizationa financial
clearinghouse to be called the Democracy Alliance (DA)dedicated to offsetting the efforts of conservative funders
and injecting new life into the progressive movement. At each presentation, Stein asked the viewer to pledge that he or
she would keep confidential the substance of the proceedings, so as to give the project a chance to coalesce and gain
some momentum without excessive public scrutiny.266
Stein officially filed DA's corporate registration in the District of Columbia in January 2005.267 By that point, he had
shown his PowerPoint presentation to several hundred people.268 Stein recalls that during those sessions, he

81

consistently observed an unbelievable frustration by big Democrat donors who felt hopelessly unconnected to one
another even as they longed to be part of a strategic coalition that could work collaboratively and cohesively. 269 This
was particularly true of George Soros, thus it was most significant that Soros quickly and enthusiastically embraced
Stein's concept. In April 2005, Soros brought together 70 likeminded, carefully vetted, fellow millionaires and
billionaires inPhoenix, Arizona, to discuss Stein's ideas and expeditiously implement a plan of action.270 Most of those
in attendance agreed that the conservative movement represented a fundamental threat to the American way of
life.271 And, like Soros, a considerable number of them looked favorably on Stein's analysis and concept. Thus was
born the Democracy Alliance.
DA members, called partners, include individuals and organizations alike. Partnership in the Alliance is by invitationonly.272 These partners pay an initial $25,000 fee, and $30,000 in yearly dues thereafter. They also must give at least
$200,000 annually to groups which the Alliance endorses. Donors metaphorically pour these requisite donations into
one or more of what Rob Stein refers to as DA's four buckets of fundraising: ideas, media, leadership training, and
civic engagement. The money is then apportioned to approved left-wing groups from each respective category.273
The Democracy Alliance is known to consist of at least 100 donor-partners but historically has been quite secretive
regarding their identities. Nevertheless, the Capital Research Center has managed to compile the names of some of the
more significant current and former DA partners (in addition to George Soros and Rob Stein).274 A large percentage of
them have significant ties to Soros that extend well beyond their shared membership in the Democracy Alliance.
Among these partners are the following:

AFL-CIO: This institutional DA partner is the largest labor federation in America and was a member of Soros's
Shadow Party in 2004.
Bauman Foundation co-director Patricia Bauman serves as a board member of the Soros-funded Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Property-development CEO Albert Dwoskin is the chairman of Catalist, a Soros-funded political consultancy.275

82

Manhattan-based child psychologist Gail Furman belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations and is a board
member of Human Rights First and the Brennan Center for Justiceall organizations that receive funding from
George Soros and OSI.276
Software entrepreneur Tim Gill is a major funder of gay-rights groups such as the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight
Education Network, which is also supported by Soros.277
Technology entrepreneur Davidi Gilo has given at least $17,600 to J Street, an organization that is consistently
critical of Israel and has close ties to Soros.278
Media-software mogul Rob Glaser was an early backer of the Soros-funded America Coming Together.279
Racial justice organizer Connie Cagampang Heller works closely with the Soros-fundedTides Foundation.280
Hyatt Hotel luminary Rachel Pritzker Hunter has served as treasurer of the Soros-fundedMedia Matters For
America.281
Economist and former banking executive Rob Johnson once served as a portfolio manager for George Soross
Quantum Fund.282
Michael Kieschnick founded Working Assets, a long-distance telephone/credit card company that donates a
percentage of its profits to leftist groups and causes.283 He is also aboard member of the Soros-funded evangelical
group Sojourners.284
Longtime technology executive John Luongo is a former board member of Planned Parenthood and Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washingtonboth Soros-funded enterprises.285
Atlantic Philanthropies president and CEO Gara LaMarche was formerly vice president of Soros's Open Society
Institute. He also served a stint as associate director of Human Rights Watch and held a variety of positions with
the ACLUboth organizations that are heavily funded by Soros.286
Television producer Norman Lear created the Soros-backed group, People for the American Way.
Progressive Insurance Company chairman Peter Lewis has many close ties to Soros and was a major funder of
the Shadow Party during the 2004 election cycle.287

83

Taco Bell heir Robert McKay has been a founding board member of America Coming Together, a board member
of the Ms. Foundation for Women, and a director of the Fund for America288all of which are beneficiaries of
Soros money.
Tides Foundation founder and longtime CEO Drummond Pike has close ties to Soros, who is a major funder of
Tides.
Democrat activist Simon Rosenberg founded the New Policy Institute, a project of the Tides Foundation. He also
sits on the board of the Soros-funded publication Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. And in 1996 he created the New
Democrat Network, a Soros-financed organization committed to pushing the Democratic Party further
leftward.289
Golden West Financial Corporation founders Herb and Marion Sandler are philanthropic allies of George Soros
and were heavy funders of Shadow Party organizations in 2004giving some $13 million to anti-Bush 527
committees.290
Trial lawyer Guy Saperstein formerly served as president of the Soros-funded Sierra Club.291
Service Employees International Union: The longtime former president of this union,Andrew Stern, sat on the
executive committee of the Soros-funded America Coming Together.292
George Soros's son Jonathan is president and co-deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management.
DA board member Michael Vachon is the director of communications at Soros Fund Management and the
overseer of Soross political contributions.293

No grants were pledged at the Democracy Alliance's April 2005 gathering in Phoenix, but at an Atlanta meeting three
months later, DA partners pledged $39 millionabout a third of which came directly from George Soros and Peter
Lewis.294 Because the Alliance has largely refrained from providing information about its giving, only a small
percentage of its donees are known to the public.295 Thus it is impossible to determine precisely how much money DA
has disbursed since its inception. Most estimates, though, place the figure at more than $100 million.296 One source
Alliance member Simon Rosenbergclaimed in August 2008 that DA had already channeled hundreds of millions of
dollars into progressive organizations.297 Below are the names of a number of DA's known donees 298and in certain
cases the sums they have received from the Alliance. Again, the Capital Research Center was instrumental in

84

identifying these donees, many of whom have financial and ideological ties to Soros and the Open Society Institute that
long predate their connections to the Democracy Alliance.299

ACORN: DA founder Rob Stein has called this pro-socialist, notoriously corruptcommunity organization a
tough-minded and very responsible group.300
Air America Radio: When this left-leaning radio station was on the verge of bankruptcy in early 2006, it received
a funding commitment of $8 million from DA.301
America Votes: This voter-mobilization coalition has received at least $6 million in DA-approved funding
commitments from George Soros.
Center for American Progress: By January 2008, DA grants to this leftist think tank totaled at least $9 million
most of which came from George Soros, Peter Lewis, and the Sandlers.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: This Soros-funded group bringsethics charges against
(mostly conservative) government officials who betray the public trust.302
Election Administration Fund: Housed at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco, this entity has received at least
$2.5 million in DA money for its voter-registration and get-out-the-vote effortsplus some $1 million from
Soros's Open Society Institute.
EMILYs List: This group raises money for Democratic, pro-choice, female candidates.303
Media Matters For America: By January 2008, DA-approve grants to Media Matters totaled at least $7 million.
Mi Familia Vota: This group seeks to naturalize new citizens and register them to vote.304
New Organizing Fund: This group, which train[s] prospective progressive campaign workers in online campaign
and organizing techniques, has accepted donations directly from DA members George Soros and Deborah
Rappaport.305
Progressive Majority: Working to help promising progressive candidates get elected to state and political
offices, this group has received at least $5 million in DA grants.306
United States Student Association: This group is dedicated to training, organizing, and developing a base of
student leaders who will become social justice activists.307
USAction: This group favors increased government spending on social-welfare programs and public education.308

85

Additional DA grant recipients include such previously cited Soros donees as Catalist, the Center for Community
Change, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, theDrum Major Institute for Public
Policy, the New Democrat Network, People for the American Way, and the Progressive States Network.309
Since approximately 2006, Democracy Alliance members and staff have been working to establishsubchapters of their
organization in all 50 states. Their most successful effort to date has been in Colorado, where the local DA has
funded such varied enterprises as liberal think tanks, media watchdog groups, ethics groups that bring forth so-called
public-interest litigation, voter-mobilization groups, media outlets that attack conservatives, and liberal leadershiptraining centers. The results have been striking: Whereas in 1998 Colorado had a Republican governor, two Republican
U.S. senators, and four Republican House members (out of six), by 2009 the state had a Democratic governor, two
Democratic U.S. Senators, and five Democratic House members (out of seven). 310
RADICALIZING AMERICA, ONE STATE AT A TIME: PLAN AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE
PROJECT
In August 2005, when the Democracy Alliance was just getting off the ground, George Soros's Open Society Institute
helped establish yet another new organizationthe Progressive Legislative Action Network, or PLAN. Furnishing state
legislatures with prewritten model legislation reflecting leftist agendas, this group was part and parcel of Soros's
methodical campaign to shift American politics and public attitudes toward the leftby gaining a foothold inside the
corridors of power on a state-by-state basis.311
Then, in July 2006, Democracy Alliance partner Michael Kieschnick collaborated with Becky Bond (who also had
affiliations with the New Organizing Institute and Working Assets) and James Rucker (who co-founded Color of
Change and formerly served as director of grassroots mobilization forMoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org
Civic Action) to launch a major new initiative called the Secretary of State Project (SoSP). This 527 committee was

86

devoted to helping Democrats win secretary-of-state elections in crucial swing statesi.e., states where the margin of
victory in the 2004 presidential election had been 120,000 votes or less.312 One of the principal duties of the secretary of
state is to serve as the chief election officer who certifies candidates as well as election results in his or her state.313 The
holder of this office, then, can potentially play a key role in determining the winner of a close election. Numerous
Democracy Alliance partners became funders of SoSP. Soros was one of them. In 2008, for instance, he
personally gave $10,000 to the Project.314

SOROS HELPS CREATE TWO NEW PRO-DEMOCRAT GROUPS

Just two months after the Democratic Party had won control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006
elections, George Soros and then-SEIU president Andrew Stern created Working For Us (WFU), a pro-Democrat PAC.
This group does not, however, look favorably upon Democratic centrists. Rather, it aims to elect lawmakers who
support a progressive political agenda. Originally proposed by Stern as a way to prevent moderate Democrats from
gaining too much influence over the party, WFU publishes the names of what it calls the Top Offenders among
congressional Democrats who fail to support such leftist priorities as living wage legislation, the proliferation of
public-sector labor unions, and the provision of government-funded healthcare for all Americans. Targeting
congressional Democrats whose voting records are more conservative than their districts, WFU warns that no bad
vote will be overlooked or unpunished.315
In an effort to promote large-scale income redistribution by means of tax hikes for higher earners, WFU advocates
policies that would narrow the economic gulf between the rich and poor. The group's executive director is Steven
Rosenthal, a longtime Democrat operative with close ties to the Clintonadministration and a co-founder of
Soros's America Coming Together. According to Rosenthal, WFU will encourage Democrats to act like Democrats
and if they don'tthey better get out of the way.316

87

In November 2007, Soros joined fellow Democracy Alliance members Anna Burger and Rob McKay, as well as John
Podesta of the Center for American Progress, to help form the Fund for America (FFA), a 527 committee designed to
work on what Roll Call characterized as media buys and voter outreach in the run-up to the 2008 elections. The
leading early donors to FFA were Soros ($3.5 million), the SEIU ($2.5 million), Hollywood producer Stephen
Bing ($2.5 million), and hedge fund executive Donald Sussman ($1 million). But when FFA failed to meet its overall
fundraising goals by early 2008, DA donors cut off their contributions and the group was disbanded in June. Among the
organizations it had bankrolled before shutting its doors were America Votes, Americans United for Change, ACORN,
and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.317
Meanwhile, Soros's regard for President Bush remained as low as ever. Indeed, wrote Soros in 2006, the Bush
administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines
by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.318 Soros would elaborate on this theme at
the January 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he told reporters: America needs to ... go
through a certain de-Nazification process.319

SOROS AND OBAMA: QUIET PARTNERSHIP AND SHARED AGENDAS

While George Soros was busy bankrolling his battalion of established activist groups and launching a few new ones of
his own, he quite naturally looked toward the upcoming presidential election of 2008 with great anticipation, eagerly
awaiting the day when George W. Bush would finally leave office. The question was, who would replace him? In
recent years, all indications had been that Soros favored Hillary Clinton above most, if not all, other potential
Democratic candidates for President. But now there was a new face on the scenea young, charismatic U.S. senator
from Illinois namedBarack Obamawho seemed not only to share virtually all of Soros's values and agendas, but also
appeared to be a highly skilled politician who stood a good chance of getting elected to the nation's highest office.

88

In December of 2006, Soros, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter's 2004 Senate
campaign, met with Obama in Soros's New York office. Just a few weeks lateron January 16, 2007Obama
announced that he would form a presidential exploratory committee and was contemplating a run for the White House.
Within hours, Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign-finance
laws. Later that week, the New York Daily News reported that Soros would support Obama rather than Hillary Clinton
for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, though Soros pledged to back the New York senatorwere she to
emerge as the nominee.320 But it was clear that Soros considered Obama to be the more electable candidate of the two.
Most importantly, Obama's economic and political prescriptions for America were wholly accordant with those of
Soros.
For an in-depth look at the shared agendas of Soros and Obama, click here.
SOROS PURSUES A NEW 'ECONOMIC PARADIGM"
In January 2009, Anatole Kaletskya Times of London economics writer who opposed the noninterventionist model
of capitalism and favored deficit spending and stimulus packages as bulwarks against economic depression
discussed with George Soros the unique opportunity to reshape economics in the wake of the financial crisis. Eight
months later, Soros assembled 25 economists, financiers, and journalists in Bedford, New York to brainstorm the idea.
This Bedford Summit resulted in a unanimous agreement that our economic paradigm must change, and a
recognition of the importance of empowering the young generation of economists to rethink the field of economics.
Toward that end, the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) was created as a nonprofit foundation in October
2009; its initial funding came from a $50 million pledge by Soros's Open Society Institute.

SOROS AND THE ARAB SPRING

89

The so-called Arab Spring, which began in late 2010, was a momentous series of popular uprisings that sweptin
rapid succession and with varying degrees of intensity and effectthrough a host of countries in the Middle East and
North Africa: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon,Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen. By
February 2011, Tunisian president Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali had stepped down after 22 years in power, and Egyptian
president Hosni Mubarek had abdicated after 30 years. For the most part, the Western mediaand the American left in
particularpromoted the notion that the events in the Arab world were organic eruptions of rebellion launched
spontaneously by oppressed populations who would no longer tolerate political tyranny and economic deprivation, and
who longed to quench their own thirst for freedom and democracy.
Over time, it would become apparent that however strong the popular support for the Arab uprisings may have been,
the hidden hand of an Islamist movement was also at work in fomenting and sustaining the revolts. This reality was
driven home dramatically in the political events that took place where regimes had fallen. In post-Mubarak Egypt, this
meant the rising influence of theMuslim Brotherhoodthe ideological forebear of both al Qaeda and Hamas, and the
spearhead of a movement aiming to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate (or kingdom) ruled by strict Islamic Law
(Sharia). And in Tunisia, the first free elections following the longstanding regime of President Zine al-Abedine Ben
Ali resulted in the triumph of the al-Nahda party, an Islamist movement which had opposed, sometimes violently, the
existing regime. In short, the Arab Spring evolved into aMuslim Winter.
Notwithstanding these developments, Soros in late 2011 said: "A lot of positive things are happening. I see Africa
together with the Arab Spring as areas of progress. The Arab Spring was a revolutionary development."
SOROS AND OCCUPY WALL STREET
In the fall of 2011, Soros denied any connection to the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement which was
then in high gear, though he said: I can understand their sentiment. An October 2011 Reuters report noted that from
2007-09, Soros Open Society Institute had given grants totaling $3.5 million to the Tides Center, which in

90

turn gave more than $309,000 to the Adbusters Media Foundation -- a key organizer of OWS -- between 2001 and
2011. Aides to Soros, however, claimed that the billionaire had never before heard of Adbusters.

SOROS SEEKS TO UNSEAT REP. ALLEN WEST (FLORIDA)

In July 2012, it was reported that Soros was among a group of donors who had already pledged their financial support
for "Dump West," a Democratic Super-PAC that planned to raise at least $5 million for the purpose of defeating
conservative black Republican Allen West's bid for reelection to the House of Representatives. A key player in"Dump
West" was national Democratic operative Charles Halloran, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi asked lobbyist Larry Smith (a former U.S. congressman) to help line up initial funding for the
Super-PAC.

SOROS GIVES MONEY TO HELP NAACP FIGHT VOTER ID LAWS

In March 2013, Soros pledged to give, through his Open Society Foundations, $1 million to theNAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund. This was the largest grant that organization had received from a named donor in recent decades.
The purpose of the grant was to help the NAACP fight challenges to the Voting Rights Act and oppose the
implementation of Voter ID laws. In a statement, Soros said: We need bold and courageous civil rights strategies if we
are to achieve racial equality in this country.

SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON

In October 2013, Soros signed on to co-chair the national finance council of Ready For Hillary, a political action

91

committee established nine months earlier to lead a nationwide grassroots movement encouraging Hillary Clinton to
run for U.S. President in 2016. George Soros is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting
Ready For Hillary, said Soross political director, Michael Vachon. His support for Ready For Hillary is an extension
of his long-held belief in the power of grassroots organizing.

SUPPORTING BILL DE BLASIO

In August 2013 Soros endorsed Bill de Blasio for Mayor of New York City, and he contributed the legal limit of $4,950
to de Blasio's campaign. Soros also gave financial support to Talking Transition, a two-week project launched in early
November 2013immediately after de Blasio's election victoryto "help shape" the latter's "transition" to City Hall.
Soros relationship with the mayor-elect actually dated back to 2011, when the billionaire had given $400,000 to de
Blasios Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending.

SUPPORTING GROUPS THAT HELPED LEAD & PROMOTE THE ANTI-POLICE PROTESTS OF 2014
(IN FERGUSON, MISSOURI, ETC.)
In 2014, two separate white-police-vs.-black-suspect altercations that resulted in the deaths of the blacks involved
became the focal points of a massive, nationwide protest movement alleging that white officers were routinely targeting
African Americans with racial profiling and the unjustified use of force:
(a) On July 17, 2014, a 43-year-old African American named Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after having
resisted several white police officers' efforts to arrest him for illegally selling loosies, single cigarettes from packs
without tax stamps. One of the officers at the scene put his arms around the much taller Garner's neck and took him
down to the ground with a headlock/chokehold. While he was being subdued, Garner reportedly told the officers a
number of times, "I can't breathe." A black NYPD sergeant supervised the entire altercation and never ordered that

92

officer to release the hold. Garner subsequently suffered cardiac arrest in an ambulance that was taking him to a
hospital, where he was pronounced dead approximately an hour after the initial altercation. City medical
examiners later concluded that he had died as a result of an interplay between the police officers hold and Garners
multiple chronic infirmities, which included bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular
disease. "I Can't Breathe" became a popular slogan of demonstrators who later protested Garner's death in rallies across
the United States.
(b) On August 9, 2014, a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri shot and killed an 18-year-old black male named
Michael Brown in an altercation that occurred just minutes after Brown had perpetrated a strong-armed robbery of a
local convenience store. Brown's death set off a massive wave of protests and riots in Ferguson, and eventually grew
into a national movement denouncing an alleged epidemic of police brutality against African Americans. The protesters
claimed, falsely: (a) that Brown had been shot in the back while fleeing from the officer, and (b) that Brown at one
point had raised his hands in the air submissively in an attempt to surrender but was shot anyway. Thus, "Hands Up,
Don't Shoot" became a popular slogan of the demonstrators who later protested Brown's death. When compelling
ballistic, eyewitness, and forensic evidenceeventually (in late October 2014) indicated that Brown in fact had assaulted
the officer and had tried to steal his gun just prior to the fatal shooting, the protesters' outrage over the incident was
undiminished. A grand jury announced on November 24, 2014 that it would not indict the officer who had shot Brown - because of overwhelming evidence indicating that the shooting was done in self-defense. This announcement, too,
touched off protests and riots.
Through his Open Society Foundations, Soros in 2014 gave at least $33 million to support already-established groups
that, as The Washington Times puts it, "emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson" and helped
lead the anti-polce protests. "The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible
protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre,"
says the Times.
Among these activist organizations funded by Soros were the Advancement Project, the Center for Community Change,

93

Colorlines, the Don't Shoot Coalition, the Dream Defenders, the Drug Policy Alliance, Equal Justice USA, the Gamaliel
Foundation, the Hands Up Coalition, Make the Road New York, Millennial Activists United, Missourians Organizing
for Reform and Empowerment (the rebranded Missouri branch of ACORN), the Organization for Black
Struggle, PICO, and the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference (where Jeremiah Wright was a trustee), the SEIU, national
LGBT organizations, climate environmentalists, amnesty groups, pro-Palestinian organizations, andChristian social
justice groups.
"The plethora of organizations involved," explains The Washington Times, not only shared Mr. Soros' funding, but they
also fed off each other, using content and buzzwords developed by one organization on another's website, referencing
each other's news columns and by creating a social media echo chamber of Facebook 'likes' and Twitter hashtags that
dominated the mainstream media and personal online newsfeeds."
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.

94

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 nations 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:

95

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 Childrens 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.

96

The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights was founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones. This antipoverty 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, HCANs strategy was to try to achieve
such a system incrementally, first by implementing a public optioni.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.

97

The Brennan Center for Justice aims to fully restore voting rights following criminal convictionsignificant
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 fundingfiltering its
grants first through other Soros-backed operationsto 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
Redfords Sundance Institute. Between 1996 and 2008, OSI earmarked at least $5.2 million for the production of

98

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 spentat 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 Choiceformerly known as Catholics for a Free Choiceis 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:

99

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 Councilformerly known as the the American Immigration Law
Foundationsupports birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Casa de Maryland periodically sponsors