SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: E who wrote (650548)10/23/2004 7:48:35 PM
From: Wayners  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
If you click on any liberal link, you'll get spyware and a virus.



To: E who wrote (650548)10/23/2004 8:08:26 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
AIM Report: "Can Dan" Campaign on Verge of Success - October A
October 21, 2004
"This is a brazen attempt to deceive the American people and subvert a U.S. presidential election."
aim.org

AIM founder Reed Irvine's "Can Dan" campaign against Dan Rather, launched 16 years ago, appears to be on the verge of success.

AIM members, staffers and supporters gathered outside the CBS News offices in Washington, D.C., on September 21 to call for the firing of Dan Rather in the wake of the CBS Evening News anchorman's use of forged documents in a story designed to discredit President Bush. Rather, in a "60 Minutes" broadcast on September 8, featured documents purportedly authored by a National Guard commander, in order to prove that Bush had neglected his service to the nation as a young man in the Guard during the Vietnam War.

In a statement to the press, AIM editor Cliff Kincaid said that CBS had been caught "in the middle of a criminal conspiracy" that was seeking "to use forged documents to bring down an American president." Kincaid added, "This is a brazen attempt to deceive the American people and subvert a U.S. presidential election."

AIM was joined by members of the FreeRepublic.com, one of the national websites featuring the Internet "bloggers" who were the first to draw attention to the discrepancies in the CBS documents and the fact that they were likely forgeries. For their efforts, a former CBS News executive ridiculed them as people wearing their pajamas in front of their computers.

But at the anti-CBS protest, several of the "Freepers," including FreeRepublic spokesman Kristinn Taylor, proudly wore their pajamas. (The complete statements of Kincaid and Taylor are included at the end of this AIM Report).

Rather eventually apologized for the broadcast and acknowledged that the network received the documents from bitter ex-Guardsman Bill Burkett, a partisan critic of Bush who admitted deceiving the network about where they had come from. Burkett did not identify their ultimate source.

CBS then announced that former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press (AP) official Louis Boccardi would investigate the scandal.

But AIM said that the current Attorney General—or at least the FBI—might have an interest in the "Rathergate" matter. After all, forging government documents is a violation of federal and state law.

Federal law prohibits the forging of government or public records for the purpose of defrauding the U.S. In a Supreme Court case, Hammerschmidt v. United States, Chief Justice Taft defined "defraud" as follows: "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." This means, the Justice said, that it "is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation" or fraud.

The broadcasting of forged documents to affect a presidential campaign and election clearly falls in the parameters of "conspiracy to defraud."

Ironically, CBS initially claimed that it was the responsibility of the White House to expose the documents as forgeries. Its rationale is that it turned the forgeries over to the White House communications director Dan Bartlett, who did not immediately expose or denounce them as forgeries. The Washington Post reported that CBS correspondent John Roberts called "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes "with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. Mapes told her bosses, who were so relieved that they cut from Rather's story an interview with a handwriting expert who had examined the memos. At that point, said '60 Minutes' executive Josh Howard, 'we completely abandoned the process of authenticating the documents.'"

With such a position, CBS should not now object to an FBI investigation into the origin and distribution of the forgeries. It should be prepared to waive its First Amendment privileges in order to determine the truth and punish the perpetrators of this fraud.

USA Today Commits Fraud

USA Today, the most widely read paper in the U.S., also received and publicized the phony documents from Burkett, assuming they were authentic. But its standards for "verifying" the documents turned out to be even worse than those of CBS News!

On Sept. 9, one day after the "60 Minutes" story aired, USA Today was out with its own story under the headline, "Guard commander's memos criticize Bush," by Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard. The story was based on "newly disclosed documents," the paper claimed. It said "the memos" were "obtained by USA Today and also reported Wednesday on the CBS program 60 Minutes…" It went on to say that White House communications director Dan Bartlett "did not dispute the documents' authenticity."

Like CBS, USA Today expected the White House to do the job of verifying the documents. Obviously, the White House did not have enough time to do that. And it's not the administration's job to research stories for the Big Media. The White House took the defensible position that it was assuming the documents were valid because they had been supplied by a "reputable" news organization. The White House didn't think Dan Rather would sink so low as to pawn off phony documents as legitimate.

Not only did USA Today make the same mistake as CBS News, but the newspaper's editors used the CBS News broadcast of the story as further proof that they were somehow valid. Hence, USA Today's "fact-checking" was even worse than CBS News,' which at least went through the motions of appearing to consult some "experts" about the documents' validity. Then, however, CBS ignored the doubts and "forged" ahead.

USA Today editor Ken Paulsen has been asked by AIM to explain and apologize.

SOROS, DIRTY TRICKS, AND CAMPAIGN COVERAGE

Supporters of President Bush who think that a lead in the polls guarantees victory on November 2 have missed the significance of the behind-the-scenes efforts to buy the White House for John Kerry by stuffing the ballot box. Buried deep in a story about a big increase in millions of "new voters" for the Democratic Party, the New York Times acknowledged that "prosecutors in Columbus [Ohio] have filed criminal charges against an Acorn registrar, saying that he filed a false registration form and forged a signature." Acorn is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a left-wing group that supports Kerry.

Two days before the Times story appeared, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that a preliminary inquiry is finding about one thousand fraudulent voter registrations. It reported that "enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called Americans Coming Together, or ACT Ohio."

ACT has been paying 1,500 canvassers $8 - $12 an hour to go door-to-door in 17 "battleground states"—including Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. This "527" group has raised $80 million and is the best- funded get-out-the-vote effort in Democratic Party history.

Billionaire George Soros, a supporter of drug legalization, has poured millions of dollars into get-out-the-vote drives to benefit Kerry. ACT alone was given $10 million by Soros.

In another political maneuver, Soros and groups allied with him pulled off an upset in a district attorney's race in Albany County, New York in mid-September. The New York Post, one of the few papers to cover this surprising development, noted that an "unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics" by Soros had "engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent," a DA supporting the war on drugs. The winner in the primary was David Soares, who promised to treat drug users with more leniency.

Supporters of the losing candidate, Albany DA Paul Clyne, charged that Soares received "illegal" money through a group which in turn got the money—more than $81,000—from the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance. Clyne commented, "A drug-legalization group funds the race for district attorney—that's kind of scary. And some of the public bought it." Albany County Republicans announced a suit to stop the DPA from pouring even more money into the race.

But Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance isn't bashful about claiming credit for the defeat of Clyne. In an email, the group called Clyne "a drug war zealot" because he insisted on prosecuting drug users, abusers and traffickers. The email boasted, "The Drug Policy Alliance Network contributed to this race and is receiving national media attention as a result." Nadelmann said the upset victory by the soft-on-drugs candidate "has national resonance."

That may mean that an upset could occur on the national level, in the presidential contest on November 2nd. If Soros is successful and Kerry wins because of this support, he will be in deep debt to a billionaire whose main public policy goal is to turn America into a version of "Needle Park," the infamous place in Switzerland where drug addicts openly used heroin with government-supplied needles. It's a story the media won't tell.

In what amounts to a possible "October surprise" against Bush, Soros himself announced that he was going on a tour of at least 11 cities in the month of October, in order to rally the public and the media against the President. "In each city," stated a press release, "he will give a public speech, meet with local media and take out newspaper advertisements." The first ad was scheduled to run in the September 29 Wall Street Journal.

The cities included Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Columbus, Cleveland and Akron, Ohio; Sarasota and Miami, Florida; Boston, Mass.; Des Moines, Iowa; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The last AIM Report noted that the major media have been "desperate to avoid scrutiny of how or where leftist billionaire George Soros is getting the tens of millions of dollars that he is using to finance anti-Bush advertising campaigns and pro-Democratic Party political efforts before the November 2 election."

We are renewing our call for the media to subject Soros to scrutiny and discover where he is getting the money to finance his political activities.

The media are also largely ignoring charges by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader that the Democratic Party is using "anti-democratic dirty tricks" that amount to "a mini-Watergate scandal."

It's no secret that the Democrats want Nader off state ballots because they fear he will siphon votes from Kerry. But at a press conference in Washington, D.C., the Nader campaign produced evidence of Democratic Party misconduct that may cross the line into illegal activity.

In Oregon, the campaign said that Nader supporters have been subjected to "smears, sabotage, and intimidation by Democratic front groups." Nader's Oregon spokesman Greg Kafoury referred to "gangster-style tactics of the Democrats, which ranged from sabotaging our nominating convention to visiting petitioners in their homes at night, falsely telling them they were under criminal investigation."

Signature gatherers for Nader in Oregon were told that they faced a felony, five years in jail, or a $100,000 fine if some of the names on their petitions were invalid. But that's only the case if there is deliberate fraud. The name of a voter misspelling an address could be termed questionable or even "fraudulent" but the petitioner could not face criminal charges over such an error.

Nader said the Democrats are waging "a direct attack on the right to petition protected by the Constitution." At the Washington news conference, the Nader campaign also played a tape of sworn testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine, Dorothy Malanson, in which she admitted that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time, her lawyers, and other expenses related to the campaign to keep Nader off the ballot. A press release from the Nader campaign added. "All this is just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the iceberg, under the surface, is for the media to investigate and uncover..."

But reporters who think Nader is draining votes from Kerry will likely sit on their hands.

WHY DAN RATHER MUST GO

Statement by Cliff Kincaid, editor, AIM Report:

When the New York Times was finally caught running Jayson Blair stories based on fabrications, Blair was gone, and so were two Times editors. In the CBS "Rathergate" scandal, by contrast, no one has been fired. It appears that CBS wants to "forge ahead" with the disgraced and discredited anchorman, who relied on forged documents and once said that Bill Clinton was an honest liar. (Rather said, "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.")

We want to say this personally and directly to Dan Rather: We're sorry, but you have to go. And your producer Mary Mapes and CBS News President Andrew Heyward have to go, too. We say to Dan Rather: put on your pajamas, become a blogger, and take Journalism 101.

Thank heavens we have the bloggers in pajamas at the FreeRepublic.com who did the research that exposed the CBS documents as fakes. They are the true journalists. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are political partisans masquerading as journalists.

I was on a show last night with former CBS newsman Daniel Schorr, who said CBS and Dan Rather were the victims here. No, Mr. Schorr. President Bush was the victim here. And the American people were victimized by a partisan liberal "news" operation working with the Kerry campaign to bring down the president.

CBS has been caught in the middle of a criminal conspiracy, with links to the Kerry campaign, to use forged documents to bring down an American president. This is a brazen attempt to deceive the American people and subvert a U.S. presidential election. Current federal law prohibits the use of false, altered or forged public records and documents to defraud the U.S. Penalties include up to ten years in prison.

Dan Rather is known for his Texas sayings. Well, the book Texas Sayings by Anne Dingus (and her follow-up More Colorful Texas Sayings Than You Can Shake a Stick At) has one saying that applies to Rather—"he's as greasy as fried lard." Rather must also be aware of the saying, "Don't dig up more snakes than you can kill." Rather is neck-deep in snakes. But I'm sure the bloggers will welcome him to their pajama party.

Statement by Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for FreeRepublic.com and Co-Leader of the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic:

Two years ago, CBS News anchor Dan Rather criticized the American people while he was overseas, saying there was an atmosphere of intimidation against the media at home akin to the horrific necklacing that occurred in South Africa during the anti-apartheid movement. Specifically, he said, "It's an obscene comparison, but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here. You will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck."

Dan Rather, Andrew Heyward and Mary Mapes, in coordination with the Kerry campaign, tried to necklace a president of the United States by trying to knock him out of contention in the election with the flaming tire of forged documents.

'Pajama-clad' posters on FreeRepublic.com were the first to raise questions as to the legitimacy of the Texas Air National Guard documents used by CBS on the September 8th broadcast of 60 Minutes II. Even while the story was being aired, the authenticity of the documents was being doubted by FReepers. Later that night, after the documents were posted to CBS News' website, a FReeper known as Buckhead analyzed them and declared them to be forgeries.

As doubts about the articles spread to the blogosphere and then to the old media, CBS News responded in Nixonian fashion: Stonewalling, attacking the messengers, and questioning the credibility of people like Gen. Staudt who tried to clear their good name.

In a mirror image of Mr. Rather's insolent treatment of President Nixon at a press conference when Mr. Nixon asked Mr. Rather if he were running for something and Mr. Rather replied, "No, Mr. President. Are you?" Mr. Rather recently responded to a Fox News reporter asking him if he felt duped by asking the reporter if he felt duped working for Fox News.

Now CBS News is employing the Watergate-era 'modified limited hangout.' However, like Watergate, the effort to control the scandal is spinning out of control with confirmation that CBS News colluded with the Kerry campaign before the story aired.

There is a cancer on the Tiffany Network. In order to regain a modicum of trust and respectability, CBS needs to follow the example of The New York Times which fired Howell Raines, Gerald Boyd and Jayson Blair when faced with revelations of similarly fraudulent reporting and clean house.

Les Moonves needs to immediately fire CBS News President Andrew Heyward, who approved the fraudulent story; Dan Rather, who reported the fraudulent story; and Mary Mapes, the producer of the fraudulent story. Apologies should be made to President Bush, the Killian family and Gen. Staudt, all of whom were unjustly smeared by CBS.

I'd like to thank Accuracy in Media for their valiant thirty-five year effort to hold the media accountable for their biased and fraudulent reporting.

What You Can Do

Send cards and letters of your own choosing to Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone and Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

Mr. Sumner Redstone
CEO
Viacom Inc.
1515 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10036

Mr. Dan Rather
CBS Evening News
524 West 57th St.
New York, N.Y. 10019

Mr. Bob Schieffer
CBS News
2020 M St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036



To: E who wrote (650548)10/23/2004 8:10:09 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
The Media Should Fight Terrorism
By Cliff Kincaid | October 22, 2004
Abrams is to be congratulated for noting how the media refuse to tell the truth about the terrorists who want to kill us.

Dan Abrams of MSNBC has aired a commentary asking, "Why are so many in the media afraid to call terrorists what they are, terrorists? Instead, many use softer, more heroic, and I would say less accurate words like 'insurgents,' 'militant' or 'rebel.'" That's a good point, Dan. Why not send a transcript of your commentary, which is posted on the MSNBC web site, to your bosses and demand changes at your own network?

We searched the MSNBC web site for stories about the terrorists and found an Associated Press story referring to beheadings of Americans committed by "Islamic militants." We found a story about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who runs the group that claims responsibility for suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings. He was merely labeled a "Jordanian-born militant." Ironically, Abrams had complained about the media labeling Zarqawi "an Iraqi insurgent, not the terrorist that he is." But his own network ran a story calling him a "militant."

Abrams is to be congratulated for noting how the media refuse to tell the truth about the terrorists who want to kill us. But this is just rhetoric unless he takes action to change the terminology at his own network. He mentioned the "flap" involving the Reuters news agency, which doesn't use the word "terrorist" because it is supposed to be too emotional. Its stories were being changed by a Canadian newspaper chain that wanted to label terrorists as terrorists. Abrams asked, "Why don't they [Reuters] just say we're unwilling to relay the news in the most accurate way possible?" So what is the excuse of MSNBC and other media for running those kinds of stories?

Abrams made an excellent case, running through the dictionary definitions of terms such as "militant" and "rebel" to show that these labels do not apply to the terrorists who deliberately target civilians for death. Abrams declared, "It's time for the media to step up to the plate and stop treating these killers with respect they don't deserve." Fine, Dan, but MSNBC should also step up to the plate.

MSNBC on September 30 ran an AP story about three bombs exploding at a neighborhood celebration in Iraq, killing 35 children and seven adults. The story said, "The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq began 17 months ago." Insurgent? Once again, MSNBC failed to meet the standards that Dan Abrams says he expects of other media. The Washington Post wasn't any better, calling the attacks "a dramatic escalation of the country's violent insurgency…" The refusal to identify and describe terrorism dulls the public mind to the realities of what we face in this war. Using terms like "militant" or "insurgent" gives some form of legitimacy to the terrorism they were responsible for.

Recently, Dan Abrams went public with his story of discovering and fighting testicular cancer. His story was a lesson for other men about the need to be examined and tested for the disease. Abrams can also perform a public service by confronting his own bosses about how they portray and cover terrorism, which also kills people.http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/2041_0_2_0/



To: E who wrote (650548)10/23/2004 8:17:58 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769670
 
The major media are desperate to avoid scrutiny of how or where leftist billionaire George Soros is getting the tens of millions of dollars that he is using to finance anti-Bush advertising campaigns and pro-Democratic Party political efforts before the November 2 election.

The reluctance is partly explained by Soros' media ties. He has been an investor in the Times Mirror Company, which merged with the Tribune Company. This media conglomerate today publishes 13 daily newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, and Newsday. The company's broadcasting group includes 26 television stations.

But Soros is linked to literally dozens of other businesses and corporations, some of them off-shore and beyond the reach of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the federal agency that subjects American companies to disclosure and oversight.

On the face of it, Soros has acted in a deceptive manner. He promoted passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, supposedly to restrict the ability of special interest groups to influence the race for the White House. But he then took advantage of a notorious loophole in the law through which he has provided massive funding of controversial "527" organizations, designated as such under the Internal Revenue Code. These groups can receive and spend unlimited amounts of money on the presidential contest. They are required to report their expenditures but their funders, such as Soros, are under no obligation to identify where their money is coming from. This opens the door to foreign money and foreign manipulation of the U.S. presidential election.

It could be "Chinagate" all over again.

The Republicans, supposedly the party of "fat cats" and Big Business, are being vastly outspent in this area.

Much of the background and history of Soros, who emigrated to the U.S., is not known. His fortune was made through manipulation of international financial markets and foreign currencies, a field that is still largely unregulated. He has controversial investments in places like Colombia, where the banks have been penetrated by drug cartels eager to launder their drug money.

Though he is frequently described by the media as a "philanthropist," Connie Bruck in a 1995 New Yorker article described a different side to Soros, a "threatening" side. "He is portrayed as someone who has always tended to live by his own rules, and will change those when it suits him; who can be offended if a leader of a country where he is involved philanthropically is insufficiently subservient; who will consort with an autocratic regime in order to see his programs carried out; and who is intent on imposing his influence generally on an ever-expanding area of the world," she said.

Known as "the man who almost broke the Bank of England," Soros engaged in a complex financial transaction that resulted in the Bank of England losing billions of dollars defending the British pound before having to devalue it. He is essentially a manipulator of money, able to bet that currencies of nations will rise or fall while he makes billions in the process. The Soros Quantum Fund is registered offshore, based in the Netherlands Antilles, and closed to U.S. citizens and residents. However, Soros, who became an American citizen, "managed to make himself an exception," Bruck reported.

Soros Breaks Nations

Such financial operations devalue national currencies, undermining the retirement savings and pensions of ordinary people. To atone for the damage he has done to the global financial system, Soros has endorsed a "Tobin tax," named after a Yale University economist, to regulate and tax the international currency markets. The proceeds, amounting to billions or even trillions of dollars, would go to international agencies such as the U.N. But this tax would affect the pensions, savings accounts, IRAs, and mutual funds of ordinary Americans who also trade currencies and make investments abroad.

It is possible that Soros could use his wealth and power to speculate against the dollar in order to destabilize the U.S. economy in the weeks before the presidential election

Nevertheless, at the far-left "Take Back America" forum in June, Soros was photographed greeting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who introduced him to the group. She told the crowd that, "we need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts."

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

The "goods" include creation of a system under which government and corporations would legalize, dispense and advertise hard drugs, much like tobacco or alcohol, and even supply addicts with needles and drug paraphernalia. This campaign would be sold as an effort to reduce the harm associated with the criminal use of narcotics but it would undoubtedly increase the use of drugs and make more people, especially children, into drug addicts.

Nadelmann advises young people to be open about their marijuana smoking, saying, "Take the chance and come out of the closet about your drug use. The transformation in the way homosexuals are treated in the United States was due to the fact that they came out...Well, sixty or seventy million Americans have smoked marijuana. One day there should be a national tell-mom-and-dad-I-smoke-pot day! Or tell your kids! That type of thing can make a huge difference."

Ann Druyan told the NORML conference that "responsible marijuana smokers" have to act politically this year. She spoke about her "lifetime of smoking marijuana" and how the "sacred drug" had "enhanced my 20-year marriage to my husband," the late Carl Sagan. Asked for her political presidential preference, she said, "Anybody but Bush. Kerry."

It is significant that Soros picked Aryeh Neier, a former national director of the ACLU, to run his Open Society Institute (OSI). It was Neier who admits persuading Soros to fund a range of "drug-policy activities." The ACLU itself favors the legalization of all drugs—even heroin and crack cocaine—and opposes virtually all measures taken to curtail drug use.

A confidential report prepared for groups opposed to the Soros agenda of legalized drugs states that Soros wants to become the "Shadow President" of the U.S. and that John Kerry will "sit on Soros' lap and take his wishes into account—since it is Soros' money that has made him president." That will translate into influence for Soros domestically and internationally, since he strongly opposes the Bush policy of preemptive U.S. action against terrorists and hostile regimes.

Defending Soros

Speaking for the Soros apologists in the media, Paul Krugman of the New York Times in a September 3 column acted horrified that House Speaker Dennis Hastert had suggested that Soros was getting money from "drug groups" and from mysterious "overseas" sources.

To Krugman, Hastert was suggesting that Soros was being funded by illegal drug cartels, and this was a subject that wasn't even worth considering. Krugman was also offended by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's suggestion that Soros wants to spend $75 million to defeat Bush "because Soros wants to legalize heroin."

Ignoring his well-documented funding of the drug legalization move-ment, Krugman con-veniently forgot to mention that Soros' investments include a major stake in Banco de Colombia, one of Colombia's biggest banks. Soros purchased his interest in the bank at a time when the Drug Enforcement Administration, in its study, "Colombian Economic Reform: The Impact on Drug Money Laundering within the Colombian Economy," was documenting how major drug kingpins were taking advantage of the liberalization of the economy to put illicit drug revenue into legitimate businesses. The report stated: "U.S. and Colombian Government authorities have evidence of drug proceeds being deposited in every major bank in Colombia... A Colombian source indicated that many banks and businesses are owned covertly by principal members of the Cali cartel."

Krugman described Soros merely as someone who has been busy "promoting democracy around the world." This is a formulation that appears frequently in the pro-Soros press.

But Soros' limited funding of anti-communist movements during the Cold War pales in comparison to his frightening transformation into a "neo-Marxist" who favors a socialist one-world government, to quote Jeffrey T. Kuhner, a writer and commentator whose work has appeared in the Washington Times, Investor's Business Daily, and The Ripon Forum, a magazine representing liberal Republicans. The magazine labeled Soros "The Lenin of the 21st Century."

Kuhner says that the billionaire, who has a kooky "messiah complex" and wants to run the world, has become "a ferocious critic of the war in Iraq" who believes that America has "degenerated into a militaristic fascist empire."

In an interview with AIM, Kuhner expressed alarm that the so-called "mainstream media" have largely ignored the financial role of Soros in the election campaign while devoting an excessive amount of coverage to a small group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that is running anti-Kerry ads. The media have given Soros "a free pass," he says.

While officials of the Democratic Party are attacking the Swift Boat veterans and even attempting to censor their anti-Kerry commercials, financed by average $64 donations, Kuhner said Republican officials have been timid in telling the story of how Soros is "almost single-handedly bankrolling the Democratic Party" with millions of dollars and has "a dangerous far-left agenda."

Tens of millions of dollars from Soros have gone to MoveOn.org, Americans Coming Together, and the Center for American Progress. MoveOn.org is the group that posted a political commercial comparing President Bush to Hitler. Soros himself made the same comparison and then denied that he had done so.

In addition to legalizing drugs, the Soros agenda includes open borders, euthanasia, further restrictions on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and homosexual and abortion rights.

Kuhner adds, "The liberal media are playing a very dangerous game. They desperately want to get Kerry elected and they will do whatever it takes, even if it means looking away from his controversial sources of funding."

Kuhner says the media should be asking Kerry a simple question—whether he agrees with the Soros agenda. "Kerry has never once said anything bad or negative about George Soros," he points out. The question posed on the cover of Kuhner's Ripon Forum magazine is whether Kerry would become a Soros "puppet."

There is no question that the insidious groups pushing acceptance of illegal drugs want to see Bush defeated. The September/October issue of High Times magazine, which is dedicated to glorifying illegal drugs, has an article, "10 Reasons to Get Rid of Bush." One of the reasons cited was, "No legalization of pot [marijuana]" under Bush.

Soros is also underwriting attempts to enlist ex-cons and felons to vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Chris Uggen, the most prominent national advocate of allowing ex-cons to vote, has been a research fellow at the Soros Foundation's Open Society Institute (OSI). He believes that "felon disenfranchisement" prevented Al Gore from winning the 2000 presidential election and the Democrats from picking up seven U.S. Senate seats.

In the campaign to assist those who commit crimes against Americans, a Soros grant was given to Linda Evans, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton for her involvement in the Weather Underground terrorist group. The Baltimore, Maryland, branch of the OSI on May 12 hosted Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the Weather Underground, at a forum on criminal justice issues. Dohrn, today is an associate professor and director at Northwestern University's Children and Justice Center.

On the August 29 edition of Fox News Sunday, Speaker Dennis Hastert attempted to bring up the subject of Soros and his mysterious money.

Referring to the millions of dollars that Soros has provided to controversial "527" groups which can spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Bush, Hastert said that "we don't know where the money comes from" and that, "For all we know, funding for some of the 527s might come from foreign sources or worse."

Hastert said, "You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where—if it comes from overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." This came in response to host Chris Wallace asking, "You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?"

After Soros demanded an apology from Hastert and threatened a libel suit over the remarks, Hastert responded, "I never implied that you were a criminal and I never would, that's not my style." Hastert said "drug groups" was a reference to Soros' involvement in the international drug legalization movement, including organizations such as the Drug Policy Alliance and the Andean Council of Coca Leaf Producers (CAPHC), a group favoring legal cultivation of coca. Mark Falcoff of the American Enterprise Institute describes CAPHC as "a front organization for the coca growers that supply drug traffickers with the raw materials they need to produce cocaine."

Jonathan E. Kaplan of The Hill newspaper, which is influential on Capitol Hill, tried to get Soros off the hook by stating, "Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) say that no company official in Soros's investment fund is involved in a criminal proceeding or a party to a civil proceeding."

But this presents a misleading picture of Soros and his alleged involvement in questionable activities. Kaplan neglected to point out that Soros was convicted of insider trading in France, and that Connie Bruck reported in her 1995 New Yorker article that Soros had been fined $75,000 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

What's more, Kaplan's defense of Soros ignores his affiliation with off-shore entities operating outside of SEC jurisdiction.

Legally, of course, Soros can promote acceptance of illegal activities. For his involvement in the campaign to legalize drugs, he has been labeled the "Daddy Weedbucks" of the movement by a drug culture magazine.

Soros favors a plan whereby governments would legalize drugs and then tax, control and distribute them. There would have to be an official infrastructure in place to finance drug production and distribution and handle the enormous profits that will be made from legalization. Legalization will not eliminate drug profits, it will only transfer them to government and "legitimate" industries. Soros could be poised to invest in those industries and companies.

It is noteworthy that the Soros-supported Drug Policy Alliance supports "marijuana clubs" currently dispensing the drug, supposedly on "medical" grounds. The federal government has tried to close down these clubs—a policy that could change if Kerry is elected. Several states have passed "medical marijuana" initiatives, attempting to provide the drug under the cover of treating illnesses. Kerry is a supporter of "medical marijuana" and believes in "responsible" drug use.

While an ingredient of marijuana (marinol) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medical use, it is ridiculous and dangerous to assume that smoking the marijuana plant, which has even more carcinogens than tobacco, is beneficial. The use of marijuana has been linked to mental problems and even mental illness.

But the "medical marijuana" campaign shows how Soros has successfully used his wealth and power for political purposes.

Deception

When Soros got involved in the effort to legalize narcotics, he instructed his followers to target "a few winnable issues," such as the "medical marijuana" issue. Notes of a forum on "media strategies" held in November 1992 are extremely revealing. "Don't talk legalization," the notes say. Activists were told to avoid admitting they favor legalization because "only 10%—15% of the people favor legalization." Instead, it was advised that they argue against "prohibition" of drugs and "paint ridiculous extremes" by claiming that there are too many people in jail for drug offenses and too much money is being spent on drug prosecutions. Also, they are supposed to focus on the plight of "drug prisoners" wasting away in prison.

Typically, they present the current "war on drugs" as draconian, a huge waste of money and a threat to civil liberties. Legalization is then presented, usually couched in terms of reducing the harm associated with illegal use and procurement of drugs. The audience is never presented with a third option—eradication of drug crops at home and abroad, tougher sentences for users and dealers, and more drug testing.

The next wave of pro-drug legalization propaganda is already in motion, an emphasis on the "human rights" of alleged drug users and traffickers. Ethan Nadelmann told High Times magazine that he "arranged" for Soros to provide $450,000 to Human Rights Watch "for their first-ever project on the abuses of the War on Drugs worldwide." One Human Rights Watch report examined charges that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was complicit in a campaign by the Bolivian police to violate the human rights of drug traffickers.

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

Today, Soros and his allies in NORML and other such organizations stand on the verge of achieving national political power. Their success could mean a radical change in the nation's anti-drug policy.

What You Can Do

Send cards and letters of your own choosing to John Harris of the Post and Chris Matthews of MSNBC. Also, be sure to order the AIM film, "Confronting Iraq."

Mr. John Harris
The Washington Post
1150 15th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20071

Mr. Chris Matthews
MSNBC
400 N. Capitol St. N.W.
Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20001http://www.aim.org/aim_report_print/1982_0_4_0/