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 : BuSab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (5289)11/11/2010 9:14:56 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23934
 
Soros's Role in Kenya Chaos

November 11, 2010 by Richard Poe glennbeck.com

In a series of investigative reports this week, Glenn Beck has been analyzing the five-point strategy by which George Soros and his Open Society Institute have destabilized and overturned governments in several countries, including Yugoslovia in 2000, Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine, in the so-called “Orange Revolution” of 2004. Compelling evidence indicates that Soros may have employed a similar strategy in Kenya, but with far more gruesome results.

Following Kenya’s disputed elections of December 2007, activists funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute demanded that the election be overturned. The country erupted into violence, leaving more than 1,100 people dead and some 350,000 homeless. Thousands were injured, tortured, mutilated and raped.

In his five-point regime-change strategy, Soros, 1) infiltrates countries with his operatives, under the cover of humanitarian aid; 2) takes control of the air waves by creating “independent media” under his own control; 3) destabilizes the targeted country with financial manipulations and political agitation, 4) waits for an election, then disrupts it with charges of voter fraud, then; 5) takes the streets with armies of activist youth whom Soros has recruited, trained and funded, all demanding that the incumbent step down. The formula often works. In theory, it is supposed to produce a “bloodless” coup, in which few people are killed or harmed. Things went tragically wrong in Kenya, however.

Soros began operations in Kenya in 2004. On June 1, 2005, he officially launched the Open Society Initiative for East Africa (OSIEA), with headquarters in Nairobi, and a budget of $1.1 million. An overriding goal of the new East African initiative was “to promote public participation in democratic governance” and to “promote conditions for a free, fair, and nonviolent general election in Kenya in 2007,” according to official announcements.

If indeed Soros wished to ensure a “free, fair and nonviolent” election for Kenya in 2007, he chose a curious way of going about it. His Kenyan activists followed the familiar five steps. As in previous operations, Soros began by mobilizing youth groups for political action and established what he called “independent media.”

His Youth Wake Up! campaign lured thousands of young people to all-day music events, which doubled as recruiting venues. Through the Youth Wake Up! program, Kenyan youth were instructed in “nonviolent political activism.” At the same time, Soros funded a youth radio station called Koch FM in Korogocho, “one of Nairobi’s largest and most violent slums,” as it was described in OSI’s 2005 annual report. Koch FM intermingled music broadcasts with coaching on techniques of “political participation.” The station’s signal was expected to reach over a million Nairobi slumdwellers. As it happened, Nairobi slums, including Korogocho, became epicenters of post-election violence in December 2007, as protesters battled riot police in the streets.

The election of December 27, 2007 pitted challenger Raila Odinga against sitting president Mwai Kibaki. Odinga led the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), which was reportedly named after Victor Yushchenko’s “Orange Revolution” in the Ukraine. The name is significant, since Yushchenko seized power through mass street demonstrations, after alleging voter fraud. Was Odinga planning a similar move?

In the December 2007 election, voting irregularities were reported on both sides. Kibaki claimed a narrow victory in a questionable vote count, and Odinga contested the results. Also contesting Kibaki’s victory was a coalition of Kenyan activist groups which would soon become known as Kenyans for Peace, Truth and Justice (KPTJ). KPTJ activist Shailja Patel later wrote, “Behind the scenes of KPTJ was civil society powerhouse, the Soros-funded Open Society Institute for East Africa.”
Patel writes:

“Within hours, they [KPTJ] had released a statement which denounced the credibility of the electoral process… and appealed to the international community not to recognize Kibaki as president. … The [KPTJ] direct action team would meet daily, defying the government ban on public assembly, providing a public forum for Kenyans across all sectors and ethnicities to channel their outrage into activism.”

Unfortunately, many Kenyans chose to “channel their outrage” into horrific acts of violence. Documents filed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) note that, “the attacks against the civilian population in Kenya were both widespread and systematic,” and were allegedly conducted “by members of organised groups associated with the main political parties” including Kibaki’s PNU party and Odinga’s ODM party. ICC documents state that, “Political leaders … allegedly recruited gangs of youths and transported them to strategic points to unleash terror, killing and destroying property belonging to [ethnic] communities aligned to the rival party.” In a two-month period, an estimated 1,133 people were killed, and 3,561 injured. Hundreds of women were raped, and hundreds of people tortured. About 350,000 were driven from their homes.

The Soros-funded KPTJ denies any responsibility for the violence. Still, the violence helped their cause. The election was overturned. International arbitrators negotiated a peace deal, in which Odinga now shares power with Kibaki. Once more, a team of Soros-funded activists managed to stop an election in its tracks. Once more, Soros altered a country’s destiny.
But this time, the price was high. Whether intentionally or not, Soros’ Kenya operation cost many lives.

Last month, Soros donated $1 million to a leftwing activist group called Media Matters for America. The money is to be used to muzzle Fox News, and, in particular, to silence talk show host Glenn Beck. Soros says that he donated the money because “the incendiary rhetoric of Fox News may incite violence.” Given what happened in Kenya, it is difficult to take Soros’ moralizing at face value.



To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (5289)11/12/2010 12:02:04 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23934
 
Seeking Guidance on Dodd-Frank’s Diversity Clause

By KEVIN ROOSE November 11, 2010
dealbook.nytimes.com

Representative Maxine Waters, proposed the provision in the Dodd-Frank Act to promote diversity.

As Wall Street scrambles to comply with the regulations of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, one little-noticed provision has executives scratching their heads.

The statute, included in Section 342 of the bill, creates 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion at the various regulatory agencies, including the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the 12 Federal Reserve banks and the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Once established, the offices are charged with monitoring the diversity at the agencies as well as at any contractors or subcontractors, including law firms, accounting firms and investment banks. These contracts, totaling in the billions a year, are typically awarded to private firms for services like debt issuances and sales of government assets, as well as more general advisory services.

Section 342 was proposed by Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, who argued that putting diversity regulators in the agencies would help to correct racial and gender imbalances at Wall Street firms, as well as in the subcontracting process.

“Qualified minority- and women-owned businesses continue to be excluded from contracting opportunities made available by the government’s historic intervention at banks and other financial institutions,” Ms. Waters said in a floor speech in 2009.

According to the bill’s text, if an agency’s compliance director concludes that a contractor has not made “a good faith effort to include minorities and women in its work force,” the agency head is authorized to cancel the contract, refer the matter to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs or take other unspecified remedial actions.

The clause also requires the agencies to recruit at historically black universities and women’s colleges, sponsor job fairs in urban communities and submit detailed yearly reports summarizing their diversity efforts to Congress.
Republican lawmakers criticized the provision when it was introduced, calling it another example of big-government social engineering.

“The problem with this clause is that it’s largely redundant,” said Lawrence Z. Lorber, an employment law specialist at the law firm Proskauer Rose. “Most of these firms and agencies are already covered by multiple nondiscrimination laws. If you require more extensive disclosure of diversity practices, what you’ll get is a lot of very long reports essentially saying the same thing.”

Mark A. Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, called the provision “a wild card.”
“The language of the clause is so vague that it could do nothing at all,” Mr. Calabria said. “But in the hands of a regulator who really wanted to make an issue out of diversity hiring, it could have a substantial impact.”

While Section 342 would require investment banks and other contractors to ensure “fair inclusion and utilization” of minorities and women, it does not define the term, nor does it offer concrete guidelines for firms seeking to comply with the regulations. Also unclear is how the clause’s requirements will differ from existing affirmative action laws, like those enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Dodd-Frank bill gives agency administrators until late January to appoint compliance directors who will develop standards for their agencies.

Several large banks declined to comment on their Section 342 compliance plans, and a Fed spokesman said only: “We’re currently working on setting up these offices according to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank bill.”

For guidance, banks and their compliance officers are looking to a similar clause in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which requires Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to submit finely detailed reports on the progress of their diversity efforts. Some suspect that Section 342 will impose similar requirements.

Karen L. Corman, a partner at Skadden, Arps who specializes in labor law, said that investment banks, law firms and other affected companies would have to find ways to take “meaningful views” of their work forces in the coming months, but believed it was unlikely that the regulations would result in quotas or other hard-line remedies.

“Until these regulations come out, we don’t know what the standards and remedies are going to look like,” Ms. Corman said. “Firms clearly need to review their diversity profiles and minority outreach programs to make sure everything’s within a range of acceptability. But beyond that, there’s not a lot of guidance.”

Despite the uncertainty around Section 342, some executives are looking forward to increased scrutiny of Wall Street’s hiring and subcontracting processes.

“No legislation is perfect,” said Jack Foster, managing director at CastleOak Securities, a minority-owned boutique investment firm. “But this is a good step forward for giving firms like us a chance to compete.”

At the very least, said Susan Ganz, president of the Financial Women’s Association of New York, a professional organization for women in banking and business, “it’s an opportunity to have the conversation about diversity in the financial sector. And maybe it will lead to action.”