Archive

Monthly Archives: July 2012

By Herman Cain     (Rock me like a Herman Cain!)

President Obama says very strange things, especially for a guy who presumably wants very badly to be re-elected.

As if it weren’t enough that he last week went off on small business owners for having pride in their accomplishments, this week he actually told a rally audience in reference to the economy – with a straight face – “We tried our plan, and it worked.” 

It almost seems gratuitous to start citing all the numbers that obliterate this claim – the 8.2 percent unemployment, the anemic 1.5 percent GDP growth last quarter, the soaring federal deficit that will top $1 trillion yet again this year. It’s like when the head coach of a 1-15 NFL team tries to make the case that his team is really good. Why sit there and debate him? You just nod your head and think to yourself, “Whatever you say, Coach.”

Yet I think Obama demonstrates something important about himself, and about many politicians like him, when he makes such a claim. For certain people who are so deeply steeped in their ideology, their plan cannot conceivably have failed because their ideas are correct by definition. If they tried their plan and the economy is still awful, it must be because someone else came along and messed up their unassailable brilliance.

The stimulus didn’t produce enough economic growth? Republicans wouldn’t let them spend even more!

The deficit is still out of control? Republicans won’t let them raise taxes on the rich!

Unemployment is still way too high? Greedy businesses are hording cash and not hiring people!

Regulation is crushing business growth? Those horrible CEOs need to stop resisting the government’s wise rules and do what they’re told.

When you’re convinced from the start that your ideas are foolproof, and that any failure must be the result of sabotage, then you’re relieved of the burden of ever reassessing your ideas. They can’t possibly be the problem! They’re right!

Of course, in spite of the fact that Obama makes all of the above excuses, he does not acknowledge that overall failure has occurred. Remember, “It worked.” That’s what he said.

And this is the other side of the pathological equation. You and I look at the horrible numbers and say, “That sure doesn’t look like success to me.” All Obama has to do is claim the numbers would have been even worse without his policies. It’s absurd, but you can’t prove it’s untrue, so it’s good enough for him. He can point to the collapse of the mortgage market, the sharp decline in GDP that occurred during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the rapid collapse that was occurring when he took office – and then he can claim to have stemmed the tide.

When you point out that his is the weakest economic recovery in a century, he and his supporters claim that the so-called “Great Recession” was a unique and special event and that the usual rapid recovery we see after recessions should have not been expected in this case.

Of course, the Obama administration’s own predictions belie that claim. In 2009, they said they needed to pass the stimulus to keep unemployment from topping 8 percent. After the stimulus passed, it soared above 10 percent and still hasn’t fallen below 8 percent. Oops! They predicted economic growth this year would be 3 percent. Half way through the year, it’s less than 2 percent and it’s just about statistically impossible it will get anywhere near 3 percent. Never mind!

This is failure no matter how you cut it. But you can’t tell that to Obama and his economic team. They decided long ago that their ideas never fail and cannot fail. You picture Obama like the mad professor standing alone in his lab and looking befuddled because his latest concoction didn’t perform whatever magic function he was expecting: “No! It can’t be wrong! It has to work!”

That mad professor is going to try the same concoction again and again, convinced that he will get the result he wants – no matter how brutally the facts smack him in the face. And if re-elected, Obama will do the same. Even now, when he desperately needs to come up with something that will sell the voters on re-electing him, all he can come up with is more spending proposals and more class warfare. It’s the same stuff he’s been doing since he took office, and the rest of us can see that it hasn’t worked – but don’t tell that to the mad professor.

He is always right. The problem is the rest of you – you ungrateful business owners, you rascally Republicans, you dumb people who don’t really know how much worse it would have been without Obama’s steady hand at the wheel.

The rest of us sit there with jaws on the floor, thinking, “Did he really say that?” But it makes perfect sense to the pathological mad professor who is sadly alone in recognizing his own brilliance.

Mr. President, on what occasion do you lie?”

That was Barbara Walters during her painfully fawning interview with Barack and Michelle Obama last Dec. 23.

For ABC News “20/20′s” “Christmas at the White House” segment, the president and first lady were seated on a couch – relaxed, jovial, holding hands – their West Wing surroundings magnificently decorated for the holidays with dozens of exquisitely adorned Christmas trees and “visions of sugar-plums” everywhere.

Walters got the interview rolling with tough questions like (to Obama), “If you were a superhero and you could have one super power, what would it be?” (Answer: “flying.”) And (to the first lady), “If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would you want it to be?” (Answer: “Bo,” the family dog.) And (to both of them), “I’m looking at you. You’re holding hands. That’s very sweet. How many years married?”

“Twenty, next year,” said Obama. “And [you] still hold hands?” rejoined the adoring Walters. “Absolutely,” replied Obama.

Then, against this backdrop of irresistible holiday warmth and good cheer, came the big question:

“Mr. President,” Walters inquired delicately, “on what occasion do you lie?”

“Usually, the only time I lie,” responded Obama, “is very personal interactions with family members, [when] you say, ‘You look great,’ and they don’t. ‘Wonderful dress …’ Uh, not so much.”

Chimed Michelle: “Things where the truth would hurt other people.”

“Right,” echoed Obama, “the things where truth would hurt other people. Not too many big things. I said during the campaign that I’ll always tell you what I think, and I will, always tell you where I stand. I’m not perfect, but you’ll know what I believe.”

There you have it, folks. Welcome to The Matrix – where the elite media specialize in creating virtual reality scenes like this one, which are so pleasant and seem so real … except that they bear virtually no resemblance to reality.

For there, seated in the midst of this elegant, Norman Rockwell-esque Christmas setting, was Barack Obama, the perpetually churning and discontented radical, taking a needed break from his relentless campaign to “fundamentally transform” – that means destroy – the American way of free enterprise and free people. Barack Obama, the man who lies as easily as breathing – a serial deceiver regarding his birth, his childhood, his education, his influences and associations, his religion, his accomplishments, his policies, his true beliefs and his plans for America’s future. Barack Obama, the man whose entire presidency has been a seamless fabric of deception and duplicity, tells Barbara Walters and the American people that the only time he lies is to protect a family member from hurt feelings by occasionally offering reassurance that an unflattering dress is “wonderful.”

Wow.

The level of ongoing media dishonesty in covering Barack Obama is, of course, surreal. But let us now focus our attention on the man who is, in all likelihood, the most perfectly dishonest person ever to occupy the Oval Office.

After all, the correct answer to Walters’ question is obvious. When does Obama lie? Every single time he speaks to the American people.

Indeed, as another long-time ABC News personality, Pulitzer prize-winning columnist George Will, pointed out recently in the Washington Post: “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy – his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth – should no longer startle.”

“Sociopathy” is a strong word, but used by many to describe Obama – not necessarily as a clinical psychiatric diagnosis, but just because the symptoms fit so darn well, as per this typical description: “Sociopaths are often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Remind you of anyone?

A vital, creative power

One veteran psychiatrist I know suggested a slightly different diagnosis for Obama, but similar to “sociopathy” in many ways – namely, “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signifies the version of “narcissistic personality disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.

He even reviewed with me a list of some of the major symptoms of NPD, comparing them with Obama’s behavior as president. Among the key markers: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama is “historic”), 2) an utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing Obama or his policies is attacked as extremist or racist, his White House even condemning Fox News as “not a real news organization”), and 3) lack of genuine empathy (Obama gave a televised speech on the day of the Fort Hood terror attack in which a Muslim U.S. Army major shot 45 Americans, 13 fatally. With the entire nation reeling in shock and yearning for strong, reassuring words from their commander in chief, Obama instead engaged in small talk and an inane “shout-out” for two full minutes before even mentioning that the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 had just occurred hours earlier.)

To be sure, many mainstream analysts, including Pulitzer-winning columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, have repeatedly pointed to Obama’s extreme narcissism. Regardless of the “diagnosis,” one thing is certain: We’re talking about a person who absolutely does not consider serial lying to be in any way immoral or problematic.

Far from it. For a super-ambitious and vainglorious person such as Obama, lying is a vital and creative power. Lies open doors that would otherwise remain shut. Thus in a very real sense, for Obama, lies are “magic words,” the invocation of which represents the exercise of real power – power to impress voters, raise money, demonize critics, win elections, pass legislation and transform a nation. Ordinary people don’t possess this power, as they are constrained from such brazen lying by their conscience and/or the fear of being caught. But a highly narcissistic person like Obama feels he has the freedom – indeed, the mandate – to reshape America by creatively speaking into existence his preferred version of reality, without regard for any higher standard of truth. In other words, to lie.

Here’s how psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., explains it in his classic best-seller, “People of the Lie”:

Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. “Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.

… In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.

The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.

As we will now see, Obama has been preparing to “control others” for a long time.

‘I serve as a blank screen’

In his second autobiography “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama makes an audacious admission: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” While it’s amazing that anyone could openly brag about such a manipulative life-strategy, Obama has long cultivated his appealing yet ambiguous public persona in preparation for a career as political messiah. For instance, he voted “present” no less than 129 times while a member of the Illinois state Senate to avoid taking a position that might alienate one side or the other – including on bills he had supported and even sponsored! Taking a position, you see, might have compromised the purity and universality of his “blank screen,” which would one day serve to reflect the aspirations for “hope” and “change” of millions of Americans.

Appearing as all things to all people has been key to Obama’s meteoric rise, requiring constant deception. As one blogger put it recently:

He is Muslim, he is Christian, he is a capitalist, he is a socialist, he is black, he is white, … he is a constitutional professor, he is an average collegian who smoked dope and did cocaine, he is a foreigner, he is American-born, he is “EVERYMAN.”

With America now in precipitous decline on his watch, many have tried to explain the enigma of Obama and his prodigious ability to lie so confidently, comfortably and continually:

  • Some cite the disturbing degree to which Obama manifests full-blown clinical symptoms of narcissism and/or sociopathy, as previously discussed.
  • Some cite his far-left ideology: Whether you label it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, left-wing radicalism, Marxism, communism, anti-capitalism, European-style social democracy or statism, leftist “true believers” have always justified as moral not just lying, but ruthless suppression of dissent, violence and tyranny – as long as these measures seemed to advance their glorious utopian cause. “Exhibit A” for this point would be the entire 20th century.
  • Some cite Obama’s childhood, which was awful, and others cite his early influences, which were more awful. A Berkeley, Calif., psychotherapist who writes under the pseudonym Robin of Berkeley weighs in this way:

My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.

But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.

With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates – that is, disconnects from his being – in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.

Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse – for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.

Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.

  • Some cite Obama’s religious background – his 20-year affiliation with his “spiritual mentor,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached raw hatred of America, capitalism and white people, and whose “black liberation theology” gospel amounted to Afro-centric Marxism dressed up with Bible verses. Complicating this picture and suggesting even more questions is the well-documented fact that during his youth in Indonesia, Obama was raised and schooled as a Muslim.
  • Some cite his background in “Chicago politics” – a euphemism for wall-to-wall corruption and criminality. Indeed, the state of Illinois, where a staggering total of four recent governors – Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich – have gone to prison for corruption, remains a political cesspool to this day, as confirmed by a recent study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s political science department. Obama is a product of this legendarily corrupt “Chicago machine” and played the game ruthlessly while rising in the ranks there.
  • Some cite Obama’s education, the most important part of which, by his own admission, came via Saul Alinsky. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said of his years steeped in the Chicago Marxist’s revolutionary “community organizing” methods: “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”

In “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky counsels wannabe revolutionaries that they must be willing to ignore the dictates of their own conscience to advance the left’s agenda:

In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them.

That, friends, is one of the most twisted things I’ve ever heard. To believe it and act on it is to abandon your greatest gift, your moment-to-moment connection with the Living God – your conscience. Maybe that’s why Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

In the final analysis, Obama lies because that’s how he gets his way, and getting his way is all he cares about.

Editor’s note: The preceding is excerpted from a longer piece by David Kupelian in the July issue of Whistleblower magazine, “WHY OBAMA LIES: Exploring what’s behind the president’s glaring and unprecedented dishonesty.” One of Whistleblower’s most popular issues ever, “WHY OBAMA LIES” features groundbreaking analysis of President Obama by multiple psychiatrists who reveal him to be a seriously damaged, fundamentally dishonest and even delusional person, as well as a comprehensive list, running throughout the entire magazine, of Barack Obama’s lies, each followed by PROOF of the statement’s falsehood.

<:hgroup> Soros seizing world’s resources? Yes and he’s doing it with the US Military and Our Money!

Gold, oil interests raise questions as billionaire backs global revolutions

Published: 1 day ago

author-image by Aaron KleinEmail | Archive

Aaron Klein is WND‘s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York‘s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.More ↓Less ↑
 
soros11

Is former U.S. general and NATO commander Wesley Clark helping advance Hungarian-born billionaire activist George Soros’ political and economic interests overseas?

Clark is now advising Romania’s controversial prime minister, Victor Ponta, who has led a campaign to depose the country’s president.

Clark sits on the board of an energy company financed by Soros and works with the billionaire at the International Crisis Group, or ICG, which has supported the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa.

Soros, a key backer of the Occupy movement, has ties to companies that seek to mine for gold in Romania, although his non-profit groups have opposed those very mining efforts.

Soros also has ties to mining and oil exploration companies around the world, including in Uganda, where President Obama recently sent Special Forces to help kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army.

Prior to the deployment of U.S. forces, Soros’s ICG recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform, the very mission of the American troops now hunting for Kony.

Romanian gold

On Tuesday, European Union officials questioned the speed with which Romania’s Supreme Court upheld the Parliament’s decision to suspend Romanian President Traian Basescu, who was accused of overstepping his authority.

Basescu faces a vote later this month about whether to be removed from office permanently. He was also impeached in 2007 but survived a referendum.
“We are concerned by the speed and consequences of decisions taken over the last few weeks,” said EU spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen.

As prime minister, Ponta is Basescu’s main opposition. Ponta has been summoned to an EU meeting in Brussels tomorrow to his row with Basescu.

Ponta represents the left-leaning Social Democratic Party. He became prime minister in May and is now being advised by Clark.

Last Friday, Ponta boasted about his new star adviser in an interview with Romania’s TV channel Antenna 3.

“It is a big opportunity,” said Ponta. “General Clark is a great economist, involved at the highest level in economic strategy, a man that anyone would want and a chance no prime minister would ever miss. I promised him that we will solve the political crisis fast and still have an independent justice system.”

Clark is on the board of BNK Petroleum Ltd, a California-based oil company with offices in Canada, the Netherlands and Poland, and subsidiary companies throughout Europe. In 2010, Soros’ investment fund, Quantum Partners, paid $66 million to buy about one-fifth of BNK Petroleum.

Clark also serves on the board of the ICG alongside Soros.

WND previously reported how the ICG has been closely tied to uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa.

The Soros Foundation Romania, the billionare’s non-profit in the country, has long attempted to influence Romanian politics.

Strangely, just before Clark joined Ponta, Soros’ Romania foundation released a statement condemning Ponta’s actions to quickly depose Basescu. The statement slammed Ponta for “strong opinions, accusations and pressure tactics used by members of your cabinet on the judicial system, in cases currently before the courts or on final verdicts.”

Soros’s nonprofits, including the Open Society Institute’s Romanian offices, previously reportedly helped to fund environmental groups opposing a proposal by Gabriel Resources, a Canadian mining company that wants to develop its world-class Rosia Montana gold and silver project located in west central Romania.

The project has been stalled by Romanian political turmoil. Even while Soros groups actively worked against the mining project, in 2008, Newmont Mining, partially owned by Soros, bought an additional 1.5 percent in Gabriel Resources, bringing its holding in the company seeking to mine Romanian gold to 19.9 percent.

One year before his stepped up financing of the company, Soros write a letter to Newmont Mining’s CEO asking the company to not support the Romanian mining project.

The Gabriel Project is the largest undeveloped gold deposit in Europe. It’s owned by Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, a Romanian company in which Gabriel holds an 80.69 percent stake, with the other about 20 percent owned by CNCAF Minvest S.A., a Romanian state-owned mining enterprise.

In June, Romania’s finance minister, Daniel Chitoiu, visited Rosia Montana and stated he was “convinced” the Gabriel mining project will go ahead.

However, earlier this month, the Romania Insider reported that Ponta delayed the project, stating “the economy ministry meant to say the Rosia Montana project will not start this year, but he forgot to include the ‘not’ in the sentence.”

Soros also stepped up the purchase of gold worldwide. In May, it was reported the Soros Fund Management was optimistic on gold as it stocks up in bulk purchases of the precious metal.

Kosovo mine takeover

While Soros has publicly opposed the Romania mining project, his International Crisis group previously has supported takeovers of mines.

Newsbusters reported in 2007 that a few months after the NATO military occupation of Kosovo, which was commanded by Clark, the ICG issued a paper on “Trepca: Making Sense of the Labyrinth” which advised the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) “to take over the Trepca mining complex from the Serbs as quickly as possible and explained how this should be done.”

Indeed in August 2000, UNMIK head Bernard Kouchner sent in 3,000 troops to occupy the state-owned Trepca mine, described by the New York Times as “the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans.”

Soros fingerprints on U.S. military in Uganda

Last October, Obama sent a contingent of American troops into Uganda to help in the hunt for Kony. WND uncovered Soros’ ties both to the political pressure behind the decision and to the African nation’s fledgling oil industry.

Soros’s ICG recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform. The president emeritus of ICG is also the principal author of “Responsibility to Protect,” the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.

The doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.

Soros’ own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the International Criminal Court.

Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros, a major proponent of the doctrine.

Soros also maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda’s oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country’s leadership.

Soros’ hand in Ugandan oil industry

Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006.

Uganda’s Energy Ministry estimates the country has over 2 billion barrels of oil, with some estimates as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015, delayed from 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatory framework for the oil industry.

A 2008 national oil and gas policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil. However, the policy’s recommendations have been largely ignored, with critics accusing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of corruption and of tightening his grip on the African country’s emerging oil sector.

Soros himself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.

In 2008, the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders from Uganda and other East African countries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda’s national oil and gas policy.

Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.

Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP’s oil work.

PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda’s oil sector.

PWYP is directly funded by Soros’ Open Society as well as the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.

The billionaire’s Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to “identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals.”

U.S. troops to Uganda

The U.S. mission in Uganda is to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Kony.

Obama last year announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel “with appropriate combat equipment” deployed to Uganda. Other forces deploying include “a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel.”

“Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,” he said.

Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda

In April 2010, Soros’ International Crisis Group released a report sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising the U.S. military run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony’s capture.

The report states: “To the U.S. government: Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralizes all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the U.N. and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations.”

Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional countries to fight Kony’s LRA, but Obama’s deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement.

Soros sits in the ICG’s executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton’s former national security advisor; George J. Mitchell, former U.S. Senate majority leader who served as a Mideast envoy to both Obama and President Bush; and Javier Solana, a socialist activist who is NATO’s former secretary-general.

Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the ICG’s senior adviser.

The ICG’s president emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh Thakur, is the original founder of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. The duo coined the term.

Both Evans and Thakur serve as advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the main group pushing the doctrine.

As WND first exposed, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Soros’ Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Samantha Power, Arafat deputy

Meanwhile, a closer look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

WND was first to report the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines.

The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power’s center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya, widely regarded as test of Responsibility to Protect in action.

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”

The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various United Nations-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops who commit alleged “war crimes” overseas.

Soros: Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”

In the article Soros said, “True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.

“In particular,” he continued, “the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”

‘One World Order’

The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, meanwhile, works in partnership with the World Federalist Movement, a group that promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. The movement is a main coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect Center.

WND reported that responsibility-doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “Toward a new world order,” Thakur wrote, “Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution.”

He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, “Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions.”

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

“The West’s bullying approach to developing nations won’t work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia,” he wrote. “A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train.”

Thakur continued: “Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations.”

Thakur contended “the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of ‘superior’ Western power.”

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

link to the original!

The Car Guyz

Auto Industry Experts Playing for the Other Team ...You!

FOXNews.com

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Rush

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Breitbart News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Drudge Retort

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Fathers' Rights Blog

by Jeffery M. Leving

therightwingextremist

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: