(english / italiano)
George Soros non ha ancora finito di fare danni
Il sollievo per la sconfitta elettorale di Bush alle recenti elezioni parlamentari USA è durato poco. Infatti, subito ci è giunta la notizia della ventilata candidatura del criminale di guerra Wesley Clark per i Democratici alle presidenziali 2008. Clark, che diresse la aggressione della NATO contro la RF di Jugoslavia, ha ricevuto 75mila dollari di... sottoscrizione dal magnate George Soros, finanziatore della disinformazione strategica su scala globale e regista della destabilizzazione in tanti paesi invisi al regime statunitense.
Speriamo di poter credere a Soros quando dice che "per il futuro" non intende più occuparsi di politica. Magari però continuerà ad occuparsene ed a fare danni, anche semplicemente canalizzando i suoi investimenti miliardari verso media ed intellettuali al servizio dei pre-potenti. (a cura di Italo Slavo)
1) October 2006: George Soros Backs Wesley Clark for President
OTTOBRE 2006: 75 MILIONI DI DOLLARI DA SOROS A W. CLARK
2) April 2005: Soros Foundation Given $30 Million by US Government
APRILE 2005: 30 MILIONI DAL GOVERNO USA A GEORGE SOROS
3) February 2003: Georgia, Labor Party against ‘Sorosization’ of Supreme Court
FEBBRAIO 2005: SOROS SI COMPRA LA GEORGIA (QUELLA DEL CAUCASO...)
4) 2003: A profile of George Soros, by Neil Clark
RETROSPETTIVA SU GEORGE SOROS
ALTRI LINK:
George Soros, Ted Turner Pay for Journalism Prizes (by Cliff Kincaid)
Soros To 'Democratize' Moldova
Tajik Administration Complains about Soros (by Cihan Dushanbe)
Preemptive Anti-Coup Moves: Central Asian Nations Thwart Soros Foundation
Central Asia Speaks: SOROS Falls from Grace in Central Asia
Kyrgyzstan Prepares for Elections: Soros Tells Kyrgyz President To Step Down
NUMEROSI ARTICOLI SU SOROS SONO STATI FATTI CIRCOLARE SU JUGOINFO NEGLI SCORSI ANNI: PROVATE CON UNA RICERCA TESTUALE NEL NOSTRO ARCHIVIO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
=== 1 ===
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/16/95749.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2714-1
Monday, Oct. 16, 2006 9:55 a.m. EDT
George Soros Backs Wesley Clark for President
In late September billionaire investor George Soros – who spent more than $25 million in an attempt to defeat President Bush in 2004 – said he was resolved to stay out of politics in the future.
But before declaring that he was leaving the political stage, Soros contributed $75,000 to former four-star general Wesley Clark, who is poised to mount a bid for the White House in 2008.
The donation came to light in a report filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Oct. 15. The gift, given to a political group led by Clark, is the largest known gift from Soros this year to a political organization affiliated with a contender for the presidency, according to the New York Sun.
"In the future, I’d very much like to get disengaged from politics,” Soros said at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in New York in September.
=== 2 ===
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200504\SPE20050425a.html
Soros Foundation Given $30 Million by US Government
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 25, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - The Open Society Institute, a private foundation controlled by liberal billionaire and political activist George Soros, received more than $30 million from U.S. government agencies between 1998 and 2003. Last year, Soros donated at least $20 million of his own money to such liberal groups as Moveon.org, in a failed attempt to block the re-election of President George W. Bush.
Tax records the Open Society Institute (OSI) is required to file with the Internal Revenue Service list "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" as "Contributors" of amounts between $4.6 million and $8.9 million over a six year period:
* 1998 - $4,611,617
* 2000 - $4,934,678
* 2001 - $5,869,809
* 2002 - $6,138,125
* 2003 - $8,889,802
The amounts total $30,454,031. Records from 1999 and 2004 were not immediately available.
Cybercast News Service asked OSI to provide a detailed list of its funding from U.S. government agencies, the records from 1999 and 2004 and an explanation of how the money has been spent. The foundation did not reply to multiple requests for the information.
In an online document entitled Building Donor Partnerships [http://www.osi.hu/partnerships/2_4.html], OSI explains how its various subsidiaries, called "national foundations," can get funding and other support from the governments in their home nations:
* Public financing can be used to co-fund, expand or ensure sustainability of programs initiated by the national foundation.
* When a government cannot provide funds, it can allocate land, use of facilities, media time or staff to a donor partnership.
* Governments can waive or reduce taxes and duties for efforts of the Soros foundations.
* Governments can publicize the programs or requests of the national foundation through official channels, often at no charge.
OSI has apparently applied this strategy in the U.S., as well. The foundation received 1.4 to 4.4 percent of its annual contributions between 1998 and 2003 from American taxpayer funding. Various State Department documents indicate that OSI has been paid to run what the department describes as "democratization programs" in a number of countries.
"The Open Society Institute receives funding from the United States," a State Department press statement [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/31765.htm] declared, "and has spent close to $22 million in Uzbekistan in order to help build a vibrant civil society."
Another report [http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/burma/26017.htm] explained that "The United States also supports organizations, such as ... the Open Society Institute ... working inside and outside the (Burmese) region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities."
A State Department Fact Sheet [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/15560.htm] also described "an HIV/AIDS prevention program carried out jointly with the Open Society Institute and Soros-Kazakhstan Foundation that targets high-risk populations" in Central Asia. The website of the U.S. Agency for International Development also lists numerous projects conducted in cooperation with OSI.
On the "About Us" page of its website, the Soros-controlled foundation explains that it exists "to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights and economic, legal and social reform."
Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), told Cybercast News Service that any seemingly positive activities Soros-controlled groups engage in should be kept in perspective.
"Congress should keep in mind that this is the same organization that supports numerous hard-left radical activities in the United States and abroad," Boehm said. "The Open Society Institute gave $20,000 to the defense fund for Lynne Stewart, (who was) accused of working with the terrorists who planned the original World Trade Center attack."
Boehm said the numerous left of center political activities supported by OSI include "drug legalization efforts, pro-abortion policies and numerous other controversial causes." OSI tax records show contributions of:
* $4.41 million to the American Civil Liberties Union and its state affiliates,
* $500,000 to the Pro-Choice Education Project to launch a (pro-abortion rights) "public education and media strategy,"
* $100,000 to the Death Penalty Information Center, an organization that works against capital punishment,
* $100,000 to Catholics for a Free Choice, a religious group that advocates for abortion rights,
* $100,000 to the Pennsylvania Coalition to Save Lives Now "to support needle exchange programs,"
* $80,000 over three years to the Gay Straight Alliance Network, to promote "a traveling photo documentary exhibit by lesbian, gay, transgender, queer and questioning youth,"
* $45,000 to the Democracy Matters Institute "to bring the campaign finance reform movement to college campuses,"
* $50,000 to the Coalition for an International Criminal Court "to promote education, awareness and acceptance of the International Criminal Court," and
* $35,000 to the Abortion Access Project.
Boehm also criticized taxpayer dollars going to the Soros-controlled entity, because of the overt, partisan political activities Soros supports.
"George Soros also has been the 'Daddy Warbucks' of numerous left-wing political campaigns in the past year," Boehm said.
As Cybercast News Service previously reported [http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/Archive/200402/POL20040224b.html], Soros pledged millions of dollars from his own estimated $7 billion personal fortune to the failed efforts to derail President Bush's re-election bid through various tax-exempt political action committees such as MoveOn.org. Boehm described the expenditures as "the height of hypocrisy.
"Soros has bankrolled the groups that have lobbied for limits on political giving and for disclosure," Boehm said [http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/Archive/200501/POL20050119a.html]. "But he apparently believes that the law should only apply to other people, and not to himself."
Asked about the seemingly contradictory spending, Soros was unapologetic.
"I am not violating either the letter of the law or the spirit," he said before the 2004 election in an interview with Time magazine. "The letter, because the institutions that I'm supporting were there before I started supporting them, the spirit, because campaign-finance regulation has been designed to deny access to special interests, and by supporting these organizations, I gain no access."
On Jan. 18, 2005, NLPC filed a 41-page complaint against Soros with the Federal Election Commission. Boehm said at the time that Soros' multi-city, anti-Bush media tour was "possibly the largest off-the-books independent expenditure ever run."
"It's especially important that the FEC look at it, because it occurred the month before a very close election in key swing states," Boehm said. "Disclosure is the absolute heart of campaign finance law, and Soros' anti-Bush campaign could have potentially shifted the outcome of the presidential election."
Neither that allegation, nor any other formal complaint has accused Soros' Open Society Institute of using taxpayer funding to pay for anti-Bush political activities. Soros continues to deny any wrongdoing.
Regardless, Boehm believes the combination of Soros' left leaning ideology and partisan political involvement should make the federal government reconsider funding any organization he controls.
"It's hard to believe the State Department couldn't find a more credible organization to carry out these projects. There usually is not a shortage of non-governmental institutions seeking taxpayer money," Boehm concluded. "Selecting a group led by someone with such a strong political agenda, and which funds so many controversial ideological activities, is, well, short sighted."
Multiple calls to the State Department and United States Agency for International Development, which have both funded OSI, were not returned.
=== 3 ===
Daily Georgian Times - February 21, 2005
Labor Party against ‘Sorosization’ of Supreme Court
Georgian Labor Party protests against appointment of
Kote Kublashvili as Chairman of Georgian Supreme Court
and speaks about ‘Soros-ization’ of the Court.
Party activists held a protest rally in front of the
Supreme Court building on Monday showing Party’s
negative attitude towards Kublashvili.
Labor party leader Giorgi Gugava stated that by
appointing Kote Kublashvili as Chairman of Georgian
Supreme Court, Mr. George Soros has actually become
the Court’s Chairman. They say that Kublashvili is a
longstanding Soros affiliate and he was a person
distributing Soros’s money among Georgian authorities.
=== 4 ===
New Statesman (London)
www.newstatesman.co.uk
Monday, June 02, 2003
Profile - George Soros
The billionaire trader has become eastern Europe's uncrowned king and
the prophet of ''the open society''. But open to what? George Soros
profiled by Neil Clark
George Soros is angry. In common with 90 per cent of the world's
population, the Man Who Broke the Bank of England has had enough of
President Bush and his foreign policy. In a recent article in the
Financial Times, Soros condemned the Bush administration's policies on
Iraq as "fundamentally wrong" - based as they were on a "false
ideology that US might gave it the right to impose its will on the
world".
Wow! Has one of the world's richest men - the archetypal amoral
capitalist who made billions out of the Far Eastern currency crash of
1997 and who last year was fined $2m for insider trading by a court in
France - seen the light in his old age? (He is 72.) Should we pop the
champagne corks and toast his conversion?
Not before asking what really motivates him. Soros likes to portray
himself as an outsider, an independent-minded Hungarian emigre and
philosopher-pundit who stands detached from the US military-industrial
complex. But take a look at the board members of the NGOs he organises
and finances. At Human Rights Watch, for example, there is Morton
Abramowitz, US assistant secretary of state for intelligence and
research from 1985-89, and now a fellow at the interventionist Council
on Foreign Relations; ex-ambassador Warren Zimmerman (whose spell in
Yugoslavia coincided with the break-up of that country); and Paul
Goble, director of communications at the CIA-created Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty (which Soros also funds). Soros's International
Crisis Group boasts such "independent" luminaries as the former
national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Allen, as
well as General Wesley Clark, once Nato supreme allied commander for
Europe. The group's vice-chairman is the former congressman Stephen
Solarz, once described as "the Israel lobby's chief legislative
tactician on Capitol Hill" and a signatory, along with the likes of
Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to a notorious letter to President
Clinton in 1998 calling for a "comprehensive political and military
strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime".
Take a look also at Soros's business partners. At the Carlyle Group,
where he has invested more than $100m, they include the former
secretary of state James Baker and the erstwhile defence secretary
Frank Carlucci, George Bush Sr and, until recently, the estranged
relatives of Osama Bin Laden. Carlyle, one of the world's largest
private equity funds, makes most of its money from its work as a
defence contractor.
Soros may not, as some have suggested, be a fully paid-up CIA agent.
But that his companies and NGOs are closely wrapped up in US
expansionism cannot seriously be doubted.
So why is he so upset with Bush? The answer is simple. Soros is angry
not with Bush's aims - of extending Pax Americana and making the world
safe for global capitalists like himself - but with the crass and
blundering way Bush is going about it. By making US ambitions so
clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game
away. For years, Soros and his NGOs have gone about their work
extending the boundaries of the "free world" so skilfully that hardly
anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of overzealous neo-cons
have blown it.
As a cultivated and educated man (a degree in philosophy from the
London School of Economics, honorary degrees from the Universities of
Oxford, Yale, Bologna and Budapest), Soros knows too well that empires
perish when they overstep the mark and provoke the formation of
counter-alliances. He understands that the Clintonian approach of
multilateralism - whereby the US cajoles or bribes but never does
anything so crude as to threaten - is the only one that will allow the
empire to endure. Bush's policies have led to a divided Europe, Nato
in disarray, the genesis of a new Franco-German-Russian alliance and
the first meaningful steps towards Arab unity since Nasser.
Soros knows a better way - armed with a few billion dollars, a handful
of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is
perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for
business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your
benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it.
The conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism
collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the
political elite's failure to build popular support. That may be partly
true, but Soros's role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a
year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77
in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he
founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped
millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media.
Ostensibly aimed at building up a "civil society", these initiatives
were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the
way for eastern Europe's eventual colonisation by global capital.
Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was
responsible for the "Americanisation" of eastern Europe.
The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned
Slobodan Milosevic's unreformed Socialist Party to government. Soros
was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute
channelled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic
opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and
"independent" media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio
station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of
the world's richest men on behalf of the world's most powerful nation.
With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d'etat financed, planned
and executed in Washington, all that was left was to cart the
ex-Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along
with those other custodians of human rights Time Warner Corporation
and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes
and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of
(you've guessed it) Human Rights Watch.
Soros stresses his belief in the "open society" propounded by the
philosopher Karl Popper, who taught him at the LSE in the early 1950s.
Soros's definition of an "open society" - "an imperfect society that
holds itself open to improvement" - sounds reasonable enough; few
lovers of genuine liberty would take issue with its central tenet that
"the open society is a more sophisticated form of social organisation
than a totalitarian one". But Soros's "open societies" don't tend to
be all that open in practice.
Since the fall of Milosevic, Serbia, under the auspices of
Soros-backed "reformers", has become less, not more, free. The
recently lifted state of emergency saw more than 4,000 people
arrested, many of them without charge, political parties threatened
with bans, and critical newspapers closed down. It was condemned by
the UN Commission on Human Rights and the British Helsinki Group. But
there was not a murmur from the Open Society Institute or from Soros
himself. In fairness, Soros has been far more critical of his former
protege Leonid Kuchma, president of the Ukraine, a country described
by the former intelligence officer Mykola Melnychenko as "one big
protection racket", and now possibly the most repressive police state
in Europe.
But generally the sad conclusion is that for all his liberal quoting
of Popper, Soros deems a society "open" not if it respects human
rights and basic freedoms, but if it is "open" for him and his
associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every
country he has helped to prise "open". In Kosovo, for example, he has
invested $50m in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine
complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other
minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5bn. He thus copied a
pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern
Europe: of advocating "shock therapy" and "economic reform", then
swooping in with his associates to buy valuable state assets at
knock-down prices.
More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Soros is the
uncrowned king of eastern Europe. His Central European University,
with campuses in Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and exchange programmes
in the US, unashamedly propagates the ethos of neoliberal capitalism
and clones the next pro-American generation of political leaders in
the region. With his financial stranglehold over political parties,
business, educational institutions and the arts, criticism of Soros in
mainstream eastern European media is hard to find. Hagiography is not.
The Budapest Sun reported in February how he had been made an honorary
citizen of Budapest by the mayor, Gabor Demszky. "Few people have done
to Budapest what George Soros has," gushed Demszky, saying that the
billionaire had contributed to "structural and mental changes in the
capital city and Hungary itself". The mayor failed to add that Soros
is also a benefactor of Demszky's own party, the Free Democrats,
which, governing with "reform" communists, has pursued the classic
Soros agenda of privatisation and economic liberalisation - leading to
a widening gap between rich and poor.
The Soros strategy for extending Pax Americana differs from the Bush
model, particularly in its subtlety. But it is just as ambitious and
just as deadly. Left-liberals, admiring his support for some of their
favourite issues such as gay rights and the legalisation of soft
drugs, let him off lightly.
Asked about the havoc his currency speculation caused to Far Eastern
economies in the crash of 1997, Soros replied: "As a market
participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences of my
actions." Strange words from a man who likes to be regarded as the
saviour of civil society and who rails in print against "market
fundamentalism".