Soros was described by the New Yorker as close to Harold Ickes, a former Clinton deputy chief of staff who runs the Media Fund, one of many Soros-supported "527" groups. Soros described him as a "real pro."
Away from the scrutiny or even the notice of the establishment press, Soros has emerged as a counter-culture hero.
The drug culture magazine, Heads, calls him "Daddy Weedbucks," ran an excerpt from his book, Soros on Soros, and declared that "he drops the bucks exactly where they're needed." The September-October issue of the drug culture magazine High Times recognizes the stakes, noting that there are "ten reasons to get rid of Bush" and that one is that there will be "No legalization of pot" under Bush. The implication of the article was that the situation would change under Kerry.
None of this is being reported, however, by the major media.
His partner, Peter Lewis, whitewashed by the Post as "one of the country's 10 most generous philanthropists," was actually arrested in New Zealand for "importing" drugs, including hashish and marijuana.
The Human Halliburton
The media call him a billionaire "philanthropist" who "promotes democracy" and "democratic institutions" abroad. He has been invited to address the National Press Club on October 28, 2004, just before the election. But admitted marijuana user George Soros, who says he tried marijuana "and enjoyed it," doesn't just "give" money away. He spends money for a purpose because he wants to remake America and the world. He is depicted in a recent lengthy New Yorker article by Jane Mayer as well-intentioned, not that concerned about money, the victim of scurrilous attacks, and someone who simply wants his "ideas" to "be heard." This is typical of the fawning coverage of Soros. Mayer made a brief reference to his collaborator, Peter B. Lewis, and his funding of "efforts to decriminalize marijuana," but she failed to explore how Soros is himself committed to legalizing dangerous drugs. Mayer did disclose that a meeting was held in August, after the Democratic Party convention, of what critics call a "billionaire conspiracy" to defeat Bush. Soros and Lewis were among the participants in the meeting, which was supposed to be kept private.
Soros' strong opposition to President Bush's effort to create democratic institutions in Iraq contradicts his alleged support for democracy. But the media don't point this out because they oppose Bush's Iraq policy. Mayer, who interviewed the billionaire at length, suggests that Soros may be "looking for influence [in a Kerry Administration] to get out of Iraq" but that to pursue such an objective in exchange for his financial support to the candidate might be deemed "not appropriate" by some observers.
It would be unwise for the public to dismiss the idea that he would not demand implementation of his other "ideas," including drug legalization.
Sometimes described as an atheist or agnostic, Soros has announced a vision of a secular "open society." However, his agenda of drug legalization has remained largely hidden from public view during the current campaign.
While Soros may not want to openly talk about what he would expect out of a Kerry Administration, his allies have obviously been giving it much thought.
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 John 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."
This is critical because the U.S. Supreme Court is already considering the matter of the several U.S. states that have laws on the books permitting some form of "medical marijuana" use, a violation of federal law, and could return to the subject in the future. The Court is expected to rule by June 2005 on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, challenged by the Bush administration, that bars federal agents from interfering with the growing and use of marijuana by two women in California.
Hollywood has already been captured by the illegal drug lobby.
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."
The challenge for the drug culture is now to capture the U.S. Government. Soros is their front man.
We pause that article, and cut now to the beginning of Kosovo: Islamism's New Beachhead? by Julia Gorin, Friday, February 22, 2008:
As Americans look quizzically at their TV sets while non-Muslim protestors in Europe torch a U.S. embassy, they should know that yesterday’s 200,000-person protest in Belgrade (whose members are separate from the fire starters) is the first time in two decades that Serbs are showing a glimmer of rational behavior--amid 20 years of the "free world" foisting terrorist neighbors upon them.
To put this in perspective, with advance apologies to any offended ethnic groups: How would Americans react if Latino gangs started ambushing police and killing government officials in California, and after a few years the U.S. sent in the troops because the gangs were outgunning the police force; following this, the gangsters started claiming atrocities—and so Russia and China bombed California and Washington in response to the "atrocities"; the foreign powers then occupied California for eight years while the gangs killed or expelled most of the non-Latinos in "revenge attacks," then backed a declaration of independence for California as a Mexican-majority state that may just unify with Mexico?
The current state of affairs is a product of a concerted, single-minded, bipartisan American effort to turn Serbs into an enemy as the U.S. tries to make friends of its enemies in the region, always at Serbian expense. "Will Russia now become the leader of the Europeans who resist the Islamization of their continent?" Thomas Landen asks in the Brussels Journal. He notes that Moscow has called on the UN to annul independence, and a UN vote may be the only thing to save us from a new world war over this Balkan province, ignored by the media and public for eight years as insignificant, despite the Balkans' history for setting off world wars.
"Indeed," continues Landen, "what will Russia do if the 16,000 NATO 'peacekeeping' troops in Kosovo attack the Serbian army when it attempts to recover its breakaway province? If Russia intervenes, then 2008 might become the year that war broke out between Russia and NATO. America, the EU, Europe's immigrant 'youths,' and Osama bin Laden would find themselves on one side, fighting Russia, China, and those Europeans who resist Islamization on the other."
Who could have envisioned such a sorry state of affairs on September 12, 2001? The answer is: anyone who noticed that our Balkan policies didn’t change following 9/11. We are now several years post-9/11, yet our government is creating Muslim states in Europe and is about to engage the United States military against European Orthodox Christians who don’t want to live under Muslim rule.
Why has the United States government, first under neolib Clinton, and now under neocon Bush, been following the same policy in the Balkans: supporting ethnic Albanian Kosovar leaders who have victimized fellow Kosovar Albanians as well as Serbs with "ethnic cleansing" -- ethnic Albanian Kosovar leaders who have extensive ties to narcotics-, human- and arms-traffickers, as well as connections to Islamic terrorists, including Sheikh Osama bin Laden?
And, what's the connection between all of this and the fact that George Soros, whose agenda is to legalize drugs, supported Senator Kerry for President in 2004? What's the connection to the fact that Soros has been betting on Senator Barack Obama all along, choosing Obama as the preferred candidate -- preferred even over Senator Hillary Clinton -- for President in 2008?
Do you think it has anything to do with that heroin bomb the Taliban threatened us with?
From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:
JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?
SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.
You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.
....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."
SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.
JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?
SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.
Crystal clear, indeed!
Stay tuned for Part 8.