Hillary and Kerry, Stewards of Soros Policy

Money buys influence and Soros has both. While much has been written and exposed on George Soros, at the very top U.S. leadership follows the Soros edict, follow my playbook and you will be rewarded.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry have all left a wake of destruction globally as they have been bought by George Soros. Most recently, matters relating to Israel, Russia and the European Union appear to defy logic, when upon a closer look, Soros is at the core of policy.

Quietly, last week, John Kerry welcomed and introduced George Soros at a conference held at the George C. Marshall Center to discuss matters on civil society. When Soros speaks, leadership listens and on the subject of civil society, Soros is dictating society according to his own objectives. None of those objectives are in keeping with America’s best interests. Obama, Hillary and Kerry are complete acolytes of Soros and obey his commands.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will introduce liberal megadonor George Soros at an open forum on Tuesday, the latest evidence of the billionaire using his political connections to benefit his investments and foreign policy goals, critics say.

Kerry will introduce Soros at the 1:30 p.m. forum on May 13 at the George C. Marshall Center in Washington, D.C., according to a State Department event notice.

Soros will discuss “strengthening civil society, democracy and the world economy” with Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Frantz following Kerry’s introduction.

Soros, a New York City hedge fund manager who amassed great wealth through his company Soros Fund Management, has used his foundation network—known as the Open Society Foundations (OSF)—to dispense more than $11 billion to groups abroad as well as numerous left-leaning U.S. groups in the last three decades.

He is perhaps the Democratic Party’s most famous donor, contributing almost $24 million to advocacy groups that supported Kerry’s failed presidential bid in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He also donated $1 million to the Priorities USA Action Super PAC that helped reelect President Barack Obama in 2012.

Critics say Soros leverages his political connections to increase the returns on his investments.

While Soros has increased his multi-million dollar investments in both U.S. and foreign companies that extract shale oil and gas, the Obama administration has championed natural gas as a less carbon-intensive bridge fuel toward a “clean-energy future.” The administration’s proposal to offer incentives to companies that use trucks powered by natural gas would benefit Westport Innovations, a company that converts diesel engines for natural gas use and is partially owned by Soros’ hedge fund.

Soros’ political advocacy also tends to blend with his investments. He proposed in 2009 that developed countries create a “green fund” to combat climate change in developing countries by directing billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) toward forestry, land-use, and agricultural projects. Soros’ fund controls more than a $200 million stake in Adecoagro, a Luxembourg-based company that owns hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in South America and would benefit from the IMF cash infusion.

Soros told the New Yorker in a 2004 interview that “there are occasionally symbiotic moments between political and business interests” that occur during his efforts to influence American policy.

Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and former Pentagon adviser in the George W. Bush administration, said in an email that he hopes “Kerry will take a long shower after the event” because hosting Soros is the “diplomatic equivalent of prostitution.”

Rubin said the optics of the event are “horrible” given Soros’ longstanding ties to the administration and his past record of marrying policy advocacy with business.

“If Kerry wants to sponsor a well-deserving guest at a State Department ‘open forum,’ why not someone like Malala Yousefzai, the young school girl whom the Taliban tried to murder?” he said. “Our diplomats could learn a thing or two about moral clarity from her; they certainly won’t from Soros.”

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told the Washington Free Beacon that criticisms of Soros’ appearance at the event are “wholly ridiculous and have no basis in fact whatsoever.”

“This is a regular secretary’s open forum event intended to inform and educate department employees,” Harf said in an email. “George Soros was invited to discuss his views on support of civil society.”

Harf noted that the forum has hosted “guests from diverse points of view” in the past, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, and Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson.

Soros’ actions abroad have also conflicted with traditional U.S. foreign policy stances, raising questions about his appearance at a State Department-sponsored forum.

The OSF have financially supported groups that support boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel and called it an “apartheid state,” according to a report last May by NGO Monitor.

The OSF network finances groups such as the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, a Gaza-based organization that regularly accuses Israel of being an “apartheid state” and refers to terror attacks on Israeli civilians as “resistance.”

Kerry was widely criticized last month after warning that Israel could become “an apartheid state” if it failed to reach a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

Additionally, Soros has financed opposition groups and media in countries such as Azerbaijan and Armenia, two countries that are still locked in a violent and decades-old territorial dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Soros’ involvement there prompted leaders to express concerns that he could further stoke tensions and contribute to another outbreak of war.

“He pursues his own vision, undisturbed by his effect on other nations or the interests of his own,” wrote Richard Miniter, a contributor to Forbes, in 2011. “It is hard for foreign governments to hold him accountable, and his goals and methods are usually kept secret.”


Soros wrote in his 2006 book, The Age of Fallibility: The Consequences of the War on Terror, that “the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”

Soros has an estimated net worth of $20 billion—much of it made through his controversial investment philosophy of making massive, highly leveraged bets on the direction of global financial markets. His involvement in the East Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s drew sharp rebukes from leaders in the region.

He is a major donor to the liberal Center for American Progress and an architect of the Democracy Alliance, a shadowy organization that disburses millions to left-leaning groups but does not disclose its donors.

Additionally, Soros has staked out controversial positions on social issues, calling in 2010 for the full legalization of marijuana in the United States.

Soros’ office did not respond to a request for comment.


George Soros

When it comes to Russia and Putin’s aggressive missions towards Crimea, Ukraine, the Baltic states, George Soros has his hands all over the policy of the United States and the European Union where the International Monetary Fund plays in the background.

The billionaire financier says in its tepid response to Russia’s Crimea land grab, the EU flubbed a key chance to breathe new life into the stale union.
George Soros, one of the world’s leading investors, has warned that the European Union is in danger of falling apart if it fails to confront Vladimir Putin’s naked aggression in Ukraine.

The billionaire financier told The Daily Beast that European governments should have seized on Russia’s land grab in Crimea to breathe new life into a union that is disintegrating and stumbling towards oblivion. Instead, he argued, squabbling European nations have failed to meet the challenge and continued to act in their own narrow self-interest. “Europe was totally unprepared for this crisis and Putin outmaneuvered Europe with no difficulty,” he said.

Soros, who became known as the Man Who Broke the Bank of England after making $1 billion by betting against Europe’s previous financial union, has long insisted that the Euro was being fatally mismanaged. His latest book, published this week, is entitled The Tragedy of the European Union. A loud supporter at the launch of the Euro currency and a cheerleader for a united Europe, Soros has been confounded by what he calls the “nightmare” reality 15 years after its introduction.

Speaking in London, he said it was heart-breaking to see European governments shrug their shoulders at the precise moment the continent was finally witnessing an unprecedented popular uprising in the name of the European Union. “Ukrainians have effectively proved that they are willing to sacrifice their lives to get closer to a Europe that is, at the same time, in the process of disintegration,” he said.

With Putin’s troops in Crimea and a referendum on joining Russia due to be held over the weekend, Soros said there was still time for Europe to act, and reinvigorate the European Union’s withering soul.

“I would argue passionately that [the European Union] should not be a failed experiment and events in Ukraine are a wake-up call to face that issue,” he said. “It’s a challenge, and I hope that Europe will respond to it and actually really rediscover its original mission because that’s what got lost in this distortion that has occurred.”

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, indicated that Europe was willing to increase pressure on the Kremlin on Thursday during her most emotional and strident speech since the start of the Ukrainian crisis. She said a referendum orchestrated by Crimea’s pro-Russia parliament would be a “catastrophe,” and indicated that the EU was willing to impose travel bans and asset freezes on people and firms accused of helping to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity as soon as Monday.

Soros argued that it was more important for Europe to offer positive assistance to the struggling Ukrainian government. “It’s very important to respond and respond the right way, which is not necessarily to impose sanctions on Russia, but to actually help Ukraine financially, and also with technical assistance—something  like a European Marshall Plan for Ukraine—that would be the right response,” he said.

In his new book, which asks “Is it too late to save the European Union?” Soros argues that Putin’s attempt to build a new Eastern bloc in Ukraine and beyond could eventually jolt Europe back to life. “We have just witnessed a dramatic test of strength between Russia and the European Union. Russia came out ahead,” he said. “Russia has benefited from the fact that Europe is disunited. But now that Russia is emerging as a threat to Europe, it may once again become a force that brings Europe closer together. I pin my hopes on Chancellor Merkel … one must never give up hope.”

He is hardly holding his breath, however. Soros blames the Germans for eroding Europe’s fragile union by enforcing policies of austerity and allowing southern European nations to build up debts they will never be able to repay. He accused Berlin of doing “just enough” to keep the Euro afloat: “This confirms my worst fears. It’s the nightmare I’ve been talking about and there is little chance we’ll wake up soon.”

Germany’s economic strength makes it the Eurozone’s driving force—Britain is not part of the currency union—but the nation’s history has turned it into a reluctant leader. “Germany has emerged as the imperial power, the hegemon of Europe, but the German public does not want to be in that position exactly because of the painful memory of Hitler. It is in denial and is unwilling to live up to the responsibilities,” he said.

Despite its unwillingness to assume a strong leadership role, Soros argues that Berlin’s fiscal rigidity has created a two-tier Europe where debtor countries are at a permanent disadvantage. If that does not change, he said: “We will have a Europe in which Germany is seen not as a leader but as an oppressor and exploiter. It will not be loved and admired by the rest of Europe it will be hated and resisted.”

That resistance has already begun in a swathe of countries where popular anti-European sentiment has been seen on the street and at the ballot box. Europe-wide elections in May are expected to send a record number of politicians to Brussels who are hostile to the very institutions they will be populating. In Britain, the governing Conservative Party has promised a referendum on leaving the European Union altogether. “That would be a big step forward in the disintegration of the European Union,” Soros said. “Britain’s absence would greatly diminish the weight of the EU in the world … The world badly needs Europe’s soft power.”

Dis-BAR Eric Holder, PERIOD

The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is the top law enforcer of America, but that is only his title, it is not his job. This man is an assassin to the rule of law, but he is also complicit in a huge number of deaths for which we are aware of Fast and Furious, but most recently he is giving a pass to the deaths and secret lists at the Veterans Administration.

As the scandal grows state by state within the national VA healthcare program, Eric Holder has said he is not likely to investigate Eric Shinseki, the top slot at the VA. The White House continues to broadcast unbending confidence in both Eric Holder and Eric Shinseki, so the White House is part of this deadly collusion.


VA scandal


No Plans at DOJ to Investigate Secret Waiting Lists and Veteran Deaths at VA Hospitals

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Department of Justice doesn’t have any plans to investigate allegations that veterans placed on secret waiting lists at VA hospitals died while waiting for care.

“Well, obviously these reports if they’re true are unacceptable, and the allegations are being taken very seriously by the administration. But I don’t have any announcements at this time with regard to anything that the Justice Department is doing,” Holder told reporters at a press conference.

“This is something on our radar screen at this point, but there is an investigation being done by the [VA] inspector general, and we’ll see what happens as a result of that inquiry and other information that comes to light in some form or fashion,” Holder added.

According to CNN, at least 40 veterans died while waiting for treatment at one VA hospital in Phoenix. Members of Congress have said in recent weeks that the inspector general investigation is inadequate and have called on the DOJ to launch its own investigation.

“Because these cases involve individuals working in their capacity as federal employees, and these incidents have occurred at federal facilities throughout the nation, I urge you to work with the state Attorneys General in Arizona and across the country to investigate these preventable deaths thoroughly, determine appropriate criminal charges, and prosecute the offenders accordingly,” Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican of Florida, wrote in a letter to Holder on May 1.

Holder’s announcement that the DOJ doesn’t currently have any plans to investigate the VA hospital scandal was made Tuesday afternoon at a press conference held to announce that the DOJ was filing a lawsuit against lenders under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which caps interest rates on student loans at 6 percent for members of the military.

“We are here to announce a landmark step forward in our effort to achieve justice for victims of improper lending practices–and to protect the men and women of America’s armed services from anyone who would take advantage of those who wear the uniform,” Holder said.

Shinseki set to testify about alleged secret list hiding VA treatment delays

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki is scheduled to testify Thursday about the state of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with Senate lawmakers poised to question him about VA health clinics allegedly covering up treatment delays.

The hearing, which takes place with the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee starting at 10 a.m., comes just eight days after the American Legion called for Shinseki and two of his top executives to resign over the latest controversy and a string of other troubles, including the agency’s longstanding backlog of disability claims and preventable deaths at its medical centers.

Lawmakers are likely to challenge Shinseki over the amount of time he took to order the preservation of all electronic and paper evidence related to the purported treatment delays. House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) has said he requested the action at an April 9 hearing but that the department did not comply for eight days.

The latest scandal erupted when a former VA doctor alleged the department’s Phoenix health clinic developed a secret system to hide treatment delays, possibly affecting dozens of patients who died while waiting for care.  CNN first reported the claims late last month, and other whistleblowers have substantiated them, according to the news network.

A later report from the VA’s Office of the Medical Inspector said Fort Collins, Colo., medical center falsified appointment records to give the impression that staff doctors had seen patients within the department’s goal of 14 to 30 days, according to a USA Today article.

Shinseki has requested an inspector general’s investigation into allegations, in addition to ordering face-to-face audits of all VA medical centers and placing three of the Phoenix center’s executives on administrative leave while the reviews take place.

Last week, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted unanimously to subpoena top VA officials for documents related to the growing health clinic controversies.

The White House has said President Obama remains confident that Shinseki will take appropriate action in response to the findings.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars has refrained from demanding removals, instead calling on Shinseki to take strong action to restore faith in the VA and insisting that Congress needs to exercise stronger oversight of the department.

Standby readers it gets worse.

Testing and Care Rationed “Because of Dollars and Cents”

It’s pouring rain in the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare scandal, with a fifth location now accused of gaming the system to conceal unacceptable wait times.  Allegations and whistleblowers have emerged in Arizona, Colorado, and at two Texas facilities.  Now add Wyoming to the list.  CBS News reports:

A Veterans Affairs employee at the VA Medical Center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, has been placed on administrative leave after CBS News obtained an email showing an employee directing his staff on how to game the appointments system to make it appear as though veterans were being seen within the VA’s 14-day directive. The email, written by Telehealth Coordinator David Newman, a registered nurse, describes how patients at the Cheyenne VA Medical Center are always listed getting appointments within a 14-day window, no matter when the appointment was first requested, and no matter how long the patient actually waited. The memo admitted, “Yes, this is gaming the system a bit…” because “when we exceed the 14 day measure, the front office gets very upset, which doesn’t help us.” The employee further instructs staff on how to “get off the bad boys list” by “cancelling the visit (by clinic) and then rescheduling it with a desired date within that 14 day window.”

VA Secretary Eric Shinseki has resisted calls for his resignation as this scandal has gained steam, ordering a nationwide audit to review these practices.  But will its findings do any good?  CBS reports that the Cheyenne incident was reported by an informant last year, yet it took media scrutiny six months later for anything to happen:


  CBS News has learned that the VA’s Office of the Medical Inspector had already investigated and substantiated claims of improper scheduling practices at the Cheyenne VAMC, sending a report to the Office of Special Counsel on December 23, 2013. It is unclear why it took five months, and an inquiry by CBS News, for the VA to take action against an employee there and order an Inspector General’s investigation.


As I’ve written previously, accountability is in short supply these days. Meanwhile, in Texas, another tentacle of the VA’s appalling health system has come to light.  When conservatives warn about poor quality of care and treatment rationing under government-run and -operated systems, this is the sort of thing we’re talking about (content warning — via the Examiner):


Patients in a Southeast Texas Department of Veterans Affairs medical system faced denials or long delays in getting routine colonoscopies and other medical tests because of bureaucratic cost-cutting, a former top administrator told the Washington Examiner in an exclusive interview. Dr. Richard Krugman, former associate chief of staff at the Veterans Affairs health care system based in Harlingen, Texas, said his boss implemented a policy in 2010 that colonoscopies would only be approved if the patient tested positive in three successive screenings for bloody stools. “By the time that you do the colonoscopies on these patients, you went from a stage 1 to a stage 4 [colorectal cancer], which is basically inoperable,” said Krugman. “That was done because of dollars and cents. For the VA, they have to be bleeding out of their rectum before they would authorize a colonoscopy. That was the standard of care,” he said. Since the Harlingen VA health center couldn’t do colonoscopies at that time, all referrals had to go to local private providers…As many as 15,000 patients who should have gotten the colonoscopies either did not get them or were examined only after long and needless delays, Krugman said. That estimate is based on the demographics and total number of veterans treated in the Texas Valley network, about 40,000. Many likely died, Krugman said. But, since there is no VA hospital in the area, their final days would have been spent in a private hospital or at home, where they would not appear in VA statistics, he said.

No further comment is necessary.  This is an abomination.  Where else are these ghoulish guidelines in place?  It took one former doctor to step forward and expose the wait list scheme in Phoenix, which has led to a steady stream of similar revelations across the country.  Are other facilities denying veterans basic screenings and care for budgetary reasons?


There is no sadder commentary in America right now, than that of the White House, the Department of Justice and the damaged confidence is protecting our own, our veterans.

The Database and the Duty

There is not a single movement, not a single decision or a single transaction that any of us make that find its way into an obscure unknown database without our knowledge or approval.

We clearly are aware by now of the NSA intruding into all of our communications whether it be internet activity, phone metadata activity or any bank transaction. It was revealed by General Hayden, formerly chief of the NSA, only last week in an interview, that metadata is used to kill.

Congresswoman Maxine let it slip some time ago that Barack Obama had a database on everyone, on everything. Did you approve of this or did you know this?

Now comes the database on our children and the CommonCore Education system. Just why would any system within the entire government public schools need to advertise acceptance and success on television if it was so great?

Now if you need to know more about just what schools across the country are doing and networking data on your children, it will cost you thousands to find out. Not only is CommonCore about a one size fits all system for children, it is modeled for a very slim menu of educational choices for students to ‘fit’ what the government and corporations say they will need in the future. What is also very chilling is the basis of this system is to indoctrinate students into ‘workers’, which is a communist term that few recognize. The term employee is gone from the government lexicon.

So, if you are an interested parent, an involved parent then you are presently aware of this clandestine educational system, however if you are on a quest to find out more on big government’s intrusion into your family and your children to protect your parenting rights and sovereignty as an individual, well you will get huge pushback from the very school system you pay for.



Price for Nevada dad to see state’s school files on his kids: $10G

Nevada dad John Eppolito got a bad case of sticker shock when he asked state education officials to see the permanent records of his four children.

He was told it would cost $10,194.

A Lake Tahoe-area real estate agent by trade and a fierce opponent of Common Core, Eppolito was concerned about Nevada’s recent decision to join a multi-state consortium that shares students’ data. He wanted to know exactly what information had been compiled on his school-age kids. But state officials told him he would have to pay fees and the cost of programming and running a custom report.

“The problem is that I can’t stop them from collecting the data,” Eppolito told FoxNews.com. “I just wanted to know what it [collected data] was. It almost seems impossible. Certainly $10,000 is enough reason to prevent a parent from getting the data.”

“This data is for everyone except the parents. It’s wrong.”- John Eppolito

Nevada has spent an estimated $10 million in its seven-year-old System of Accountability Information in Nevada, known as SAIN. Data from county school systems is uploaded nightly to a state database, and, under the new arrangement, potentially shared with other counties and states. But Eppolito wonders why the state is collecting data that parents can’t even view.

“This data is for everyone except the parents,” Eppolito said. “It’s wrong.”

According to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), parents have the right to review their kids’ records. Small fees are allowed to be issued for records unless they in any way prevent them from obtaining them.

“Unless the imposition of a fee effectively prevents a parent or eligible student from exercising the right to inspect and review the student’s education records, an educational agency or institution may charge a fee for a copy of an education record which is made for the parent or eligible student,” reads a section of the act. “An educational agency or institution may not charge a fee to search for or to retrieve the education records of a student.”

According to the regulations, the requests and its criteria apply to “Any state educational agency and its components.”

The Nevada Department of Education attempted to justify the hefty price tag for viewing copies of student records in a response to Eppolito.

“Because the SAIN system is not designed to create reports that display individual student data in a readable format, the parent was initially told that the requested reports do not exist and cannot be produced,” reads the sheet viewed by FoxNews.com “Upon continued insistence from the parent, [Nevada Department of Education] staff assessed how much programming time would be required to write new queries and develop a data table to create readable reports for the parent. Staff determined that it would take at least 3 weeks (120 hours) of dedicated programming time to fulfill the parent’s request. At the applicable wage rate of $84.95/hour, the requested work resulted in a $10,194 price tag.”

Eppolito, who leads the group Stop Common Core Nevada, is suspicious that the collection and sharing of data could be related to Common Core, the national education standard being pushed by Washington which has drawn the ire of parents and grassroots groups across the country. Indeed, the federal government has been working to expand the amount of data on individual students, according to EAG News, an education watchdog group that claims data gathering systems like SAIN have been sprouting up in states across the country in recent years. Eppolito believes his experience is part of the move away from local and parental control of education.

Joy Pullmann, an education research fellow with the Heartland Institute, agreed.

“We have witnessed a shift in thinking about government from one that serves at the pleasure of citizens and to do their bidding, to one that considers its role to manage the populace,” Pullmann told FoxNews.com. “That’s why states are constructing large data systems to collect information about children from birth. It is, obviously, impossible for parents to control what schools and government are doing with their children if they can’t even find out because it’s so costly.

“This is a danger spot that most parents and the public are unaware of, and the longer they are unaware, the more damage will be done to their family privacy and control over their kids’ education,” Pullman added.

But a spokeswoman for the national Council of Chief State School Officers, the main group behind the Common Core State Standards Initiative, said it has nothing to do with data collection at the state level.

“Implementing the Common Core State Standards does not require data collection,” said Carissa Miller, deputy executive director for the council. “Standards define expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade. The means of assessing students and the data that result from those assessments are up to the discretion of each state and are separate and unique from the Common Core.”

The Nevada Department of Education has requested a legal opinion on how it is required to respond to student data records requests from parents.

“In response to concerns about privacy and security of student data, staff at the Nevada Department of Education has reviewed the department’s student privacy and data security practices,” spokeswoman Judy Osgood told FoxNews.com. “As a result of that review, the department developed or updated a number of documents that can be found on the NDE web page dedicated to student data privacy.”

For now, the cost of obtaining student records has not changed, Osgood said.


When does it end? When will we get smarter? When will we challenge the system?

The death of outrage….


Rogue and the State Department

It appears that one of the most convoluted processes in Washington DC is the State Department procedure to add to the Terrorism List, FTO (Foreign Terror Organization).

Putting Boko Harem on the FTO took an epic effort to do so after Hillary Clinton refused, even with petitions from those in the intelligence community and from General Carter Ham, commander at AFRICOM. Then, it was not until January 13 of 2013 did John Kerry move to put Ansar al Sharia on the FTO list when more than 20 months ago they attacked both diplomatic posts in Benghazi.

So, what about other terror organizations or rogue nations like Korea? Late in the Bush administration, North Korea was removed from the FTO in an attempt to temper strained talks over DPRK’s nuclear weapons program. It was at that time too, North Korea had a different leader who was not quite as unpredictable as Kim Jung Un is now. That effort by the Bush administration failed, so why no move by Hillary Clinton or John Kerry to add DPRK back to the list? Ah, that is where the convoluted rub and debate begins again.

DPRK nukes



News of North Korea is dominated right now by Pyongyang’s threats to carry out yet another nuclear test, which would be its fourth since 2006, and its third since President Obama took office. Among the perils, given North Korea’s longtime habit of peddling its weapons to rogue recipients around the globe, is that North Korean nuclear arms could end up in the hands of terrorists. All the more reason, then, to ask why the Obama administration has not put North Korea back on the U.S. blacklist of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

For more than two decades, from 1987-2008, the U.S. — with good reason — listed North Korea as a terror-sponsoring state. That changed in 2008, when the Bush administration, in a desperate attempt to salvage a dissolving 2007 North Korean nuclear freeze deal, offered Pyongyang the gift of taking North Korea off the state terrorism blacklist.

This was part of the Six Party negotiating process with North Korea, which the State Department at the time described as give-and-take: “action for action.” But, as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen noted in a 2011 congressional hearing, North Korea pocketed the concession and walked away: ”North Korea promised to accept the transparent verification of its denuclearization when it was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism by the Bush administration in October of 2008. But Pyongyang reneged on that promise and withdrew from the six-party talks after getting what it wanted.” Since then, Obama has stuck with the Bush folly, failing to restore North Korea to the blacklist.

That may sound like the least of the North Korean outrages that need addressing. But putting Kim Jong Un’s murderous weapons emporium back on the U.S. list of terror-sponsoring states is one of the easiest and least costly moves that Washington could make. Failure to do so not only gives Pyongyang a pass, but sets a terrible example for the current Iran nuclear talks in Vienna. In the Iran case, a senior U.S. administration official has described a nuclear bargaining process similar to the North Korea action-for-action debacle. This time, it is couched as “step by step, in a reciprocal way, matching the actions that Iran commits to take.”

In the State Department’s latest annual roundup of “Country Reports on Terrorism” released April 30, and covering 2013, North Korea was again excused from any state ties to terror. State summarizes the excuse with one blinkered sentence: “The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) is not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987.”

The same State Department report goes on, however, to note that North Korea has yet to resolve the nightmare of Japanese citizens kidnapped by the North Korean government: “The Japanese government continued to seek a full accounting of the fate of 12 Japanese nationals believed to have been abducted by DPRK state entities in the 1970s and 1980s. As of the end of December, 2013, the DPRK had yet to fulfill its commitments to reopen its investigation into the abductions.”

For Washington bureaucrats, this brand of terrorism may seem a distant matter. For the families of those kidnapped, and quite likely for any surviving victims trapped for decades in totalitarian North Korea, it is an act of terror that does not quit. Right now the Obama administration is deploring the kidnapping of Nigerian schoolgirls by members of the terrorist group Boko Haram — and rightly so. State-authored kidnapping by North Korea deserves no lesser outrage. Nor does it warrant any statute of limitations, especially given North Korea’s refusal to fully account for, or render up, its human plunder.

Nor did North Korea confine its abductions to Japan. As recently as 2005, the State Department included a note which has since dropped out of its annual summaries: “There are also credible reports that other nationals were abducted from locations abroad” — including an estimated 485 civilians from South Korea since the 1950-53 Korean War. A 2011 report from the Washington-based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea gave an even more damning account of North Korean abductions, alleging that North Korea’s abductions were more numerous than officially described, and included people of at least 14 different nationalities, kidnapped not only from Japan and South Korea, but from countries such as China, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Malaysia and Thailand. To this list it would be reasonable to add American citizen Kenneth Bae, arrested while touring North Korea in 2012, and sentenced there to 15 years of hard labor.

As for the argument that North Korea is not known to have sponsored any recent terrorist acts, therefore it does not belong on the state terrorism list — this is disingenuous. Yes, it’s been a while since North Korea was caught red-handed carrying out terrorist acts as spectacular as its 1987 inflight bombing of a South Korean airliner over the Andaman Sea — which killed all 115 people on board. But, as a 2010 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report spells out, the criteria which the Secretary of State is expected to consider also include “supplying a terrorist organization with planning, training, logistics , and lethal material support…or providing other types of assistance that could provide material support for the terrorist organization’s activities.”

By that standard, North Korea qualifies as a geyser of terror-linked activity. The State Department currently lists four countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan. Since North Korea was removed from the terror-sponsoring list in 2008, it has been caught in illicit weapons trafficking with all of the first three — Iran, Syria and Cuba.

A Wiki-leaked secret U.S. government cable dated 2009, and signed by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, points to North Korean dealings with the fourth state on the terror-sponsoring list, Sudan. The cable states: “The U.S. government has information that in 2008, Sudan was negotiating a weapons deal with with the North Korean government that included purchasing North Korean medium-range ballistic missiles, short-range missiles, and anti-tank missiles.” The cable goes on to express U.S. concern about “information indicating that Sudanese entities or individuals might be engaging in missile cooperation with North Korea.”

The U.S. government has been sparing in its public release of details regarding North Korean weapons traffic. But more can be gleaned from media dispatches and other accounts, including the annual reports of the United Nations Panel of Experts on North Korea sanctions.

The most recent UN panel report, released this past March, notes that North Korea, in violation of UN sanctions, “has been, and remains actively engaged in trade in arms and related materiel,” and as part of this weapons traffic “also exports services or assistance.” As it happens, many of the recent examples cited in these UN reports  involve North Korean dealings with terror-sponsoring states. For instance, this latest UN report lists, among other North Korean infractions, the export in 2012 of missile parts, shipped aboard a Chinese vessel enroute to Syria. The shipment was seized when the vessel made a stop in South Korea.

The same UN report goes into considerable detail about the arms cargo from Cuba, seized by Panama last year aboard a North Korean ship, the Chong Chon Gang. According to the manifest, the ship was carrying sugar. Hidden under the bags of sugar was a weapons stash including ammunition, surface-to-air missile system components, and two disassembled MiG-21 jet fighters, plus an additional 15 MiG-21 engines. Confronted with the evidence, Cuban authorities said the arms were being shipped to North Korea to be repaired and returned.

The 2014 UN report also describes rocket parts, “highly likely” to have been made in North Korea, found in a 500 ton weapons shipment interdicted by the Israeli Navy in 2009 about the vessel Francop, enroute to Syria from from North Korea’s longtime weapons customer, Iran. Earlier UN panel reports, going back to 2010, describe such instances as South Korea’s seizure of a shipment of “protective garments…deemed to have utility for chemical protection,” which had been loaded aboard a container ship enroute to Syria from the North Korean port of Nampo. In 2009, Thai authorities interdicted 35 tons of arms and related materiel, listed as “mechanical parts,” aboard an Ilyushin-76 aircraft coming from North Korea, which had landed at the Bangkok airport to refuel. The illicit cargo included 240 mm rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and man-portable surface-to-air missiles. The consignee was an outfit called Top Energy Institute, in Iran.

The list goes on. Citing dispatches from the French, Israeli and South Korean media, as well as the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, the 2010 CRS report (“North Korea: Back on the Terrorism List?”) summarizes a web of North Korean training, help and weapons provision to the Iranian-backed Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah. The same report goes on to summarize accounts of North Korean ties to the terrorist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and North Korea’s cozy relationship with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which in turn has a “close relationship” with Hezbollah.

Geithner, When the Lies Began

Alright, let us review.

1. Geithner took control of $350 Billion to keep America from the financial abyss.

2. Geithner’s father was the chief manager of the Ford Foundation’s Microfinance in Indonesia system that was developed by Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother.

3. Larry Summers was Tim Geithner’s mentor.

4. Geithner was a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and Policy Director for the International Monetary Fund.

5. Geithner came to the financial rescue of Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs and AIG but left Lehman Brothers to die on the vine.

6. Geithner also did not pay $35,000 personally owed to Social Security and Medicare through payroll taxes while working for the IMF. Only through an audit did he get caught and paid up.

7. If Geithner was so experienced in the matter of global and domestic banking and financial systems, then he failed at never predicting the 2008 global financial crisis.

8. Geithner worked at the Bank of International Settlements and is a member of the Bilderberg Group.

So now, Geithner has authored a book titled Stress Test and the text reveals he did not enjoy his time at the Federal Reserve or much less the constant edits to lie about many issues at the behest of the White House, especially Dan Phieffer. This is telling as the lies from the White House began from day one and pressure was applied to all cabinet secretaries to do the same.


wall street bailout

Hat tip to Deborah Soloman at the Wall Street Journal.

Former Treasury Secretary   Timothy Geithner,      whose time in Washington was often colored by accusations he was too close to Wall Street and did little to help Main Street, uses his 538-page book “Stress Test” to largely defend and explain the decisions he made during the financial crisis.

“The inconvenient truth of financial-crisis response is that the actions that feel right are often wrong,” he writes. Mr. Geithner, who was tapped by President      Barack Obama         to lead the Treasury and before that was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, says he was right to avoid the populist push for blood, including refusing to upend bonus payments to employees of     American International Group Inc.

He also acknowledges a tepid response to the housing crisis, saying “I wish we had expanded our housing programs earlier, to relieve more pain for homeowners.”

Here are five takeaways from Mr. Geithner’s book:

Obama’s Financial Rescue: Mr. Geithner reveals dissension between himself and another top member of the Obama administration,       Lawrence Summers,                   saying the two initially disagreed about the best approach to fixing struggling banks.

Mr. Summers wanted to take a more forceful approach and essentially nationalize “zombie” banks that were proved to be insolvent, Mr. Geithner writes, while he wanted to take a more wait-and-see approach by forcing all the banks to undergo “stress tests” that would reveal how much of a capital shortfall they had. Those with a gap that hindered their ability to withstand losses would be required to raise more capital or submit to tough government restrictions to get taxpayer money.

Mr. Geithner writes that while he was away at the G-20 meeting in Europe, Mr. Summers convinced two Treasury officials to make the Summers strategy “sound like a cool hawkish approach that would make the President a populist hero, while ours sounded like an equivocating dovish approach that would make the President seem cowed by banks.”

Mr. Geithner says Mr. Summers “often implied that while the President stood for bold problem solving, I stood for tentative half-measures.” He recounts a meeting in the Oval Office where Mr. Summers described their respective approaches and told Mr. Obama ‘I’m much closer to you, Mr. President’.”

In the end, Mr. Summers’s approach was nixed by former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who, upon learning it could cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars, exclaimed “There’s no more f— money!”

Lehman Brothers: Mr. Geithner was widely known as favoring a more forceful approach to Lehman Brothers, the investment bank that ultimately filed for bankruptcy after it was unable to find a buyer or get a government bailout. In his book, he points that out as a source of friction between himself, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary         Henry Paulson.

As Mr. Paulson continued to draw a line in the sand and declare there would be no government bailout of Lehman, Mr. Geithner writes: “I began to worry that he actually meant it.”

Mr. Geithner says the three policymakers “didn’t want to bolster the impression that government handouts were available upon request” but says while that made sense as a bargaining position “I didn’t think it made sense as actual public policy.”

“This was one of the few times during the crisis when there was any distance between Hank and me. There was even some distance between Ben and me.”

AIG: Mr. Geithner’s arguably biggest drubbing came in March 2009, when it was revealed that AIG, the giant insurer that owed its survival to a $182 billion U.S. government lifeline, was going to pay its workers $165 million in bonuses. Mr. Geithner, who helped engineer the rescue of AIG, was caught off guard by the bonuses and says he called                        Edward Liddy,         whom the government had hand-picked to run AIG, and told him “This is going to kill us and you.”

Mr. Geithner says he knew it was going to be a deeply unpopular decision but defended his refusal to undo the bonuses, saying it would have violated a contract and called into question what other types of guarantees the government was willing to abridge.

“I was instinctively skittish about the U.S. government breaking contracts, especially at a time when all sorts of commitments had been called into question. We weren’t Venezuela.”

Mr. Geithner also reveals he was uncomfortable when Mr. Obama suggested Mr. Geithner would try to reclaim some of the money.

Mr. Obama, in public remarks, said Mr. Geithner would “use [our] leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole,” he said. “I want everybody to be clear that Secretary Geithner has been on the case.”

Mr. Geithner writes that “we didn’t think we could claw back the bonuses that had already been obligated and even if we could modestly reduce future payouts, raising public expectations seemed unwise.”

He adds: “I didn’t see the need to remind everyone that I was ‘on the case,’ either.”

Dodd-Frank: Mr. Geithner has perhaps his harshest words for members of Congress, suggesting some used the financial overhaul law as a Christmas tree to win points and favors without considering what was best for the financial system.

He recounts a meeting with Sen.     Scott Brown,           then a Massachusetts Republican, saying that he made it clear in a meeting he “liked the idea of financial reform and expected to be with us. But without any irony or self-consciousness he said he needed to protect two financial institutions in Massachusetts from the Volcker Rule’s restrictions.”

Mr. Geithner writes that Mr. Brown then furrowed his brow, turned to his aide and asked “Which ones are they, again?”

Housing: Mr. Geithner acknowledges the slow pace of help for homeowners, who were supposed to be among the first on “Main Street” to receive attention in the new administration. “One of every eight mortgages was in foreclosure or default” and yet the administration’s programs “were off to an embarrassingly slow start.”

Mr. Geithner says the lack of help frustrated Democrats who were already uneasy about the amount of assistance the government was giving to large banks. “I held a bunch of meetings with angry Democrats who derisively questioned the depth of our commitment to help homeowners.”

Mr. Geithner recounts how, after a dinner with “disgruntled progressive leaders,” his chief of staff,     Mark Patterson,      told Mr. Geithner he “needed to stop trying to explain all the barriers that made it harder to do more on housing.”       John Podesta                                      one of the dinner guests and a former White House chief of staff, had told Mr. Patterson that Mr. Geithner was “only making it worse.”

Mr. Obama, too, was frustrated and Mr. Geithner says he “kept urging us to think big, to think bold, to consider anything that would help homeowners in distress.”

But Mr. Geithner says the biggest problem was a severely weak economy, which had rendered so many mortgages underwater—worth less than their mortgages—that there was little the government could do to help people build up equity.

The administration fiddled with the homeowner programs several times, but ultimately didn’t come up with a bigger foreclosure-mitigation effort.