The Koch Brothers Are Not As Conservative As You Might Think

9415761283_5b9f8fe1ae_o

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham acted surprised that David Koch would give an interview to Barbara Walters and talk about his radical “libertarian” views. Koch appeared in Walters’ ABC special program on “The 10 Most Fascinating People Of 2014.” The interview was featured in various stories highlighting Koch’s personal views as a “social liberal.” He’s for abortion and homosexual rights. But that’s not all. He’s also a major supporter of the Cato Institute, which recently featured NSA defector Edward Snowden at its “Surveillance Conference.”

David Koch’s foreign policy views are very far to the left as well—a fact that many conservatives may not realize.

We have heard it from the left so many times that Koch is an extreme “conservative” or right-winger that we have taken this claim for granted. It is definitely not the case. He’s sinking a lot of money into Republican and some conservative groups, but that doesn’t make him a conservative. In fact, as the Walters special showed, he doesn’t accept the conservative label. However, he does emphasize his free market views on economic and fiscal issues.

I am trying to get some comment from David Koch about Cato’s embrace of Snowden. The Koch brothers have an extensive public relations apparatus that includes the major Koch spokesman, Philip Ellender, a registered Democrat in Louisiana who serves as the President and COO of the Government & Public Affairs department of Koch Companies Public Sector. I have asked Robert A. Tappan, Director of External Relations for Koch Companies Public Sector, to provide an explanation of the Koch Brothers support for Cato and Snowden.

David and Charles Koch were two “shareholders” in the Cato Institute, and were involved in a lawsuit that resulted in John Allison (the former CEO of BB&T) replacing Ed Crane, who retired as Cato’s CEO. According to a press release, “For Charles Koch and David Koch, the agreement helps ensure that Cato will be a principled organization that is effective in advancing a free society.”

What this means in terms of Cato’s embrace of Snowden is a matter of discussion. Snowden is a captive of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which is definitely not a free society but is a place where Koch Industries does business. (Koch Industries also does business in Communist China.) Do the Kochs approve of Cato’s embrace of Snowden? David Koch, who served as the Executive Vice President of Koch Industries, Inc., continues to serve on Cato’s board. Cato’s 2013 annual report lists the Charles Koch Foundation as a financial backer.

As we have reported in the past, the Cato Institute published a three-page interview with Snowden mouthpiece Glenn Greenwald in the July/August 2014 issue of the Cato Policy Report. Cato called Greenwald’s NSA disclosures “explosive,” which is true in the sense that the communications intelligence agencies of free countries like the U.S. and Israel have been hobbled by the publicity given to the stolen documents he received and publicized. National security experts also say Snowden’s disclosures facilitated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the rise of ISIS.

Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute’s board of directors, has written that if a deal is worked out, Snowden could return to the U.S. and “be held accountable for other actions, not yet disclosed, that amount to espionage—traditionally defined as transmitting national defense information with intent or reason to believe that it will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation.”

In view of these comments, not knowing the full extent of the damage he has done, why would Cato give Snowden a platform? His video appearance at the Cato Surveillance Conference had to have been arranged with the help of the Russian security agents who guard Snowden and regulate access to him. Why would Cato participate in such an arrangement?

David Koch also serves on the board of the Reason Foundation, which sponsors Reason magazine. It, too, is pro-Snowden, having published such articles as, “Thank You, Edward Snowden.” The author called Snowden a “whistleblower,” which is a falsehood.

Martin Edwin Andersen, the first national security whistleblower to be given the “Public Servant Award” by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, strongly disputes the idea that Snowden is a whistleblower. He calls Snowden a national security leaker who engaged in theft, fled the country to escape justice, and is now “in the protective embraces of Olympic Russian police-state champion Vladimir Putin.”

By the way, Cato also supports Obama’s policy of appeasing the Castro regime in Cuba. It ran an article when Chuck Hagel was nominated as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, saying the former senator was correct in calling the idea “goofy” that the Havana regime constitutes a terrorist threat to the United States. Cato said nothing about the American terrorists who fled to Cuba and are being protected by the Castro regime. One, Joanne Chesimard, is a convicted cop-killer. The other major American terrorist in Cuba, William Morales, was a bomb-maker for the FALN, which killed four Americans in the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in New York City.

Obama’s scheme to normalize relations with Cuba does not include the return of these terrorists to face justice in the U.S.

Hagel has since left the administration, but the Koch-funded Cato Institute is still around, exercising its influence on Washington policy makers. Cato hailed the release of the Senate Democrats’ so-called “torture report,” calling it “long overdue.”

The Kochs’ support for this group may prove to be more surprising than the “news” to some conservatives that David Koch is a liberal on social issues. The Koch Brothers are very liberal on foreign policy, too. We previously commented on a Charles Koch Institute forum featuring a foreign policy talking head who has no problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

So why are the Kochs sinking money into Republican-oriented and even some conservative groups? It’s time for traditional conservatives to examine what appears to be a Koch plan to move the Republican Party to the left on social and foreign policy issues.

 

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

Photo Credit: Truthout.org (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Fox News Is Siding With The Liberals On This One

15763703459_c8d41e02d9_k

The grand jury in the Eric Garner case heard nine weeks’ of evidence before declining to indict the police officer. Many in the media didn’t wait nine minutes before finding the officer guilty of a crime. This rush to judgment was evident across the political spectrum, in the liberal and conservative media.

With “sit-ins, die-ins, and blockades” making news around the country against “police violence,” it apparently has become tempting for some conservatives to take the side of the black criminal and look stylish. They must figure this is a way of getting accolades from the liberals.

But here are the facts about the grand jury, as disclosed by Stephen J. Rooney, a justice on the Richmond County Supreme Court in New York:

  • In addition to sitting for nine weeks, it heard from a total 50 witnesses. Twenty-two of the witnesses were civilians, while the remaining witnesses were police officers, emergency medical personnel, and doctors.
  • Sixty exhibits were admitted into evidence, including four videos, records regarding the New York Police Department (NYPD) policies and procedures, medical records pertaining to the treatment of the deceased, photographs of the scene, autopsy photographs, and records pertaining to NYPD training.
  • The grand jury was instructed on relevant principles of law, including Penal Law § 35.30 regarding a police officer’s use of physical force in making an arrest.

The grand jury is one of our most precious institutions of self-governance. It is designed to screen criminal indictments before people are charged.

It’s true that the commentators did not have access to all of this evidence. But they could have taken some time to review the video from a police officer’s point of view, and to review police procedures. Instead, conservatives in the media jumped to conclusions, showing how the narrative of the liberal media was already dominating their thinking.

Interestingly, however, former NBA basketball star Charles Barkley had it right even before the grand jury decision was handed down. He watched the video and told CNN, “…when the cops are trying to arrest you, if you fight back, things go wrong. I don’t think they were trying to kill Mr. Garner. He was a big man and they tried to get him down.”

For some reason, our prominent white conservatives couldn’t see the case as clearly as this black man.

Fox News commentators took sides against the police officer. Andrew Napolitano, the Fox News judicial analyst, said, “This ought to have been an indictment and it ought to have been an indictment for some form of manslaughter. It’s not first degree murder. It’s not second degree murder. But it’s certainly reckless manslaughter.” Napolitano is a judge who should know better. He knows—or should know—that the grand jury looked at all of the evidence, including the fact that the supervising police officer on the scene was black.

One of the most ridiculous critiques of the outcome was offered by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sean Hannity of Fox News. They implied that Garner was being arrested for not paying taxes on cigarettes. He was selling untaxed cigarettes, but that was not the main reason he got into trouble. In fact, shop owners called the police for help in getting him out of the neighborhood. He had been committing crimes since the age of 16.

Selling untaxed cigarettes sounds like a petty crime. But anyone who reviews the evidence knows that crime rates have been going down in New York City precisely because the police have been enforcing the law at all levels, from petty crimes on up to murder. The police are not supposed to decide which laws to enforce; they are supposed to enforce the law, period.

We are accustomed to an anti-police bias from the liberals. But Glenn Beck said, “How this cop did not go to jail and was not held responsible is beyond me.” Perhaps he should have taken some time to look at the video more closely. On first glance, it does look shocking. But it’s not true that the “chokehold” was in fact a “chokehold.” Officer Daniel Pantaleo used a headlock, which is a textbook takedown maneuver. Garner had a series of health problems contributing to the unfortunate outcome. Second, even the video shows Garner resisting arrest, saying “It stops today.” Third, it is clear the officer asked for back-up and didn’t immediately take down the suspect. Garner was given every opportunity to be arrested and taken into custody peacefully.

Radio host Michael Savage was the worst offender, in terms of taking sides against the police. He called the police officers “jackals” and “cowards,” and falsely called Garner’s death “the chokehold murder of an innocent black man.” On his radio show on Thursday, he said, “Tell me what happened when the guy is saying he can’t breathe? Did they pull back? Did the jackals pull back? Did the big cop Daniel Pantaleo with the big muscular tattooed arms…release his chokehold?”

Again, it wasn’t a chokehold. What’s more, criminals always complain about police brutality, alleging broken arms or legs, or not being able to breathe, when they are resisting arrest. He clearly could breathe since he was griping about his treatment. A real chokehold would have prevented him from saying anything.

Charles Krauthammer said, “From looking at the video, the grand jury’s decision here is totally incomprehensible. It looks as if at least they might have indicted him on something like involuntary manslaughter at the very least.” But the video has to be interpreted from the point of view of police procedures and the law. That’s what the grand jury did.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News, who is a lawyer, said about the case, “It was a slap on the wrist kind of crime, for which he effectively received the death penalty…” The term “death penalty” implies a deliberate effort to take his life.

Don’t these conservative commentators realize they are inflaming an already tense situation and making things worse? They are accusing the police of serious crimes and putting the lives of officers in danger as a result.

Whatever happened to the Fox News Channel that was supposed to be a counter to the liberal diatribes we usually get from MSNBC?

Those of us who have been fighting liberal media bias for decades are extremely disappointed with the conduct of the conservative media we have worked so many years to support. This alternative source of news and information is supposed to help us make informed decisions about issues of national and international importance. Instead, we are being treated to conservative back-up for liberal opinions designed to make police into villains and bad guys.

This is just what President Obama and the “progressives” are counting on, as they proceed to put local police under federal jurisdiction, monitoring, and control. Six years after Obama was first elected, it is apparent that our leading light conservative commentators still don’t understand how the “progressive” agenda is moving forward—now with their support.

 

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

Photo Credit: Mike Mozart (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Media Exacerbates Ferguson Riots

cnnferguson

Looking back on the death and destruction in Ferguson, we can see the dirty hands of the media, especially CNN, now basking in the glow of (relatively) high ratings. Racial violence is a ratings booster and winner.

It is certainly correct to say, as the media have said millions of times, that a white police officer shot an unarmed black teenager to death in Ferguson. But this was never the whole truth, and the media knew it. After all, the Trayvon Martin case had proven that the idea of innocent black teenagers being killed for no reason didn’t stand up to scrutiny. In that case, like that of Michael Brown, we discovered the case involved a marijuana-abusing young thug with criminal activity in his background. Martin and Brown turned out to be the aggressors, a fact that comports with statistics on racial violence in America that few in the media want to talk about.

Colin Flaherty writes about it in his book, White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.

The media’s addition of the terms “white” and “black” in the Michael Brown case reflected the prevailing liberal media bias, in the sense that it was assumed that a racial component was at work and that whites were at fault. The white police officer was presumed guilty. The black teenager was presumed innocent.

In the Trayvon Martin case, it involved a black teenager and a “white Hispanic.”

Now that the grand jury has released the facts of the Michael Brown case, we can see that Officer Darren Wilson was completely justified in his actions. Yet Wilson has left the police force as a result of death threats against him and fellow officers. He has been punished for doing his job.

There is no outrage in the media over that. Instead, on Tuesday, CNN tried to inflame racial passions once again by suggesting that it would be a miscarriage of justice for Michael Brown’s stepfather to be charged with incitement to riot. He had yelled “Burn this bitch down” to demonstrators in Ferguson.

The stepfather, Louis Head, is black. But it appears that most of the violence has been organized by communist groups led by whites. They view blacks as cannon fodder for the revolution. Again, however, the media have shown no interest in this issue.

Not content with a dead, black teenager, the media-mob alliance has forced a respected police officer who dealt with Michael Brown by the book to ultimately leave the city. From this point on, like somebody in the witness protection program, Wilson will have to conceal his identity in order to protect himself and members of his family.

If these members of our media had a conscience, then they would go back and try to correct, even at this late date, all of their misleading coverage, in an effort to restore some level of sanity to the narrative about what happened. But don’t count on it.

The media “mistakes,” to put it charitably, can be easily documented.

Almost immediately after Brown’s death, we were treated to the slogan, “Hands up, don’t shoot,” based on what happened, according to Brown’s best friend, Dorian Johnson. Wolf Blitzer described him as an “eyewitness” and gave him an opportunity to spew what we now know were lies. Johnson, who was present when Brown robbed a convenience store, seems to have originated the misleading “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative, falsely insisting that Brown was shot in the back. However, the forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony show that Michael Brown was the aggressor and tried to grab Wilson’s gun.

Even before the grand jury report was in, we were treated to outrage over the local police releasing video of Brown robbing the convenience store of swisher sweet cigars.  Only later would we learn the cigars were used to assemble high-powered marijuana “blunts.”

On Sunday, when black members of the St. Louis Rams showed up in a display of “Hands up, don’t shoot” at a football game, the St. Louis Police Officers Association naturally took exception. They noted that the display has become “synonymous with assertions that Michael Brown was innocent of any wrongdoing and attempting to surrender peacefully when Wilson, according to some now-discredited witnesses, gunned him down in cold blood.”

The only additional comment that has to be made is that the false narrative originated with “witnesses” procured by the media—who turned out to be liars.

This is why the media have now changed the meaning of “Hands up, don’t shoot” to refer to a “gesture of solidarity” with the protesters. They have made this change without acknowledging that its original meaning has been proven false.

The coverage took another unusual turn during the riots when CNN’s Don Lemon came under fire for noting the use of marijuana by violent protesters. Lemon, who is black, apparently did not realize that by doing that, he was drawing attention to the criminal element in Ferguson. Such an observation reminded some people of Michael Brown’s use of marijuana and theft of cigarillos that are used to make the marijuana “blunts.”

Ferguson did demonstrate the existence of a black criminal element running rampant through the streets and high on drugs. Our media have done their best to whitewash the nature of this domestic threat in order to perpetuate a false narrative of white racist police violence.

We might think that the media would be interested in answering the lingering question during the most recent riots of why the police and the National Guard let various businesses burn down.  But the problem is even far worse than the media have let on.

Colin Flaherty, author of White Girl Bleed a Lot, has produced a YouTube video of recordings from a police scanner in Ferguson, demonstrating how law enforcement was overwhelmed and scrambling to address the black mob violence. The police can be heard describing gun shots, even fired at police headquarters; multiple calls for help; burglaries in progress; and stores and police cars being set on fire.

At one point, police can be heard describing retreats from certain areas of Ferguson, citing “officer safety” issues. In other words, the mobs were more “militarized” than the police.

Film footage of the destruction and violence is bad enough. But what Flaherty has put together shows how the mobs were in charge of Ferguson and had more manpower and firepower than the police.

Flaherty wonders if all the talk about the alleged “militarization” of police led Missouri’s Democratic Governor Jay Nixon to deliberately let the looting and riots continue without an effective response or challenge. According to this theory, Nixon didn’t want the police or National Guard to look like they were overpowering the mob.

If so, the media bear some of the blame here, too. As we noted from the beginning of the Michael Brown case, our media had talked incessantly about the “militarized” police being the problem in Ferguson. But when the riots actually took place, the police were outgunned and outmanned.

It’s difficult to see how the media could have done a worse job of covering this anti-police violence.

If the past is any guide, the media will keep Ferguson smoldering while providing more face time for the agitators. Then they might move on to another case in which they can try to blame police for alleged misconduct.

Almost on cue, CNN is now focusing on a pending decision in an incident involving a large black man resisting arrest that the media have labeled the “chokehold death” case in New York City.

The issues they won’t address include the problem of black violence—specifically black-on-white violence—and drug use and family breakdown in the black community.

 

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

Photo Credit: YouTube

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Outside Agitators In Ferguson More Militarized Than Police

policeinferguson

Remember when the media were complaining about the “militarization” of the police in Ferguson? ABC News is now reporting that the police have reason to be worried and well-armed. ABC News Justice Department reporter Pierre Thomas says the FBI is warning about violent extremists and outside agitators targeting the city.

The ABC News report says, “The FBI assesses those infiltrating and exploiting otherwise legitimate public demonstrations with the intent to incite and engage in violence could be armed with bladed weapons or firearms, equipped with tactical gear/gas masks, or bulletproof vests to mitigate law enforcement measures.”

The FBI also warns that electrical facilities, water treatment plants, and computer networks could be attacked by groups such as “Anonymous.”

So it looks like some of the agitators could be “militarized” themselves, and may in fact be part of an international plot.

You may recall that the Senate was rushed by the media into holding hearings on the alleged police “militarization” problem, as if the police were overreacting to the riots in the city after a police officer shot and killed a violent thug named Michael Brown.

The FBI report confirms what we reported back in August—that terrorist elements have been active on the scene. We said, “Ferguson has become a ‘war zone’ because of outside agitators…The real story out of Ferguson is that a national network of agitators is ready, on a moment’s notice, to arrive on the scene to cause violence and mayhem.”

Now, the FBI confirms the existence of a sophisticated network of violent extremists, including computer hackers with the ability to strike on a global basis.

We have reported on participation in the Ferguson protests by members of the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist group, and its front, the ANSWER Coalition. The group supports regimes in Russia and North Korea.

The media have extensively covered the protests without noting the outside agitators who, in some cases, lead and manipulate them.

The result has been a propaganda bonanza for anti-American elements. The party newspaper, Worker’s World, reported, “The protests demanding justice for Brown were covered nationally and internationally. CNN, Al-Jazeera America, Press TV, Russia Today, the Guardian in London, as well as thousands of other news sources and media agencies…”

Al Jazeera and Russia Today are foreign-owned and operated propaganda channels. Al Jazeera is sponsored by the Middle Eastern Arab government of Qatar, while Russia Today is funded by the Vladimir Putin regime in Moscow.

The communists say the Ferguson “rebellion” is designed to expose U.S. “racism” to a global audience. Regimes such as the one in China use such reports to accuse the U.S. of failing to deal with its own problems and unfairly focusing attention on human rights issues abroad.

The FBI report gives the media the opportunity to finally tell the truth about the “spontaneous” nature of these well-planned demonstrations, which are deliberately designed to turn violent.

But it’s not clear that the FBI has actually infiltrated the protest groups in order to gather information about planned violence. The FBI may simply be gathering information from open or public sources.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon had called out the National Guard to maintain the peace when the local police, supposedly armed with military-style weapons, were overwhelmed.

Now, as the public waits for word on whether or not the police officer who shot and killed Brown will be charged with murder, Nixon has called out the National Guard again. Most reports say the grand jury in the case will decline to indict the officer, Darren Wilson, as a result of clear and convincing evidence that he shot and killed Brown in self-defense.

While Congress has failed to probe the role of outside communist agitators in the Ferguson protests, the media have, on occasion, been forced to concede the violent nature of some of the demonstrations and riots.

Reuters quotes one agitator as saying, “Rioting and looting are the tools of those without a voice… There is no revolution without violence.”

Despite CNN’s sympathetic coverage of the protests, the communist Workers World paper singles out CNN for its alleged “sensationalized images” of violent protesters and “repeated character assassination” of Brown. The group helped organize a protest outside CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

The “character assassination” of Brown is a reference to video showing his strong-arm robbery of a convenience store and reports of him attacking Wilson before he was shot.

As the local police and Missouri National Guard brace for the anticipated violence when the grand jury verdict is handed down, it is becoming increasingly clear that the stories of alleged police militarization were a diversion from the real problem—outside communist agitation in Ferguson and the manipulation of black America for political and revolutionary purposes.

Some of this has been deliberately unleashed by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, always eager to stoke racial extremism.

Katie Pavlich, News Editor at Townhall.com, revealed that former FBI Assistant Director and Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund President Ron Hosko said in a letter to Obama that Holder has been an “antagonist” to local police and that “his ill-timed decision to launch a full investigation into the Ferguson Police Department at the height of racial tensions in that community” amounted to “throwing gasoline on a fire that was already burning.”

He added, “Many officers were disgusted by such a transparent political maneuver at a time when presidential and attorney general leadership could have calmed a truly chaotic situation.”

Many of the anti-police reports originated with Washington Post blogger Radley Balko, a supposed expert on police “militarization” who also serves as a “media fellow” with the Cato Institute. His writings have been characterized by the need for corrections and unwarranted assumptions in his accounts of alleged police misconduct.

But much damage has already been done by this kind of erroneous reporting.

“We are the Militant Resistance against this corrupt police state, that includes the national guard,” says one Ferguson group called RbG Black Rebels.

The group claims to be fighting for Uhuru, the “liberation” of blacks worldwide, and has announced they will pay $5,000 for the “location” of Officer Wilson.

Wilson is said to be in hiding, while black radicals and communists plot openly to destroy the city, attack police, and destroy businesses.

 

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

Photo Credit: YouTube

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The “Obama Doctrine” Of Lies

2227111521_c752005a2a_b

The “Reagan Doctrine” was supporting freedom fighters around the world and rolling back the Soviet empire. The “Obama Doctrine” is pretending to fight foreign threats while sounding or looking tough, but actually doing nothing of substance to turn back aggression.

Even the liberal Washington Post sees the dangers ahead.

“For the sake of the cameras, President Obama assured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at a White House meeting Thursday that ‘not only do we support Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence in words, but we’ve also been supporting it in deeds.’ If only that were true,” the paper noted in an editorial. “The reality is that the beleaguered Ukrainian leader left Washington backed by considerable rhetoric from the Obama administration but little with which he can turn back the continuing Russian aggression against his country.” The paper urged Congress to swiftly approve military aid for Ukraine.

The Post was essentially accusing Obama of lying.

Making a sharp break with the Reagan approach, Obama was recently quoted at a fundraiser as saying that “we do very little trade with Ukraine and, geopolitically…what happens in Ukraine doesn’t pose a direct threat to us.”

The White House posted these extraordinary remarks as well, stating they were delivered at a “private residence” in Baltimore.

The New York Times reported that the fundraiser’s host was Howard E. Friedman, former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which describes itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.” Guests reportedly paid up to $32,400 to attend the event.

Friedman is described as a leading supporter of Jewish political causes and has given nearly $100,000 in contributions, mostly to Democrats, since 2009.

Obama vowed to defeat the Islamic State, “but did not mention Iran or the Middle East peace process” during the event, a report on a Jewish website noted.

The Times added, “In introducing Mr. Obama, Mr. Friedman described a nuclear-armed Iran as the No. 1 danger in the world.” In fact, a nuclear-armed Iran would be able to acquire those nuclear arms because of its support from Russia, already a nuclear-armed country.

The short-sightedness of some supporters of Israel regarding Russia is astounding.

As we have pointed out, the Ayatollah of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. This means he is under Russian influence, if not an agent.

AIPAC itself acknowledges the link between Iran and Russia.

Back in 2006, AIPAC ran an item headlined, “Russia Blocking Efforts to Curtail Iranian Threat.” In 2008, it highlighted a Senate letter opposing U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation because of Russian trade with Iran in strategic areas. In 2011, AIPAC reported that Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) “noted the need for strong pressure on Russia and China to persuade them to participate in the sanctions efforts.”

But there’s much more to it.

We have pointed out that Putin adviser Aleksandr Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia. He discusses how Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran.”

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom