Soros Pushes U.S. Bailouts, Weapons For Ukraine

If you look at the track record of the interventionists, you might think they would pause before taking on more projects. Each of their past projects has ended in disaster; yet still they press on. Last week, the website Zero Hedge posted a report about hacked emails between billionaire George Soros and Ukrainian President Poroshenko.

Soros is very close to the Ukrainian president, who was put in power after a U.S.-backed coup deposed the elected leader of Ukraine last year. In the email correspondence, Soros tells the Ukrainian leadership that the U.S. should provide Ukraine “with same level of sophistication in defense weapons to match the level of opposing force.” In other words, despite the February ceasefire, Soros is pushing behind the scenes to make sure Ukraine receives top-of-the-line lethal weapons from the United States. Of course, it will be up to us to pay the bill because Ukraine is broke.

But Soros seems to have the money part covered as well. In an email to Ukrainian leaders, he wrote that Ukraine’s “first priority must be to regain control of financial markets.” Soros told Poroshenko that the IMF would need to come through with a $15 billion package, which he was confident would lead the Fed to also come through with more money. He wrote: “the Federal Reserve could be asked to extend a $15 billion three months swap arrangement with the National Bank of Ukraine. That would reassure the markets and avoid a panic.”

How would the Fed be convinced to do that? Soros assured Poroshenko: “I am ready to call Jack Lew of the U.S. Treasury to sound him out about the swap agreement.”

So George Soros will use his influence in the U.S. government to put the American people on the hook for a bankrupt Ukraine — forcing us to pay for weapons, more military training, and Ukraine’s crippling debt.

Who is thrilled with Soros’ drawing the U.S. government into more intervention in the region? The military-industrial complex for one is happy at the prospect of big weapons “sales” to Ukraine. The bankers are thrilled. Washington power-brokers are thrilled. There is something in this for everyone who is politically well-connected. The only losers are the people who will be forced to pay for it: the American taxpayers.

No one seems to ask why we are involved in Ukraine at all. Is it really any of our business if the east wants to break away from the west? Is it a vital U.S. interest which flag the people wish to hang in Donetsk?

One thing we should be sure of is that Ukraine’s debt will not be paid. As in other bailouts, much of it will be transferred to the U.S. taxpayer through the IMF and the Federal Reserve. All of this is only possible because of the perception that the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency. But this too is coming to an end. U.S. military and financial interventionism worldwide are only speeding up the process.

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Uncovered: Wikipedia’s Leftist Ties And Its Censorship Of The Facts

Despite the protests of countless experts claiming Wikipedia is often not a reliable source of information, it remains perhaps the most influential and one of the most-visited websites on the planet. But exactly who is really behind the world’s largest source of information? And does their agenda, if one exists, ever shine through their supposedly “unbiased” wiki pages?

After hearing of and experiencing incidents in which undeniable facts were removed from the site because editors at Wikipedia claimed the researchers who uncovered them were “not reliable”—which is, of course, irrelevant if the facts are demonstrably true—I began to research the prominent website’s leadership. That endeavor revealed that despite the site’s claims of being a neutral source of information, many of those leading Wikipedia have intimate ties to far-left organizations or openly support liberal policies and candidates.

Sue Gardner is just one example. She is the former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation and served in that role from December 2007 to May 2014. Her influence on Wikipedia is substantial and unquestioned. She was even named one of the 100 most powerful women in the world by Forbes in 2012.

In addition to serving on Wikimedia’s Board of Trustees, Gardner has held a leadership position with the “nonpartisan” Sunlight Foundation (SF). SF has been funded by numerous left-wing organizations, such as the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundation and the Knight Foundation. SF even received $1 million in 2010 from the left-leaning Rockefeller Family Fund.

Also connected to SF is Wikipedia founder and Wikimedia Board of Trustees member Jimmy Wales, who serves on the SF Advisory Board. Wales is not only connected to leftist groups through his role at the Sunlight Foundation; he also has close personal ties to multiple left-wing bigshots. Wales even attended one of George Soros’ birthday parties, according to The New York Times.

Other Wikimedia Board of Trustees members have less extravagant ties to leftist causes but still openly admit they support such causes and politicians. Guy Kawasaki, Wikipedia’s “internet evangelist,” announced his support of Barack Obama on Election Day in 2012.

In one of her blog posts, Wikipedia board member Phoebe Ayers lamented that she had “white privilege” and reminisced about rifle-carrying “rednecks,” to whom she referred as “drunken yokel[s]” whose proximity she had to endure while growing up in the South. In another post, she applauded Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) for her “stands on the environment … and women’s issues” and worried someday the “unthinkable” might happen in California: A Republican could get elected.

Having a particular set of personal beliefs doesn’t necessarily mean there will be content bias, but the evidence suggests Wikipedia has been affected by its leftist leaders and many biased editors.

In 2012, for example, Northwestern University’s Shane Greenstein and the University of Southern California’s Feng Zhu analyzed more than 70,000 Wikipedia articles published over 10 years related to U.S. politics to determine whether any bias existed in the material. Greenstein and Feng found there was a distinct bias favoring Democrats and their positions. The authors also discovered that articles produced in the early 2000s were “very slanted” and less so after 2005. As time has gone on and more unbiased users have become involved in Wikipedia’s editing process, articles have become more balanced, Greenstein and Zhu say.

Things may be improving, but Wikipedia’s bias remains obvious. Not only are factual, credible sources being removed in an effort to censor information that reflects badly on political projects such as global warming alarmism, net neutrality, and Obamacare; but the editors have also allowed dishonest, biased sources to mislead people on numerous wiki pages. For instance, climate alarmist William Connolley repeatedly removed factual material from Wikipedia pages in 2010 and earlier because it didn’t support his belief in man-caused catastrophic global warming, even while he was being investigated for poor practices.

It’s true that Wikipedia is an enormous project, and that its leadership cannot be held responsible for every foolish decision; but from the top down, the evidence shows Wikipedia is decidedly not a neutral source operated by unbiased editors–and all of its readers should keep that in mind whenever visiting the site.


Justin Haskins ( is editor at The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of the New Revere Daily Press.

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

ALERT: White House Teams Up With Soros for Disturbing 2016 Plan… Spread This Everywhere

Last year, as part of his Imperial decree of amnesty for illegal immigrants, President Barack Obama created the White House Task Force on New Americans, whose goal is to vastly increase the numbers and rates at which immigrants were naturalized and granted citizenship.

This Task Force works hand-in-hand with the George Soros-funded, open borders-promoting Migration Policy Institute, as well as the openly racist group La Raza, a Mexican nationalist organization that has called for the mass murder of white Americans and a return of the western states to Mexico.

The Task Force is headed up by one Cecilia Munoz, Obama’s Domestic Policy Advisor, who also used to serve as Vice President of La Raza (which translates to “The Race” in English)–a group that receives millions in taxpayer funding, by the way.

Although the Obama administration has claimed that they don’t have enough money to deport illegal immigrants, they apparently found enough money to fund a marketing campaign targeting specific cities in specific “swing states,” aimed at encouraging swift naturalization and citizenship for immigrants.

One can’t help but notice the timing of this plan of action by the Task Force, right ahead of the 2016 election, as they push to create as many new voters as possible–the majority of whom will undoubtedly be swayed to vote for whoever the Democrat nominee is.

According to The Daily Caller, this is actually nothing new, but rather is remarkably similar to a project launched in 1995 during the Clinton administration called Citizenship USA–which was run by then-White House Director of Special Projects Rahm Emanuel.

The CUSA’s main goal, in Emanuel’s own words, was to “produce 1-million new citizens before Election Day,” by relaxing the rules, regulations, and fees surrounding the naturalization and citizenship process.

Although there was an incredibly damning Inspectors General report after the fact, nothing much was ever done about it; and evidence of voter fraud in the 1996 and 2000 elections was covered up and ignored.

Essentially, the same thing is happening yet again, as the Obama team is seeking to flood the country with new Democrat voters, diluting the voter pool and more or less disenfranchising conservative voters by cancelling their votes with those of illegally naturalized immigrants.

The goal of progressives is to create as many new voters for their party as possible–new voters dependent upon the government who will vote for the Democrat Party which helped them stay in the country and draw benefits when they should have been deported.

These people are criminals and are actively working to weaken and destroy the country, in any possible way that they can.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you aren’t surprised at all that the Obama administration is trying to create new voters out of illegal immigrants to bolster the Democrat Party with more dependents.

This article first appeared at Conservative Tribune. Like their Facebook page:


This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

George Soros – Neocon

Photo credit: Adrin Shamsudin /

Russia is presenting an alternative that poses a fundamental challenge to the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. It is based on the use of force that manifests itself in repression at home and aggression abroad, as opposed to the rule of law.

Who does this sound like? George Bush? Donald Rumsfeld?

Or how about this quote?

The collapse of Ukraine would be a tremendous loss for NATO, the European Union, and the United States. A victorious Russia would become much more influential within the EU and pose a potent threat to the Baltic states with their large ethnic Russian populations. Instead of supporting Ukraine, NATO would have to defend itself on its own soil. This would expose both the EU and the US to the danger they have been so eager to avoid: a direct military confrontation with Russia.

This sounds a whole lot like Bush’s fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here rhetoric.

This is coming from a man who said, “the removal of George Bush from office is a matter of life and death.   By declaring a ‘war on terror’ after September 11, we set the wrong agenda for the world. … when you wage war, you inevitably create innocent victims.” These words are coming from the new book by George Soros entitled Wake Up Europe!

I guess we now know where George’s loyalty lies.  It’s not with the United States homeland.  For when the Russian bear threatens Eastern Europe, where he was born, he sings a different tune.

This is coming from the man who also has donated hundreds of millions to progressive, leftist causes–and is a major reason Barack Obama was elected twice and has served up his own unique brand of anti-American appeasement.

Any rational person can make the argument that the election of Barack Obama led to the Russian aggression we have seen.  It gave Putin the green light.  The famous Obama quote to Russian Prime Minister Medvedev  (“Tell Vladimir I can be more flexible after the election”) rings true.

Soros just didn’t envision Obama being more flexible in Eastern Europe.  Karma is a biage, right?

Maybe Europe will wake up.  Maybe the United States will elect a strong leader after eight years of being led by a failed community organizer.  Maybe the Russian people will rise up and demand a free and open system of government.

Or just maybe, Putin will continue to take land–and America will have to save their skins one more time.  In any event, the actions of George Soros will have been instrumental bringing on the first shooting war between two European countries since the 1940s.

Photo credit: Adrin Shamsudin /

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

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

Revealed: Find Out Who Actually Runs The Media…

One of the major speakers at last week’s “New Populism” conference was Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), a labor union that represents online writers, reporters, editorial assistants, editorial artists, and correspondents at major news organizations.

Cohen gave his speech after returning from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) conference, where Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, was announced as winner of the title of “the world’s worst boss” for trying to keep prices low for consumers and opposing union control of his workplace.

Bezos, the new owner of The Washington Post, will have to negotiate with The Newspaper Guild, which merged with the CWA in 1995 and represents nearly 900 editorial and newsroom workers at the Post.

“Amazon has successfully fended off U.S. labor unions since its founding in 1994,” notes Time magazine.

Bezos has been described as a libertarian; but the Post was known as a liberal Democrat newspaper under its previous owners, the Grahams.

It will be interesting to see if he cuts this union down to size. The survival of the paper, with declining revenue and readers, may depend on it.

As the “populism” conference indicates, the progressives—once called liberals—are now calling themselves something else, in order to fool the electorate.

Don’t look for the media to blow the whistle on themselves.

Whatever they call themselves, they are in control of much of the news and editorial content of major news media organizations.

We look forward to the Post, under its new owner, telling the truth about how the CWA functions as a major component of the progressive movement, and how liberal bias is killing the appeal of the so-called mainstream media.

In addition to the Post, the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild represents employees at such news organizations as The Baltimore Sun and Bloomberg-BNA. Not surprisingly, CWA says thousands of its members also work for public broadcasting entities.

A partisan political operative who serves as a member of the Democratic National Committee and endorsed Obama in 2008, Cohen is a regular guest on the MSNBC cable channel.

Cohen’s tone last week was desperate, as the “progressives,” or “populists,” apparently understand that their President’s popularity is declining, and that their base is becoming increasingly demoralized and less likely to turn out to vote in November’s elections.

One member of the audience openly griped that she was being forced to liquidate her retirement fund in order to pay for her Obamacare plan.

The CWA’s “Education Department” has published a 38-page document entitled “Building a Movement for Economic Justice & Democracy,” which describes in detail how various components of the progressive movement are said to make up more than 71 million people, enough to create a working majority of the voting population and guarantee victory in national elections.

This might be news to the Republicans who think they will retain the House and take the Senate in this year’s national elections.

Holding up a copy of his “Building a Movement” booklet, Cohen told the “populism” conference that the political left needs to push a “common narrative” and “common collective action.” It is a message of “economic justice,” he said.

Pages: 1 2

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