Saturday, November 29, 2008

Pelosi Hires Soros'

Right-Hand Man

By John Perazzo

One can learn a great deal about the values and core beliefs of a political figure by taking note of the people he or she assigns to key government posts. Consider, for instance, what we can learn about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the basis of her February 8th appointment of Joseph Onek to be her Senior Counsel. “This is a critical time for the Congress and the country,” Onek said following his appointment, “and I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to return to government service and work on behalf of the American people.”

But who is Joseph Onek, and how exactly does he define working “on behalf of the American people”? A not insignificant clue is provided by the fact that Onek, a 1967 graduate of Yale Law School, is currently a Senior Policy Analyst for George Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI), one of the world’s major financiers of the political far Left. OSI is a member of the benignly named Peace and Security Funders Group, an association of more than 50 foundations that earmark a sizable portion of their $27 billion in combined assets to leftist organizations that undermine the war on terror in several interrelated ways:

by characterizing the United States as an aggressively militaristic nation that exploits vulnerable populations all over the globe

by accusing the U.S. of having provoked, through its unjust policies and actions, the terror attacks against it, and consequently casting those attacks as self-defensive measures taken in response to American transgressions

by depicting America’s military and legislative actions against terror as unjustified, extreme, and immoral by steadfastly defending the civil rights and liberties of terrorists whose ultimate aim is to facilitate the annihilation of not just the United States, but all of Western civilization

by striving to eradicate America’s national borders and institute a system of mass, unregulated migration into and out of the United States — thereby rendering all distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants anachronistic, and making it much easier for aspiring terrorists to enter the U.S. Toward this end, OSI has poured rivers of money into the coffers of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, theNational Immigration Law Center, the National Immigration Forum, the National Council of La Raza, and the American Immigration Law Foundation.

In September 2002, Joseph Onek’s OSI also made a $20,000 grant to the Legal Defense Committee of Lynne Stewart, the criminal-defense attorney who had unlawfully abetted her incarcerated client, Omar Abdel Rahman, in transmitting messages to the Islamic Group, the Egypt-based terrorist organization he headed. At the time of Stewart’s crime, Rahman was already serving a life sentence for his role in masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; he also had conspired, unsuccessfully, to plant additional bombs at the United Nations building, FBI offices in New York, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge.

OSI’s money is further apportioned to a far-flung variety of leftist groups, including:

radical feminist organizations that portray America as an irredeemably sexist nation and consider taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to be an inalienable right for all women (the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the Ms. Foundation for Women, Planned Parenthood, Catholics for a Free Choice, and NARAL Pro-Choice America)

members of the Legal Left, which, in the name of civil liberties, seeks to dismantle virtually all government safeguards against terrorism (the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National Lawyers Guild)

organizations that, under the revered banner of human rights, direct a grossly disproportionate share of their criticism at the United States (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights, and Human Rights First)

political organizing groups and think tanks of the Left (America Coming Together, the Center for American Progress, the Brennan Center for Justice,, the Center for Community Change, People for the American Way, the Urban Institute, and Alliance for Justice)

anti-prison organizations seeking to transform the criminal-justice system’s current “punitive” model into one that is “rehabilitative” (the Sentencing Project and the Prison Moratorium Project)

The Open Society Institute’s funding priorities reflect a vision of America as a nation infested with all manner of inequity, a country in desperate need of radical social and economic transformation. It is more than noteworthy that Joseph Onek has secured for himself a leadership position within this Institute.

Another highlight of Mr. Onek’s resume is his current position as Senior Policy Analyst for the Open Society Policy Center (OSPC), which, like OSI, was founded by the billionaire leftist George Soros. Established in the aftermath of September 11th, this organization helped draft the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which in June 2004 was introduced in the Senate by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Russell Feingold, Richard Durbin, and Jon Corzine. The Act was designed to roll back, in the name of defending civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

OSPC’s range of concerns extends also to “the proper treatment of detainees” — a polite reference to the bloodthirsty al Qaeda combatants captured on Middle Eastern battlefields and currently incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.

Extending its advocacy on behalf of inmates to the American prison system at large, OSPC considers “rehabilitation,” rather than punishment, to be the proper function of criminal justice. Key to the attainment of this objective, in OSPC’s calculus, are colossal boondoggles whereby American taxpayers foot the bill for a multitude of “needed services and treatment” programs designed to help ease prison inmates’ transition back into society after their release.

Joseph Onek’s busy life also requires that he reserve some time for his duties as Senior Counsel for the Constitution Project (CP), an organization that seeks “solutions to difficult legal and constitutional issues.” These “solutions” are essentially calls for the United States to abandon every aggressive anti-terrorism and anti-crime measure it has ever initiated, on grounds that such measures violate the rights and freedoms of suspected wrongdoers.

Onek serves as Director of CP’s Liberty and Security Initiative (LSI), which flatly rejects most of America’s post-9/11 homeland security efforts as misguided “government proposals that [have] jeopardized civil liberties.” Specifically, LSI:

opposes President Bush’s decision to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts

opposes “the use of profiling” in law-enforcement and intelligence work alike holds that state and local law-enforcement agencies should be uninvolved in pursuing suspected terrorists

opposes government efforts to “conduct surveillance of religious and political organizations”

opposes “increased federal and state wiretap authority and increased video surveillance”

calls for the creation of a commission “to investigate the abuse of people held at detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay” (“When you think about it,” Onek says, “Guantanamo became a symbol around the world for American disrespect for law.”)

Onek was formerly the Director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLSP), which promotes the familiar leftist theme of massive taxpayer expenditures, coupled with a diminution of personal responsibility, as the proper means of achieving virtually every societal objective one can name. For example, CLSP:

proposes increased funding for “child care and early education initiatives” such as Head Start

opposes “family cap” policies that would make welfare recipients ineligible for incrementally higher payments if they procreate further while on public assistance

advocates “a comprehensive range” of new, government-funded services for “low-income children and their parents”

calls for “reorienting the child support program into an income support program, emphasizing the need to improve family resources by providing tailored services to both parents”

aims to make more money available to cover the cost of college tuition and “college support services” for “low-income adults” proposes to help ex-prisoners “find work, get safe housing, go to school, and access public benefits.”

To disseminate his perspectives to the widest possible audience, Onek has been an occasional guest blogger on the website of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS), a Washington, DC-based think tank that seeks to radicalize American jurisprudence by recruiting and indoctrinating law students, law professors, attorneys, and judges — and helping them to acquire positions of power. The roster of speakers who address ACS conventions includes such luminaries as Ralph Nader and the communist icon Angela Davis.

Apart from the foregoing organizational affiliations, Onek has also held important posts in two presidential administrations. Under President Clinton, he served as State Department Rule of Law Coordinator and Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General. In the latter role, Onek was a key figure in the Justice Department headed by Attorney General Janet Reno and Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. You might recall that Gorelick in 1995 issued the monumentally important “wall memo” to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White. Titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick’s memo read:

“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”

In short, this mandate stressed the importance of maintaining a legal barrier, or “wall,” barring intelligence investigators and law-enforcement investigators from collaborating and sharing information — even if they were both trailing the same suspect who was plotting a terrorist act. This restriction (which had first been put in place by the Carter administration) effectively crippled the government’s ability to fight terrorism, and can arguably be blamed for America’s failure to prevent the 9/11 catastrophe. Two noteworthy examples of the policy’s deadly consequences are the following:

On August 29, 2001, an FBI investigator in New York desperately pleaded for permission to initiate an intensive manhunt for al Qaeda operative Khalid Almihdar, who was known to be planning something big. The Justice Department and the FBI deputy general counsel’s office both denied the request, explaining that because the evidence linking Almihdar to terrorism had been obtained through intelligence channels, it could not legally be used to justify or aid an FBI agent's criminal investigation; that is, it would constitute a violation of Almihdar’s “civil rights.” Thirteen days later, Almihdar took over the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon.

The same wall of separation prevented FBI agents in Minneapolis from searching the computer hard drive of Zacarias Moussaoui — the so-called “20th hijacker” — in August 2001. Had those agents been given access to Moussaoui’s computer, two of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers would have been identified along with the Hamburg-based terrorist cell that planned the attack; it can reasonably be argued that if that had happened, the mass murders of 9/11 could have been averted.

As noted above, it was during the Carter administration that the aforementioned “wall” (dividing law-enforcement from intelligence) was first created to defuse allegations of FBI espionage abuses. And Joseph Onek served as Deputy Counsel to President Carter, advising the latter on all legal issues pertaining to the Presidency.

In other words, Onek has played major roles in the two presidential administrations that did more harm to America’s terror-fighting capacity than any other administrations in U.S. history.

On June 21, 2005, Onek testified at the invitation of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment. His chief concern involved Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which he referred to as “the so-called library records provision.” “The FBI,” Onek warned, “will seek financial records, employment records, transportation records, medical records and yes, sometimes, library records. ... Inevitably, FBI investigations will sweep up sensitive information about innocent, law-abiding people.”

Onek and his fellow critics of the Patriot Act have portrayed Section 215 as an egregious invasion of personal privacy. But as Heather MacDonald points out, “grand juries investigating crimes have always been able to subpoena the very items covered by 215 — including library records and Internet logs — without seeking a warrant or indeed any judicial approval at all. Section 215 merely gives anti-terror investigators the same access to such records as criminal grand juries, with the added protection of judicial oversight.”

During his June 21 testimony, Onek also expressed deep concern about “the danger that the government will use the information it gathers and shares in ways that unfairly discriminate against Muslim Americans.” “Muslims will appear disproportionately on the government’s computer screens,” he explained, “because they are the people most likely (naturally and innocently) to visit, telephone and send money to places like Pakistan and Iraq. Inevitably, government officials will learn more about Muslim Americans than about other Americans.” He predicted that this would lead to the injustice of Muslims being disproportionately caught violating immigration laws, and that “[t]his unfairness will breed discontent in the Muslim community and undermine the fight against terrorism.”

And then, incredibly, Onek said this: “The government remains free to bring criminal or immigration cases against Muslim Americans, provided that it does not use information generated by anti-terrorist data-mining systems in cases not involving terrorism or violent crime. This limitation will require some segregation of information and impose some burdens on the government. But these burdens are a small price to pay to ensure fairness to all Americans and strengthen the fight against terrorism.”

In other words, Onek continues to advocate the very same “wall” — barring intelligence officials and law-enforcement officials from sharing information and collaborating on investigations — that his former employers at the Clinton Justice Department sanctified in the 1990s.

You have read correctly: Onek favors precisely the policy that made it impossible for the U.S. to avert 9/11, and he characterizes its most (literally) fatal flaw as “a small price to pay.”

There could be no starker illustration of blind devotion to a seemingly enlightened ideology that has, in practice, shown itself to be the wellspring of failed and foolish policy. And this is the man who Nancy Pelosi, the powerful Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has named as her Senior Counsel. The American people should know that.

Links worth your time

The Wisest Mind Has Something Yet To Learn!

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Act For America - Brigitte Gabriel

By Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Brigitte Gabriel

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

FP: I would like to talk to you today about ACT for America. It has become the largest grass roots movement in the United States focused on national security. Tell us the history of this organization and why it was founded.

Gabriel: Jamie, I founded ACT! for America 15 months ago because I realized that there was a void that needed to be filled. I had founded our educational foundation American Congress for Truth (ACT) in 2003 and quickly found that due to its tax status a 501c3, the organization is limited in what it can do in areas like lobbying.

I knew that if we were to really make a difference in our struggle against Islamofascism that we needed a strong, organized grassroots component. We needed to mobilize the masses to begin applying pressure on their elected official as well as corporations and create a force from the bottom up to influence policy. So I founded ACT for America. We launched it in Sept 2007, and in just 14 months we’ve grown to nearly 50,000 members and 230 local chapters nationwide.

We are rallying people around the world to rise up in defense of our Western civilization and way of life. We have launched ACT! Australia, ACT! Canada, ACT Nigeria and we are talking to different people in 5 other countries about launching chapters there: Britain, Israel, New Zealand, France and Spain.

FP: Wow, sounds like a powerful rising movement. What sets ACT for America apart from other organizations dealing with the same issue?

Gabriel: We’re the only national organization dealing with the issue of national security and Islamic terrorism that is building a grassroots organization. There are many fine organizations that have been researching and publishing information on this, some for many years. And that education and information is essential to our long-term prospects for victory. But it’s not sufficient. Education must be followed by organized action. I traveled the nation and abroad the last few years speaking about Islamic terrorism and realized that once people became educated, they were asking what can I do? Give me something to do because I want to make a difference.

I also knew that it doesn't take many to make a difference -- only a dedicated few. I wanted to organize the dedicated and create synergy by the passionate to rise up and become a loud voice in their community and in our nation. As one key member of Congress has told me, it’s going to take a grassroots demand for public policy changes. This member said we cannot count on our government to act “courageously,” especially in dealing with the threat of cultural jihad, without the grassroots rising up and demanding that it do so. This is the heart of the mission of ACT for America, and its summed up in our motto: Rising in defense of our safety, security and our values.

FP: Has ACT for America grassroots power already had an impact of some kind?

Gabriel: Yes indeed, and I could give you several examples. Here’s a recent one: Tyson Foods in Tennessee had caved to Muslim employees demands through the union to replace Labor Day as a holiday by the Islamic holy day of Eid el-Fitr. We were outraged that an American corporation would cave to such a demand. Labor Day Holiday is a part of the fabric of America. We sent out an email action alert to our members explaining the situation and giving them the telephone number of Tyson's customer service department. Hundreds of people from around the country contacted Tyson. In few hours they shot down their phone lines.

We also have many producers of top TV news show who are subscribers to our action alerts. They aired the story to millions exposing Tyson's decision. Because of the massive pressure on Tyson, three days later the company announced it had renegotiated the contract, restored Labor Day, and removed Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday for all employees after next year.

This is the power of an organized mass movement. We knew that this issue was very important because two major players were watching Tyson’s reaction: The Islamic Lobby and other American corporations. We wanted to send a message that the American public is alive and well and ready to take action. Americans are not going to lay down and play dead.

Here’s something else: In the past four months we’ve had 231,000 people use our “contact Congress” feature on our website. They have been contacting their members after visiting our site and reading our email action alerts. Our motto at ACT! for America is: “If our elected officials are not going to see the light we are going to make them feel the heat.”

FP: How can people find out more or help ACT for America?

Gabriel: Go to our website, At a very minimum, sign up for our daily email alerts. I urge people to watch the video posted on the home page about "Islamic Sharia finance" or Jihad with money as we call it. The video details how Islamists are trying to introduce Sharia Islamic law into our country through our banking system.

Those who are concerned about the advancement of Islamic cultural Jihad in our society can sign up to join an ACT! for America chapter in their community. Some may want to be chapter leaders or help start a chapter. And of course, we need financial support to grow and rally the nation. You cannot fight a war without bullets in your gun.

We are truly fighting a war against the Islamic infiltration and influence in our western countries funded by the Saudis to the tune of millions. We cannot wait until we look like Eurabia (former Europe). We need to stand up now before it is too late. For the holiday season, anyone who makes a contribution of $50 to ACT! for America will receive an autographed copy of my latest New York Times Best Seller, They Must Be Stopped, Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.

History reveals very clearly that the apathetic give way to the passionate and the complacent are subdued by the committed. This is the time for people to rise up and defend our freedoms. We will force elected representatives and corporations to choose: align themselves with the voice of grassroots America or the voice of political correctness.

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. And thank you for being such a noble, courageous and valiant fighter for freedom.

Gabriel: Thank you Jamie.

Links worth your time

The Wisest Mind Has Something Yet To Learn!

Sunday, November 16, 2008

'Obama's First Act...

Obama’s Road to Damascus

By John Perazzo

History will record that Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place two days after his election victory, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—to outline for them the forthcoming administration’s Mideast policy vis-à-vis those nations. An aide to Malley reports, “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests” than has President Bush. The Bush administration, it should be noted, has rightly recognized Syria to be not only a chief supporter of the al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, but also the headquarters of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the longtime sponsor of Hamas—the terrorist army whose founding charter is irrevocably committed to the annihilation of Israel. Yet unlike President Bush, Obama and Malley have called for Israel to engage in peace negotiations with Syria.

A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee).

In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East. Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998).

Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.”

In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat (the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolph Hitler) for the failure of the peace process.

Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch. It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).

Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq).

In addition, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing …”

Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran. Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.

Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah…. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”

This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.

It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”

But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”

Links worth your time

The Wisest Mind Has Something Yet To Learn!