State Department 'troubled' by Moscow's move against Soros groups

[b_ulmen]

Lets leave aside the Soros link for a moment so we don’t get bogged down in the politics of Soros and the federal govt.

The truly troubling part of this story is the message from the State Department spokesman. Why is this govt agency concerned with the interests of the Russian people when it’s mission is the interests of the govt of the United States? If Russia wants to isolate it’s people from the rest of the world (a strong accusation) that’s their business and does not impact the interests of the govt of the United States. This inflammatory rhetoric from our govt does us no favors on the world stage.

Why must our federal govt constantly get us involved in the inner-workings of other sovereign nations?

foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/01/state-department-troubled-by-moscows-move-against-soros-groups.html

 

[HCTC]

I don’t know, but I would venture to guess the following: International sanctions put in place as a protest against Russian aggression in Ukraine are continuing to degrade the Russian economy. The actions taken against these charitable entities labeled by the Russian government as “undesirable” are pushback. In my humble opinion, the suppression of these groups by the Russian government is a sign of concern about deteriorating public support and frustration with the increasing clout of foreign money in a weakening Russian economy. It is an indication of fear regarding real and building domestic weaknesses.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to leave George Soros out of this story. Soros is an internationally infamous CIA asset, and the State Department is “troubled” that they won’t be able to place operatives inside Russia using any of his numerous NGOs as fronts. The U.S. can attempt to frame this any way they want, but that’s what this is actually all about. Russia is very wise to exclude Soros - nothing good can come from having his tentacles operating in one’s country. His modus operandi is stirring up trouble, fomenting revolution and generally destabilizing countries in any and every way he can manage. This op-ed column, written by Soros himself, describes one of his current pet projects along these lines:

project-syndicate.org/print/rebuilding-refugee-asylum-system-by-george-soros-2015-09

 

[HCTC]

I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to leave George Soros out of this story. Soros is an internationally infamous CIA asset, and the State Department is “troubled” that they won’t be able to place operatives inside Russia using any of his numerous NGOs as fronts. The U.S. can attempt to frame this any way they want, but that’s what this is actually all about. Russia is very wise to exclude Soros - nothing good can come from having his tentacles operating in one’s country. His modus operandi is stirring up trouble, fomenting revolution and generally destabilizing countries in any and every way he can manage. This op-ed column, written by Soros himself, describes one of his current pet projects along these lines:

project-syndicate.org/print/rebuilding-refugee-asylum-system-by-george-soros-2015-09

The article to which you linked is an opinion/ commentary by George Soros about administering refugee resettlement through the European Union. Although you might disagree with some or all of his proposals - I disagree with a few - he has a perfect right to his opinions which are well stated. By the way, in my humble opinion, all of his suggestions in this commentary are valid and worthy of consideration. Maybe you would be so kind as to share your opinion about how this article by George Soros is an example of, as you put it “stirring up trouble, fomenting revolution and generally destabilizing countries in any and every way he can manage.”

To my point, the shortlist by the of organizations branded undesirable includes not only Soros’ Open Society Institute but also the US-based National Endowment for Democracy, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation as well as the Polish-based Education for Democracy foundation and the East European Democratic Centre and three Ukrainian organizations - the Ukrainian World Congress, the Ukrainian World Coordinating Council and the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights.

 

[Exiled_Child]

The article to which you linked is an opinion/ commentary by George Soros about administering refugee resettlement through the European Union. Although you might disagree with some or all of his proposals - I disagree with a few - he has a perfect right to his opinions which are well stated. By the way, in my humble opinion, all of his suggestions in this commentary are valid and worthy of consideration. Maybe you would be so kind as to share your opinion about how this article by George Soros is an example of, as you put it “stirring up trouble, fomenting revolution and generally destabilizing countries in any and every way he can manage.”

To my point, the shortlist by the of organizations branded undesirable includes not only Soros’ Open Society Institute but also the US-based National Endowment for Democracy, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation as well as the Polish-based Education for Democracy foundation and the East European Democratic Centre and three Ukrainian organizations - the Ukrainian World Congress, the Ukrainian World Coordinating Council and the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights.

There aren’t crystal clear links between Soros and the so-called “color revolutions” which have been occurring throughout the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe, but his NGOs are highly suspect. He’s also suspected of having stoked the fires of race war in the recent Ferguson riots here in the U.S. As far as his column demanding that Europe accept no less that one million Syrian refugees per year, it’s plainly aimed at destabilizing Europe, for who knows what reason. I can say that with certainty because one, he’s outspoken about Israel not accepting even a single refugee, and if this scenario actually had anything to do with compassion, then obviously he would also demand that Israel accept a share of refugees as well. And two, he’s outspoken about attacking Syria and removing Assad, rather than simply rebuilding Syria with the money currently being spent to exacerbate the refugee crisis. So I recommend you reread his demands in that light. His birth country, Hungary, has also banned his NGOs from illegally funnelling refugees into the country, so Russia isn’t alone. In my view, they’re wise to try and defend themselves.

cnbc.com/2015/10/14/billionaire-george-soros-comes-under-fire-in-hungary.html

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

activistpost.com/2015/05/george-soros-nato-us-color-revolution.html

 

[pepipop]

I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to leave George Soros out of this story. Soros is an internationally infamous CIA asset, and the State Department is “troubled” that they won’t be able to place operatives inside Russia using any of his numerous NGOs as fronts. The U.S. can attempt to frame this any way they want, but that’s what this is actually all about. Russia is very wise to exclude Soros - nothing good can come from having his tentacles operating in one’s country. His modus operandi is stirring up trouble, fomenting revolution and generally destabilizing countries in any and every way he can manage. This op-ed column, written by Soros himself, describes one of his current pet projects along these lines:

project-syndicate.org/print/rebuilding-refugee-asylum-system-by-george-soros-2015-09

The US aren’t too happy with the Soros group either. So why they would even be interested - ‘aside from the above’ - as to why Russia want them to leave, is baffling.

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action
Liberal billionaire gave at least $33 million in one year to groups that emboldened activists

 

[HCTC]

There aren’t crystal clear links between Soros and the so-called “color revolutions” which have been occurring throughout the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe, but his NGOs are highly suspect. He’s also suspected of having stoked the fires of race war in the recent Ferguson riots here in the U.S. As far as his column demanding that Europe accept no less that one million Syrian refugees per year, it’s plainly aimed at destabilizing Europe, for who knows what reason. I can say that with certainty because one, he’s outspoken about Israel not accepting even a single refugee, and if this scenario actually had anything to do with compassion, then obviously he would also demand that Israel accept a share of refugees as well. And two, he’s outspoken about attacking Syria and removing Assad, rather than simply rebuilding Syria with the money currently being spent to exacerbate the refugee crisis. So I recommend you reread his demands in that light. His birth country, Hungary, has also banned his NGOs from illegally funnelling refugees into the country, so Russia isn’t alone. In my view, they’re wise to try and defend themselves.

cnbc.com/2015/10/14/billionaire-george-soros-comes-under-fire-in-hungary.html

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

activistpost.com/2015/05/george-soros-nato-us-color-revolution.html

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am getting the idea that you have a problem with democracy because there is some pretty blatantly anti-democratic propaganda in that third link. Here are the first two paragraphs (after which I stopped reading):

"With tensions heating up between the United States and Russia over a number of issues – Ukraine, BRICS, sanctions, and NATO encirclement to name a few – the West continues its move in toward Russia’s borders. The latest target in the Anglo-American destabilization campaign has now come forward – Macedonia.

“In the attempt to destroy the elected government of Macedonia, George Soros, NATO, and the Western Color Revolution apparatus have all come together to ensure that the will of the Macedonian people is denied as is the will of populations in all Western-style democracies.”

Does this article actually reflect your opinions and viewpoint of the world? Do you believe that “the West continues its move in towards Russia’s borders?” Do you believe that the will of the people is denied “in all Western-style democracies?”

 

[Latias]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am getting the idea that you have a problem with democracy because there is some pretty blatantly anti-democratic propaganda in that third link. Here are the first two paragraphs (after which I stopped reading):

"With tensions heating up between the United States and Russia over a number of issues – Ukraine, BRICS, sanctions, and NATO encirclement to name a few – the West continues its move in toward Russia’s borders. The latest target in the Anglo-American destabilization campaign has now come forward – Macedonia.

“In the attempt to destroy the elected government of Macedonia, George Soros, NATO, and the Western Color Revolution apparatus have all come together to ensure that the will of the Macedonian people is denied as is the will of populations in all Western-style democracies.”

Does this article actually reflect your opinions and viewpoint of the world? Do you believe that “the West continues its move in towards Russia’s borders?” Do you believe that the will of the people is denied “in all Western-style democracies?”

Perhaps you are the one that is influenced by the propaganda of the media. Perhaps that is a manifestation of the “third person effect”, claiming that you yourself is not affected by forms of media, while other people are susceptible to its effects.

cnbc.com/2015/10/14/billi…n-hungary.html

washingtontimes.com/news/…spur/?page=all

activistpost.com/2015/05/…evolution.html

The quote source was from one of the three links. I deduced (or properly inferred) it was from the third. The first is a typical “liberal” media source and the second is from a conservative alternative to the Washington Post that has ties to the Unification Church. Only the third can be considered a form of “alternative media”, and unsurprisingly, I found the material you considered to be offensive there. My point for noting this is to highlight that the notion that “the West continues its move in towards Russia’s borders” is not an idea introduced by the mainstream media, even by the “liberal” media. Even “liberal media” does not criticize US foreign policy.

democracy because there is some pretty blatantly anti-democratic propaganda in that third link.

After I typed what I said above, I now realize you explicitly said the third link. I must have missed it in my cursory analysis of your post.

To my point, the shortlist by the of organizations branded undesirable includes not only Soros’ Open Society Institute but also the US-based National Endowment for Democracy, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation as well as the Polish-based Education for Democracy foundation and the East European Democratic Centre and three Ukrainian organizations - the Ukrainian World Congress, the Ukrainian World Coordinating Council and the Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights.

Do you really think those organizations have magnanimous intentions, or that they are entities that would undermine Russian political institutions in the service of some other political agenda?

Here is something written from a poster arguing against the immigration of refugees from Islamic countries:

The problem with being in “their situation” is that it is very difficult to know precisely what “their situation” actually is. I know that as a Christian – and admittedly not a “radicalized” one like Mother Teresa, St. Paul, St. Anthony of the Desert, etc. – my first option, I suppose, would be to move to country with like-minded compatriots or to a country where I might do the most good – at least, with respect to what my deeply held religious beliefs would propose to be “good.” At the very least, I would move to a country that didn’t inherently conflict with the most fundamental aspects of my religion, unless I had the conviction that I could help change those beliefs that I considered wildly in error.

I wouldn’t, for example, move to a communist country, a fascist one, one that enforced apartheid policies or one ruled by Sharia Law or one that was majority Muslim or Shinto, without at least some motivation to work towards changing the political/ideological situations in those countries. The reason for that would be that if those fundamental belief systems simply do not accord with my considered views on what it means to be human or what constitutes the moral good for human beings, then I would see it as morally incumbant on me to work towards positive change.

Now the question vis a vis Islam, that no one – and certainly not you – seems to want to broach is what are the fundamental beliefs of “moderate” Islam? Especially, what does it mean in terms of how moderate Muslims will seek to assimilate into or work towards changing the existing belief system in the receiving country. It is fine to use the words “moderate Muslim” as if that has meaning, but, at the very least, what the cherished beliefs and world views of “moderate Muslims” actually are need to be explicated more fully.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13465523

So these foreign NGOs are operating in your country, trying to change the culture and institutions, exogenously by infiltrating various aspects of social and political life? Such influence would not be indigenous and compromise the sovereignty and influence of one’s country?

Needless to say, economic refugees are not that determined to undermine a political or economic system of the host country, since they are escaping out of material need, not as a foreign agents.

So do you agree with the aforementioned poster? What do you think about the immigration of Muslim refugees?

 

[Latias]

Now to ask the question: what is propaganda. Certainly you would consider RT and Sputnik to be propaganda (and I would not dispute this), but would you consider Voice and America, and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe to be propaganda?

What do you think the US’ foreign policy, both current and historical, foreign policy objectives are? And could you regard those objectives without any cynicism? Do you think the US has a constructive influence throughout the world and that its projects are primarily aimed at proliferating the institution of liberal democracy and trade? If the US has a defensive, non-aggressive stance, why were weapons such as the B-2 built to penetrate Soviet airspace in a first-strike (as a second strike capability can be provided with nuclear submarines and land-based ICBMs)?

**Now what isn’t “propaganda”? **

This being the case, we must be very careful when we speak of exercising “leadership” in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have the answers to the problems which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples.

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

…All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose. [That would likely refer to having to expend resources on a military industrial complex in order to influence distance geopolitics.]

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

George Kennan, 1948

“… Without superior aggregate military strength, in being and readily mobilizable, a policy of “containment”–which is in effect a policy of calculated and gradual coercion–is no more than a policy of bluff.”..

.“Our overall policy at the present time may be described as one designed to foster a world environment in which the American system can survive and flourish.”… “A large measure of sacrifice and discipline will be demanded of the American people. They will be asked to give up some of the benefits which they have come to associate with their freedoms.”…

** “The execution of such a (military) buildup, however, requires that the United States have an affirmative program beyond the solely defensive one of countering the threat posed by the Soviet Union.”** …

.“In the event we use atomic weapons either in retaliation for their prior use by the USSR or because there is no alternative method by which we can attain our objectives, it is imperative that the strategic and tactical targets against which they are used be appropriate and the manner in which they are used be consistent with those objectives.”….

“The United States now has an atomic capability, including both numbers and deliverability, estimated to be adequate, if effectively utilized, to deliver a serious blow against the war-making capacity of the USSR."

Paul Nitze 1950.

Paradoxically, the struggle against communism in distant countries means depriving people of their freedoms.

Also don’t forget the reasons for staying in Vietnam:

In another example, a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:

70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.
20% - To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.
10% - To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.
ALSO - To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.
NOT - To help a friend

 

[HCTC]

What do you think about the immigration of Muslim refugees?

In my opinion, the Gospel of Matthew gives direction for how Christians should treat refugees:

34 Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome,

36 lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me."

37 Then the upright will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

38 When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you?

39 When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?"

40 And the King will answer, “In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.”

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to leave George Soros out of this story. Soros is an internationally infamous CIA asset, and the State Department is “troubled” that they won’t be able to place operatives inside Russia using any of his numerous NGOs as fronts. The U.S. can attempt to frame this any way they want, but that’s what this is actually all about. Russia is very wise to exclude Soros - nothing good can come from having his tentacles operating in one’s country. His modus operandi is stirring up trouble, fomenting revolution and generally destabilizing countries in any and every way he can manage. This op-ed column, written by Soros himself, describes one of his current pet projects along these lines:

project-syndicate.org/print/rebuilding-refugee-asylum-system-by-george-soros-2015-09

Yep. They are very wise! I wish our country had not empowered him so much!

 

[b_ulmen]

Guess I was looking to see if anyone else caught the proper role of govt issue, but it appears the politics is the bigger point for most. I’ve been reading a lot of Grover Cleveland’s writings lately and am seeing in every news piece just how far away from the US Constitution our national govt has gone. the OP, to me anyways, is one more illustration.

 

[HCTC]

Lets leave aside the Soros link for a moment so we don’t get bogged down in the politics of Soros and the federal govt.

The truly troubling part of this story is the message from the State Department spokesman. Why is this govt agency concerned with the interests of the Russian people when it’s mission is the interests of the govt of the United States? If Russia wants to isolate it’s people from the rest of the world (a strong accusation) that’s their business and does not impact the interests of the govt of the United States. This inflammatory rhetoric from our govt does us no favors on the world stage.

Why must our federal govt constantly get us involved in the inner-workings of other sovereign nations?

foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/01/state-department-troubled-by-moscows-move-against-soros-groups.html

I think that the premise of promoting open society in other countries is this: The more open a nation is to trade, diplomacy, and the free flow of information the less likely it is that a single leader or group will be able to marshall the people and resources of that nation into a war of aggression. In my humble opinion, promoting open societies is very much in the enlightened self-interest of the American people and therefore a valid endeavor of the U.S. government.

 

[pepipop]

I think that the premise of promoting open society in other countries is this: The more open a nation is to trade, diplomacy, and the free flow of information the less likely it is that a single leader or group will be able to marshall the people and resources of that nation into a war of aggression. In my humble opinion, promoting open societies is very much in the enlightened self-interest of the American people and therefore a valid endeavor of the U.S. government.

I’ll say nothing…

 

[b_ulmen]

therefore a valid endeavor of the U.S. government.

Would you be able to support that statement using the Constitution?

 

[Latias]

I think that the premise of promoting open society in other countries is this: The more open a nation is to trade, diplomacy, and the free flow of information the less likely it is that a single leader or group will be able to marshall the people and resources of that nation into a war of aggression. In my humble opinion, promoting open societies is very much in the enlightened self-interest of the American people and therefore a valid endeavor of the U.S. government.

The US could open itself up to Cuba, couldn’t it, or stop the embargoes on Russia.

But the US has been involved in Wars of Aggression, such as The Invasion of Grenada, the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, and various covert operations in Latin America.

Despite being an open society, the US has the highest prison population.​

I support Putin because he is defending the sovereign interests of Iran and Syria from foreign domination. I guess Westaphalian sovereignty is just too passe. Putin also is against the evil movement known as Euromaidan.

–
So do you really believe this? It might sound plausible during World War II when Karl Popper wrote* the Open Society and Its Enemie*s.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Actually I more troubled that our own government sought to stifle numerous U.S. citizens from forming valid tax exempt status.

 

[HCTC]

Would you be able to support that statement using the Constitution?

An Understanding of the Constitution’s Foreign Affairs Power

heritage.org/research/lecture/an-understanding-of-the-constitutions-foreign-affairs-power

TWO SOURCES OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AUTHORITY

The Constitution., has certain explicit passages dealing with the foreign affairs power. Specifically, the President is given authority to make treaties, to which the Senate is given the authority to advise and consent (Article 11, Section 2). The President is made Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy (Article II, Section 2); but the Congress is given the a u thority to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a Navy (Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13). The Congress alone is given the power to declare war* and–in a much overlooked provision–the Congress is given authority to define offense s against the law of nations and to set punishments for them (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10).

In addition to these explicit provisions, there are also certain powers that flow merely from the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation. Justice Sut herland, writing in United States v._ C,drtiss-Wright E2Mort Corp., 29 U.S. 304, in 1937, observed that "The investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution."

This claim actually has much more ancient roots, going back for its clearest exposition to a famous debate between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in 1793. England and France had gone to war in that year, and President George Washington had announced the United States, neutrality. At once, the Proclamation was challenged, in that nowhere in the Constitution is the President given the explicit authority to proclaim neutrality

2
As you might suspect, Alexander Hamilton was first to the rescue. In a series of articles, he developed the theory that the executive power, vested in the President under Article II, inherently included the full panoply of rights in foreign affairs on behalf of the American colonists by the British Crown. Contrast this view with H a milton’s earlier position, taken in Federalist 69, that the authority of Commander-in-Chief devolved upon the President substantially less power than-was enjoyed by the-British Monarch. - one reconciliation might be that additional powers with regard to t he Army and Navy are explicitly given to Congress; whereas the explicit grants of authority to Congress in foreign affairs deal only with treaties and the law of nations.

James Madison responded that the Congress more rightfully inherited these powers. Mos t important for our purposes, both men conceded that there were indeed powers inherent in the idea of sovereignty that were not spelled out in the Constitution. The only disagreement was which branch could exercise them, the President or Congress.

 

[HCTC]

Would you be able to support that statement using the Constitution?

As you probably know, one of the foundations designated “undesirable” is the National Endowment for Democracy which s funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress in the form of a grant awarded through the United States Information Agency (USIA).

 

[Exiled_Child]

I’ll say nothing…