Category: Rachel Ehrenfeld

Investigate Obama’s and Kerry’s Unlawful Deals with Iran


Two years ago, as then-secretary of State John Kerry was boasting in Davos about Obama’s deal with Iran,  he acknowledged that some of the $150 billion given to the mullahs in Tehran “will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.” He was right. We don’t know how much money went to fund Iran’s global terrorist activities. And we know even less about the billions in untraceable cash that was supposedly delivered to the mullahs or the recipients of that cash. How about investigating that? There should be ample evidence to prove Kerry and his boss President Obama have willfully engaged in terrorist financing and money laundering. That is unless the pertinent emails and documents related to the payments to Iran had been lost or destroyed.

After the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was implemented on January 16, 2016,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wished to lift all sanctions on Iran, kept complaining that “On paper the United States allows foreign banks to deal with Iran, but in practice they create Iranophobia so no one does business with Iran.” As much as the Obama administration wanted to comply, it needed congressional support to do that. Thus, the Obama administration decided to circumvent U.S. anti-money laundering laws to help Iran’s economy.

Between March, 2012 and January, 2016, when the U.S. lifted the sanctions, Iranian banks had no access to the Belgium-based SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system. During that time, according to a European oil trader, “Nobody could pay the Iranians via normal lines, not even in euros.” Yet, Iran has received billions of dollars in sanctions relief as incentives to attend negotiations with the United States and others in Geneva. In August, 2012, following a major earthquake in Iran, the Obama administration issued a 45-day general license allowing “registered NGOs to send up to $300,000 to for humanitarian relief and reconstruction activities. And what assurances were there to ensure the money got to the right hands? At that time, Treasury’s spokesman John Sullivan declared, “The license specifically forbids any dealings with entities on the OFAC SDN list such as the IRGC. There is also a mandated report to the Treasury and State Departments, so we can make sure the money does not end up in the wrong hands,” he said. However, he was not asked, and he did not give any information on how the cash was transferred to Iran.  

In early 2013, the Obama administration began transferring goods to and from Afghanistan through the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas, instead of shipping the goods through Pakistan. The administration decided to ignore the sanctions and chose the Iranian port. U.S. payments enabled the Iranians to open another port on the Gulf of Oman at Chabahar to further facilitate transshipment through Iran. How were payments made? In cash? In what currencies? If not, how did Iran access the U.S. payments? Were those payments sent in secrecy bundled cash of non-U.S. currencies on chartered flights, under cover of darkness as the administration did on January 17, 2016, with the $400 million in ransom it paid the mullahs to release American hostages? 

At the same time that the Obama administration was denying the cash ransom delivery to Iran, it also claimed: “The reason that we had to give the cash is precisely because we were so strict in maintaining sanctions, and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money, due to the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions.” The U.S. has strict federal Anti-Money Laundering laws, requiring “banks and certain other financial institutions, which tend to have extra-territorial effect, through requirements for U.S. banks to control their relationships with correspondent and shell banks to prevent money laundering.” 

Therefore, the Obama administration instructed Treasury to find “the mechanism” through which untraceable cash could be delivered to the Iranian terrorist regime. They have willfully circumvented the U.S. and international sanctions, as well as the anti-money laundering laws, to deliver, at least, an additional $1.3 billion “settlement” to Iran through offshore clearinghouses. Was this a new arrangement or the first the public heard about such an arrangement? 

What we already know is enough to cause major concerns. But will we ever find out how much money was given to the mullahs? Probably not. 

Two years ago, as then-secretary of State John Kerry was boasting in Davos about Obama’s deal with Iran,  he acknowledged that some of the $150 billion given to the mullahs in Tehran “will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.” He was right. We don’t know how much money went to fund Iran’s global terrorist activities. And we know even less about the billions in untraceable cash that was supposedly delivered to the mullahs or the recipients of that cash. How about investigating that? There should be ample evidence to prove Kerry and his boss President Obama have willfully engaged in terrorist financing and money laundering. That is unless the pertinent emails and documents related to the payments to Iran had been lost or destroyed.

After the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was implemented on January 16, 2016,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wished to lift all sanctions on Iran, kept complaining that “On paper the United States allows foreign banks to deal with Iran, but in practice they create Iranophobia so no one does business with Iran.” As much as the Obama administration wanted to comply, it needed congressional support to do that. Thus, the Obama administration decided to circumvent U.S. anti-money laundering laws to help Iran’s economy.

Between March, 2012 and January, 2016, when the U.S. lifted the sanctions, Iranian banks had no access to the Belgium-based SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system. During that time, according to a European oil trader, “Nobody could pay the Iranians via normal lines, not even in euros.” Yet, Iran has received billions of dollars in sanctions relief as incentives to attend negotiations with the United States and others in Geneva. In August, 2012, following a major earthquake in Iran, the Obama administration issued a 45-day general license allowing “registered NGOs to send up to $300,000 to for humanitarian relief and reconstruction activities. And what assurances were there to ensure the money got to the right hands? At that time, Treasury’s spokesman John Sullivan declared, “The license specifically forbids any dealings with entities on the OFAC SDN list such as the IRGC. There is also a mandated report to the Treasury and State Departments, so we can make sure the money does not end up in the wrong hands,” he said. However, he was not asked, and he did not give any information on how the cash was transferred to Iran.  

In early 2013, the Obama administration began transferring goods to and from Afghanistan through the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas, instead of shipping the goods through Pakistan. The administration decided to ignore the sanctions and chose the Iranian port. U.S. payments enabled the Iranians to open another port on the Gulf of Oman at Chabahar to further facilitate transshipment through Iran. How were payments made? In cash? In what currencies? If not, how did Iran access the U.S. payments? Were those payments sent in secrecy bundled cash of non-U.S. currencies on chartered flights, under cover of darkness as the administration did on January 17, 2016, with the $400 million in ransom it paid the mullahs to release American hostages? 

At the same time that the Obama administration was denying the cash ransom delivery to Iran, it also claimed: “The reason that we had to give the cash is precisely because we were so strict in maintaining sanctions, and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money, due to the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions.” The U.S. has strict federal Anti-Money Laundering laws, requiring “banks and certain other financial institutions, which tend to have extra-territorial effect, through requirements for U.S. banks to control their relationships with correspondent and shell banks to prevent money laundering.” 

Therefore, the Obama administration instructed Treasury to find “the mechanism” through which untraceable cash could be delivered to the Iranian terrorist regime. They have willfully circumvented the U.S. and international sanctions, as well as the anti-money laundering laws, to deliver, at least, an additional $1.3 billion “settlement” to Iran through offshore clearinghouses. Was this a new arrangement or the first the public heard about such an arrangement? 

What we already know is enough to cause major concerns. But will we ever find out how much money was given to the mullahs? Probably not. 



Source link

Iran and Daesh Lite in North America


Recent mass demonstrations in Iran, and the government’s violent crackdown has been met with a deafening silence by Muslim “civil rights” organizations in the U.S. and Canada.  Why have they refrained from supporting the Iranian people’s uprising to overthrow the oppressive mullahs?  After all, the same organizations have vocally and financially supported the mass demonstrations in the Middle East and North Africa that erupted in December 2010 and led to the rise of Egypt’s short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government and caused turmoil and destabilized these regions.

American and Canadian Muslim organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the U.S. and Canada, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) in the U.S. and Canada, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) (including its Canadian branch), share the similar agenda and boards and serve as umbrellas to many smaller associations and community-based groups.  Their charities aim to expand the implementation of their agenda, and a few of them have been identified as unindicted co-conspirator in Islamist terrorist financing trials in the U.S.  Their common mission: dedication to “da’wah” (proselytization), building “an Islamic way of life in North America[, and] commitment to Islam as a total way of life” by practicing sharia (Islamic law).  This desire to impose any version of Islam on society to establish global Islamic theocracy via political activism, has been accurately described by Prof. Clive Kessler as “political Islam” or “ISIS/Daesh lite.”

Political Islam has been successfully enforced by the mullahs in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.  Over the years, they have increased their efforts to enforce and spread political Islam everywhere.  Their efforts did not stop with Shite groups; rather, they extended especially to Sunni Muslim Brotherhood offshoots such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda.  Not surprisingly, the first foreign trip of Egypt’s now deposed Muslim Brother president, Mohammed Morsi, was to visit Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  But Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood’s short-lived government (June 2012-July 2013) has failed because the Egyptian people rejected its oppression early on.

The ousting of the M.B. government was followed with banning its activities in Egypt and later in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Syria.  But by then, the global Brotherhood’s movement has been well entrenched in the West, where their activities are not limited and often encouraged.  The leaders of the Islamist movement have doubled their efforts to spread and whenever possible, to enforce political Islam on Muslims and infidels alike.

The el-Sisi government, which banned the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates, arrested many of their leaders and activists and seized documents, which identify many of their supporters everywhere, including in North America, where political Islam has been gathering force. 

Followers of the movement in Britain have been recently identified by the Egyptian authorities as funding terrorist attacks in Egypt and the Sinai.  A list of such funders was provided by the Egyptian government to law enforcement in England.  A similar list of North American M.B. activists and sympathizers and organizations that support them would help curb the expansion of political Islam in the U.S. and Canada.  Such information is especially needed because M.B.-affiliated groups in the U.S. and Canada, have recently turned opaque, deleting pertinent information from their websites.

Take for example ISNA North America and its Canadian branch.  The new executive director of ISNA Canada, Taha Ghayyur, has been active and listed as a board member in several U.S. and Canadian M.B.-affiliated groups who promote political Islam.  He has openly spoken about how to gradually implement Islamic law (sharia) in North America.

In an article originally published in English by the Young Muslims website and entitled “Understanding Punishment in Shariah,” Taha Ghayyur explained the rationale behind the harsh punishments in Islam (execution, stoning, cutting off thieves’ hands, etc.) and argued that the Islamic law (sharia) can be implemented in North America.  (Detailed information on Taha Ghayyur’s involvement with North American Muslim organizations is available here.)

The following are excerpts from Ghayyur’s article:

[If o]ne wonders if [sharia] can be practically implemented in our contemporary North American context[,] … [t]he principles of [sharia] are universal and are not bound by the limitations of time and culture.

Ghayyur argues:

It is certainly possible to apply [sharia] in the North American society only if three conditions are fulfilled:


· One, when an environment is developed, provisioned with preventative measures, that is conductive to a just and productive lifestyle, which is often not compatible with a consumer lifestyle.


· Two, if the [sharia] laws are implemented gradually, accompanied by continuous public education and training on the importance of justice, freedom, and one’s purpose on this [E]arth, the way it was revealed and practiced, as a strategy of pre-crime social reform, over a period of twenty-three years at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the first generation of Muslims.


· Three, if the punishments in the [sharia] are given their due place, only to be used as a last resort, and not to be practiced in isolation from the other major objectives of the [sharia].

He then clarifies why it is important to introduce these measures gradually:

If a comprehensive approach to [sharia] is not adopted then one may expect to witness horrific images of extremist, selective, and literal application of the Islamic text, the likes of which we have witnessed in recent times.

To prevent this from happening, Ghayyur recommends his version of Daesh lite.  Nonetheless, Ghayyur is recommended by Toronto’s District School Board as a speaker “willing to come to schools” to “create a healthy dialogue in order to build bridges between communities.”

ISNA’s Ghayyur is preaching for gradually enforcing sharia in North America and “commitment to Islam as a total way of life.”  This is not different from what the mullahs are imposing in Iran.  So it is not surprising that none of ISNA- and other M.B.-affiliated groups in North America has expressed support to the Iranians who wish to free themselves from the shackles of the mullahs’ version of Daesh lite.

Recent mass demonstrations in Iran, and the government’s violent crackdown has been met with a deafening silence by Muslim “civil rights” organizations in the U.S. and Canada.  Why have they refrained from supporting the Iranian people’s uprising to overthrow the oppressive mullahs?  After all, the same organizations have vocally and financially supported the mass demonstrations in the Middle East and North Africa that erupted in December 2010 and led to the rise of Egypt’s short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government and caused turmoil and destabilized these regions.

American and Canadian Muslim organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the U.S. and Canada, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) in the U.S. and Canada, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) (including its Canadian branch), share the similar agenda and boards and serve as umbrellas to many smaller associations and community-based groups.  Their charities aim to expand the implementation of their agenda, and a few of them have been identified as unindicted co-conspirator in Islamist terrorist financing trials in the U.S.  Their common mission: dedication to “da’wah” (proselytization), building “an Islamic way of life in North America[, and] commitment to Islam as a total way of life” by practicing sharia (Islamic law).  This desire to impose any version of Islam on society to establish global Islamic theocracy via political activism, has been accurately described by Prof. Clive Kessler as “political Islam” or “ISIS/Daesh lite.”

Political Islam has been successfully enforced by the mullahs in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.  Over the years, they have increased their efforts to enforce and spread political Islam everywhere.  Their efforts did not stop with Shite groups; rather, they extended especially to Sunni Muslim Brotherhood offshoots such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda.  Not surprisingly, the first foreign trip of Egypt’s now deposed Muslim Brother president, Mohammed Morsi, was to visit Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  But Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood’s short-lived government (June 2012-July 2013) has failed because the Egyptian people rejected its oppression early on.

The ousting of the M.B. government was followed with banning its activities in Egypt and later in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Syria.  But by then, the global Brotherhood’s movement has been well entrenched in the West, where their activities are not limited and often encouraged.  The leaders of the Islamist movement have doubled their efforts to spread and whenever possible, to enforce political Islam on Muslims and infidels alike.

The el-Sisi government, which banned the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates, arrested many of their leaders and activists and seized documents, which identify many of their supporters everywhere, including in North America, where political Islam has been gathering force. 

Followers of the movement in Britain have been recently identified by the Egyptian authorities as funding terrorist attacks in Egypt and the Sinai.  A list of such funders was provided by the Egyptian government to law enforcement in England.  A similar list of North American M.B. activists and sympathizers and organizations that support them would help curb the expansion of political Islam in the U.S. and Canada.  Such information is especially needed because M.B.-affiliated groups in the U.S. and Canada, have recently turned opaque, deleting pertinent information from their websites.

Take for example ISNA North America and its Canadian branch.  The new executive director of ISNA Canada, Taha Ghayyur, has been active and listed as a board member in several U.S. and Canadian M.B.-affiliated groups who promote political Islam.  He has openly spoken about how to gradually implement Islamic law (sharia) in North America.

In an article originally published in English by the Young Muslims website and entitled “Understanding Punishment in Shariah,” Taha Ghayyur explained the rationale behind the harsh punishments in Islam (execution, stoning, cutting off thieves’ hands, etc.) and argued that the Islamic law (sharia) can be implemented in North America.  (Detailed information on Taha Ghayyur’s involvement with North American Muslim organizations is available here.)

The following are excerpts from Ghayyur’s article:

[If o]ne wonders if [sharia] can be practically implemented in our contemporary North American context[,] … [t]he principles of [sharia] are universal and are not bound by the limitations of time and culture.

Ghayyur argues:

It is certainly possible to apply [sharia] in the North American society only if three conditions are fulfilled:


· One, when an environment is developed, provisioned with preventative measures, that is conductive to a just and productive lifestyle, which is often not compatible with a consumer lifestyle.


· Two, if the [sharia] laws are implemented gradually, accompanied by continuous public education and training on the importance of justice, freedom, and one’s purpose on this [E]arth, the way it was revealed and practiced, as a strategy of pre-crime social reform, over a period of twenty-three years at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the first generation of Muslims.


· Three, if the punishments in the [sharia] are given their due place, only to be used as a last resort, and not to be practiced in isolation from the other major objectives of the [sharia].

He then clarifies why it is important to introduce these measures gradually:

If a comprehensive approach to [sharia] is not adopted then one may expect to witness horrific images of extremist, selective, and literal application of the Islamic text, the likes of which we have witnessed in recent times.

To prevent this from happening, Ghayyur recommends his version of Daesh lite.  Nonetheless, Ghayyur is recommended by Toronto’s District School Board as a speaker “willing to come to schools” to “create a healthy dialogue in order to build bridges between communities.”

ISNA’s Ghayyur is preaching for gradually enforcing sharia in North America and “commitment to Islam as a total way of life.”  This is not different from what the mullahs are imposing in Iran.  So it is not surprising that none of ISNA- and other M.B.-affiliated groups in North America has expressed support to the Iranians who wish to free themselves from the shackles of the mullahs’ version of Daesh lite.



Source link

Soros Is No Dreyfus


Anti-Semitism should always be condemned. But it is somewhat ironic that leaders of Hungary’s Jewish community and Israel’s Ambassador in Budapest are rallying on behalf of a man who demeans Jews and gives millions to anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian organizations. That man, who is Jewish by birth, but proud for growing up in an “anti-Semitic home,” is George Soros.

The Hungarian government is fighting Soros, who is campaigning against the Hungarian government’s immigration policies in the effort to force it to open its borders to illegal immigrants. As part of this fight, the Hungarians are attempting to curb the billionaire’s funding of opposition groups, as well as his Budapest-based Central European University by legislating education reforms that would close the institution, unless it complies with the country’s laws.  

Soros, dubbed as the “only private citizen who had his foreign policy,” whose efforts to change Hungary’s domestic policies and reverse the law that would shut down the CEU has failed, addressed the European Commission’s annual economic meeting last June. He denounces the “the deception and corruption of the mafia state the Orban regime has established,” and led the European Union to take legal action against the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Orban responded with a billboard campaign featuring a smirking Soros with the caption: Let’s not allow Soros to have the last laugh.” It didn’t take long before Soros and his supporters evoked his Jewishness and accused the government of anti-Semitism. Orban’s spokesperson responded: “The Hungarian government’s goal is to stop Soros’s migrant campaign, which is supporting the migration of illegal migrants into our country. The government is not criticizing George Soros for his Jewish origin, but for his supporting the growing number of migrants entering in uncontrolled crowds into Europe.” And Hungary is not alone in limiting the number of illegal, mostly Muslim immigrants who pose a great economic and security threat. Other European nations are also taking steps to stem the seemingly endless tide. 

As for anti-Semitism, in November 2003, as Operation Iraqi Freedom was underway and anti-American and anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic demonstrations spread throughout Europe, Soros spoke at a meeting of the Jewish Funders Network in New York. Soros claimed that “The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute” to the rise of anti-Semitism. He assured his audience that once Bush and Sharon are removed from office, the world will go back to not hating Jews. “If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly,” he said. On December 4, 2003, Ira Stoll reported in the New York Sun that Soros declared “Israel “likely” was a big but secret reason for America’s war in Iraq.” 

Soros has rewritten Middle Eastern history to better jibe with his idea of the “poignant and difficult case” of “victims turning perpetrators.”  Soros, much like the virulent anti-Semitic graphic daily propaganda in Arab, Palestinian and Iranian newspapers, has been comparing Israel’s self-defense against repeated attempts of annihilation by the Islamist/Arab terrorists to Nazi atrocities. The successful defense against terrorism, especially preemptive actions, is never appropriate in Soros’ book.

His history of how Israel fought for its independence could have been written by Noam Chomsky or Yasser Arafat. “After the war [World War II], Jews resorted to terrorism against the British in Palestine in order to secure a homeland in Israel,” Soros wrote in 2003  in The Bubble of American Supremacy.  “Subsequently, after being attacked by Arab nations, Israel occupied additional territory and expelled many of the inhabitants. Eventually, the Arab victims also turned perpetrators, and Israel started suffering terrorist attacks.” 

This Soros’ interpretation denies the number of Arab invasions and the brutal tactics used that led Israel to occupy the lands these attacks were launched from in the first place. As for the “expulsions,” most left of their own accord because the surrounding Arab nations ordered them to leave. The Arab plan was to kill all the Jews as soon as possible and move back. For defending themselves, the Jews are apparently getting what they deserve, in Soros’ mind. By surviving Arab/Muslim violence all these years, and by defending themselves, the Jews in Israel and elsewhere bear the responsibility for rising anti-Semitism and anti-Israel activities.

Soros’ comments did not sit well with quite a few public figures: “It’s a warped view of the Holocaust and its aftermath, of Israel, and America,” than the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, told the New York Sun. “It’s outrageous. To call it obscenity is not strong enough a word. It is so perverted and so perverse.” The New York Daily News ran an editorial describing Soros as a “man who lacks even a remotely balanced view of history and the nature of evil. He has demeaned the Holocaust and placed moral responsibility for anti-Semitism on its victims rather than its perpetrators.” Even Democratic representative Eliot Engle also called Soros statements “morally reprehensible” and advised his “hear no evil/see no evil” Democratic brethren that he didn’t think that, “People shouldn’t kiss up to” Soros simply because “he wants to give money.” 

Documents hacked from Soros’s global organizations network and released on DC Leaks in 2016 revealed not only his funding of groups that follow his globalist (no borders) pro-illegal immigration, anti-capitalist, anti-Judeo-Christian and Western values agenda, but also pro-Muslim Brotherhood and anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian activities.  These include Adalah, which claims to be an “independent human rights organization” that has been campaigning, as the Palestinians and Iran, against alleged Israeli war crimes, advocating for Israel diplomatic isolation and for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. It also funds Israeli Arab organizations’ activities against Israel. 

Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who loyally served his country, fell victim to anti-Semitic conspiracy accusing him of treason. The public outcry led by Emile Zola and a second trial led to Dreyfus’ exoneration. He was reinstated, promoted, and created an Officer of the Legion of Honor.   

Soros, unlike Dreyfus, is loyal only to himself. His tremendous wealth has allowed him to buy politicians and influence domestic and international politics, which he advances through a myriad of organizations. In the case of Hungary, it is mostly about the government’s threat to close his “educational legacy” — the CEU. The religion he was born into, which he disdains, has nothing to do with his political actions. He personifies this agenda and should be held responsible for his efforts to intervene in Hungary’s, Israel’s the U.S. and a host of other countries.

Anti-Semitism should always be condemned. But it is somewhat ironic that leaders of Hungary’s Jewish community and Israel’s Ambassador in Budapest are rallying on behalf of a man who demeans Jews and gives millions to anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian organizations. That man, who is Jewish by birth, but proud for growing up in an “anti-Semitic home,” is George Soros.

The Hungarian government is fighting Soros, who is campaigning against the Hungarian government’s immigration policies in the effort to force it to open its borders to illegal immigrants. As part of this fight, the Hungarians are attempting to curb the billionaire’s funding of opposition groups, as well as his Budapest-based Central European University by legislating education reforms that would close the institution, unless it complies with the country’s laws.  

Soros, dubbed as the “only private citizen who had his foreign policy,” whose efforts to change Hungary’s domestic policies and reverse the law that would shut down the CEU has failed, addressed the European Commission’s annual economic meeting last June. He denounces the “the deception and corruption of the mafia state the Orban regime has established,” and led the European Union to take legal action against the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Orban responded with a billboard campaign featuring a smirking Soros with the caption: Let’s not allow Soros to have the last laugh.” It didn’t take long before Soros and his supporters evoked his Jewishness and accused the government of anti-Semitism. Orban’s spokesperson responded: “The Hungarian government’s goal is to stop Soros’s migrant campaign, which is supporting the migration of illegal migrants into our country. The government is not criticizing George Soros for his Jewish origin, but for his supporting the growing number of migrants entering in uncontrolled crowds into Europe.” And Hungary is not alone in limiting the number of illegal, mostly Muslim immigrants who pose a great economic and security threat. Other European nations are also taking steps to stem the seemingly endless tide. 

As for anti-Semitism, in November 2003, as Operation Iraqi Freedom was underway and anti-American and anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic demonstrations spread throughout Europe, Soros spoke at a meeting of the Jewish Funders Network in New York. Soros claimed that “The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute” to the rise of anti-Semitism. He assured his audience that once Bush and Sharon are removed from office, the world will go back to not hating Jews. “If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly,” he said. On December 4, 2003, Ira Stoll reported in the New York Sun that Soros declared “Israel “likely” was a big but secret reason for America’s war in Iraq.” 

Soros has rewritten Middle Eastern history to better jibe with his idea of the “poignant and difficult case” of “victims turning perpetrators.”  Soros, much like the virulent anti-Semitic graphic daily propaganda in Arab, Palestinian and Iranian newspapers, has been comparing Israel’s self-defense against repeated attempts of annihilation by the Islamist/Arab terrorists to Nazi atrocities. The successful defense against terrorism, especially preemptive actions, is never appropriate in Soros’ book.

His history of how Israel fought for its independence could have been written by Noam Chomsky or Yasser Arafat. “After the war [World War II], Jews resorted to terrorism against the British in Palestine in order to secure a homeland in Israel,” Soros wrote in 2003  in The Bubble of American Supremacy.  “Subsequently, after being attacked by Arab nations, Israel occupied additional territory and expelled many of the inhabitants. Eventually, the Arab victims also turned perpetrators, and Israel started suffering terrorist attacks.” 

This Soros’ interpretation denies the number of Arab invasions and the brutal tactics used that led Israel to occupy the lands these attacks were launched from in the first place. As for the “expulsions,” most left of their own accord because the surrounding Arab nations ordered them to leave. The Arab plan was to kill all the Jews as soon as possible and move back. For defending themselves, the Jews are apparently getting what they deserve, in Soros’ mind. By surviving Arab/Muslim violence all these years, and by defending themselves, the Jews in Israel and elsewhere bear the responsibility for rising anti-Semitism and anti-Israel activities.

Soros’ comments did not sit well with quite a few public figures: “It’s a warped view of the Holocaust and its aftermath, of Israel, and America,” than the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, told the New York Sun. “It’s outrageous. To call it obscenity is not strong enough a word. It is so perverted and so perverse.” The New York Daily News ran an editorial describing Soros as a “man who lacks even a remotely balanced view of history and the nature of evil. He has demeaned the Holocaust and placed moral responsibility for anti-Semitism on its victims rather than its perpetrators.” Even Democratic representative Eliot Engle also called Soros statements “morally reprehensible” and advised his “hear no evil/see no evil” Democratic brethren that he didn’t think that, “People shouldn’t kiss up to” Soros simply because “he wants to give money.” 

Documents hacked from Soros’s global organizations network and released on DC Leaks in 2016 revealed not only his funding of groups that follow his globalist (no borders) pro-illegal immigration, anti-capitalist, anti-Judeo-Christian and Western values agenda, but also pro-Muslim Brotherhood and anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian activities.  These include Adalah, which claims to be an “independent human rights organization” that has been campaigning, as the Palestinians and Iran, against alleged Israeli war crimes, advocating for Israel diplomatic isolation and for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. It also funds Israeli Arab organizations’ activities against Israel. 

Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who loyally served his country, fell victim to anti-Semitic conspiracy accusing him of treason. The public outcry led by Emile Zola and a second trial led to Dreyfus’ exoneration. He was reinstated, promoted, and created an Officer of the Legion of Honor.   

Soros, unlike Dreyfus, is loyal only to himself. His tremendous wealth has allowed him to buy politicians and influence domestic and international politics, which he advances through a myriad of organizations. In the case of Hungary, it is mostly about the government’s threat to close his “educational legacy” — the CEU. The religion he was born into, which he disdains, has nothing to do with his political actions. He personifies this agenda and should be held responsible for his efforts to intervene in Hungary’s, Israel’s the U.S. and a host of other countries.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

The UK and Jihad


As with the car and stabbing attacks on the Westminster Bridge on March 22, 2017, media reports on Saturday night highlighted the terrorists’ “new tactic” of using cars to mow down a large number of pedestrians, and knives to stab as many as they can. There is nothing new about this tactic. As with other forms of terrorism, the Palestinians used them first on Israeli civilians. Despite decades of advancing Palestinian terrorist tactics in Israel (suicide belts and vests, and car bombs with nails and screws, car mowing pedestrians, and stabbing, to name but a few), the political leadership of most Western nations seemed oblivious to the emerging patterns of Islamic terrorism. They failed to recognize their jihad against Israel for the deadly contagious disease they spread. This has been going on for decades. 

Instead of pressuring the Palestinians to stop, Arab and Western nations have been rewarding the Palestinians who employ terrorists and fund their activities with billions of dollars while pressuring Israel for concessions. Incredibly, since the rise of global Islamic radicalism, the Palestinians have successfully managed to falsely argue that the creation of the state of Palestine, an Islamic terrorist state, would somehow influence other radical Islamic groups to give up their jihad. The Saudis and the Gulf States that have been funding the Palestinian jihadists know better, but are finding it difficult to change their longtime habits, they apparently encouraged President Trump to renege on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel by relocating the American embassy to the city, while legitimizing the Palestinian leaderships that fund terrorism. (The Saudi agreement to purchase some $400 billion worth of U.S. weapons and technology has probably helped their appeal). 

The Saturday night Islamic terrorist car and knives attack in East London should signal the end of multiculturalism in England. But don’t hold your breath. 

For many decades, radical Islamist ideology was allowed to flourish in England, mostly under the guise of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli activities. Those, however, allowed the expansion of Islamic networks with Saudi and Gulf funding of mosques, madrassas, and Islamic centers and with Muslim Brotherhood political guiding laid down a global network. After the 9/11 al Qaeda attacks on America and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan supported by the United Kingdom and Canada, Islamic organizations in Britain, including the Palestinians, have increased their activities, raising money for future widows and orphans and expanded their base through the dawa.

Law enforcement officials privately voiced their concern but there was no political will to confront the problem. Not even after fifteen Islamic terrorist attacks beginning on July 7, 2005, on London’s transportation systems killing 52 and wounding many others. 

The threat of Islamic takeover has been clear to many and mostly ignored by British politicians. A few, like Baroness Cox, protested the imposition of Sharia courts in England. In March 2014 she described the Islamic modus operandi: Sharia law, imported from theocracies like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, began to be used here in a strictly limited form, dealing mainly with narrow issues like Islamic financial contracts. But as the Muslim population has grown, and the pervasive creed of multiculturalism has become ever more powerful, so Sharia law has rapidly grown in influence within some communities. ‘There are now estimated to be no fewer than 85 Sharia courts across the country — from London and Manchester to Bradford and Nuneaton. They operate mainly from mosques, settling financial and family disputes according to [Islamic} religious principles.” The government of David Cameron, like that of Tony Blair before, paid little attention and refused to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been collecting funds for Hamas for decades.  

Radical Islam spreads in large Muslim communities everywhere in the West. The Islamic ideology is preached and enforced in Mosques and schools, usually with no interference from the local secular authorities. For example, on May 18, 2015, sharia became the law officially in the Muslim-majority Barking & Dagenham Borough in East London, where the Metropolitan Police has been hunting for potential supporters of the latest car and knife attacks this past Saturday night that killed seven and injured at least 48 people, many critically. 

At that time, the local council took this step to “welcome our Muslim immigrants and nourish a multicultural society.” Imposing sharia on all residents, Muslim and non-Muslim alike prohibited “the consumption of pork or alcohol. All businesses required to desist all their operation during Islamic prayer time, or else they will incur fines. All women, whether they are Muslim or not required to wear hijabs (the local government [was] in the process of sewing tens of thousands for non-Muslim women)” Representatives of the council saw the move to Sharia “as a natural next step.” Moreover, Linda Gayle, a local representative declared: “It was only a matter of time before Sharia Law became reality in London and we’re happy to be the forerunners of this very tolerant and multicultural governing process. Barking is home to tens of thousands of Muslims, and we could no longer ignore the richness that they have brought to our little part of town. Implementing Sharia Law is honoring all the people of Muslim faith who make this community thrive. Now they will finally feel home!” The Saturday night attacks on the infidels was another bloody reminder that radical Muslims do not honor others.

Prime Minister Theresa May described Saturday’s attackers as bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.” She went on to say: “It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.” She was right. Islam, as taught and practiced today is incompatible with Western values. And unless is it forced to change it will continue to incite for jihad. It’s about time to declare war on all Jihadists.

As with the car and stabbing attacks on the Westminster Bridge on March 22, 2017, media reports on Saturday night highlighted the terrorists’ “new tactic” of using cars to mow down a large number of pedestrians, and knives to stab as many as they can. There is nothing new about this tactic. As with other forms of terrorism, the Palestinians used them first on Israeli civilians. Despite decades of advancing Palestinian terrorist tactics in Israel (suicide belts and vests, and car bombs with nails and screws, car mowing pedestrians, and stabbing, to name but a few), the political leadership of most Western nations seemed oblivious to the emerging patterns of Islamic terrorism. They failed to recognize their jihad against Israel for the deadly contagious disease they spread. This has been going on for decades. 

Instead of pressuring the Palestinians to stop, Arab and Western nations have been rewarding the Palestinians who employ terrorists and fund their activities with billions of dollars while pressuring Israel for concessions. Incredibly, since the rise of global Islamic radicalism, the Palestinians have successfully managed to falsely argue that the creation of the state of Palestine, an Islamic terrorist state, would somehow influence other radical Islamic groups to give up their jihad. The Saudis and the Gulf States that have been funding the Palestinian jihadists know better, but are finding it difficult to change their longtime habits, they apparently encouraged President Trump to renege on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel by relocating the American embassy to the city, while legitimizing the Palestinian leaderships that fund terrorism. (The Saudi agreement to purchase some $400 billion worth of U.S. weapons and technology has probably helped their appeal). 

The Saturday night Islamic terrorist car and knives attack in East London should signal the end of multiculturalism in England. But don’t hold your breath. 

For many decades, radical Islamist ideology was allowed to flourish in England, mostly under the guise of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli activities. Those, however, allowed the expansion of Islamic networks with Saudi and Gulf funding of mosques, madrassas, and Islamic centers and with Muslim Brotherhood political guiding laid down a global network. After the 9/11 al Qaeda attacks on America and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan supported by the United Kingdom and Canada, Islamic organizations in Britain, including the Palestinians, have increased their activities, raising money for future widows and orphans and expanded their base through the dawa.

Law enforcement officials privately voiced their concern but there was no political will to confront the problem. Not even after fifteen Islamic terrorist attacks beginning on July 7, 2005, on London’s transportation systems killing 52 and wounding many others. 

The threat of Islamic takeover has been clear to many and mostly ignored by British politicians. A few, like Baroness Cox, protested the imposition of Sharia courts in England. In March 2014 she described the Islamic modus operandi: Sharia law, imported from theocracies like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, began to be used here in a strictly limited form, dealing mainly with narrow issues like Islamic financial contracts. But as the Muslim population has grown, and the pervasive creed of multiculturalism has become ever more powerful, so Sharia law has rapidly grown in influence within some communities. ‘There are now estimated to be no fewer than 85 Sharia courts across the country — from London and Manchester to Bradford and Nuneaton. They operate mainly from mosques, settling financial and family disputes according to [Islamic} religious principles.” The government of David Cameron, like that of Tony Blair before, paid little attention and refused to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been collecting funds for Hamas for decades.  

Radical Islam spreads in large Muslim communities everywhere in the West. The Islamic ideology is preached and enforced in Mosques and schools, usually with no interference from the local secular authorities. For example, on May 18, 2015, sharia became the law officially in the Muslim-majority Barking & Dagenham Borough in East London, where the Metropolitan Police has been hunting for potential supporters of the latest car and knife attacks this past Saturday night that killed seven and injured at least 48 people, many critically. 

At that time, the local council took this step to “welcome our Muslim immigrants and nourish a multicultural society.” Imposing sharia on all residents, Muslim and non-Muslim alike prohibited “the consumption of pork or alcohol. All businesses required to desist all their operation during Islamic prayer time, or else they will incur fines. All women, whether they are Muslim or not required to wear hijabs (the local government [was] in the process of sewing tens of thousands for non-Muslim women)” Representatives of the council saw the move to Sharia “as a natural next step.” Moreover, Linda Gayle, a local representative declared: “It was only a matter of time before Sharia Law became reality in London and we’re happy to be the forerunners of this very tolerant and multicultural governing process. Barking is home to tens of thousands of Muslims, and we could no longer ignore the richness that they have brought to our little part of town. Implementing Sharia Law is honoring all the people of Muslim faith who make this community thrive. Now they will finally feel home!” The Saturday night attacks on the infidels was another bloody reminder that radical Muslims do not honor others.

Prime Minister Theresa May described Saturday’s attackers as bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.” She went on to say: “It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.” She was right. Islam, as taught and practiced today is incompatible with Western values. And unless is it forced to change it will continue to incite for jihad. It’s about time to declare war on all Jihadists.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Any Secrets Left to Steal?


Everyone is shocked, shocked by WikiLeaks’ latest exposé that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been exploiting software vulnerabilities in our digital and electronic devices. All those “shocked” should have known better by now. 

After the publications of files stolen by former National Security Agency’s contractor, Edward Snowden, on U.S. military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures, and surveillance details, President Obama announced, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.”   

In the spring of 2016 — months before Hillary Clinton’s and John Podesta’s emails were published by WikiLeaks — the Pew Research Center survey showed that many Americans “do not trust modern institutions to protect their personal data — even as they frequently neglect cybersecurity best practices in their own personal lives.”  

For well over a decade, cyber experts have been testifying in open and closed Congressional hearings on the escalation of hacking into United States government agencies and private industries, communication, websites, and email. All without exception issued warnings on the short-term damages and the long-term threat posed by such hacking to U.S. national security and interests, and the American people by Chinese, Iranian, Russian, and other cybersavvy intelligence agencies, criminal and terrorist organizations. All the while very few, if any, warned of the proliferation of ground-based jammers and their growing interference with GPS timing and locations services, or data corruption and insertion. 

In 2010, then Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller lamented, “The scale of compromise, including the loss of sensitive and unclassified data, is staggering. We’re talking about terabytes of data, equivalent to multiple libraries of Congress.” (The Library of Congress is the world’s largest library, archiving millions of books, photographs, maps, and recordings.) 

Successive governments and the private sector have failed to secure our communications, exposing our personal and national secrets, costing untold economic damage to individuals, companies, and our national security. 

While the Obama administration oversaw the accelerated pace of moving to wireless communications — leaving very few alternatives, if any, for a time when those will be unavailable due to attack or natural disaster — it has adopted a slow knee-jerk cybersecurity policy. In 2014, the Obama administration was tasked by Congress to develop cyber countermeasure policies. But in response to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) question “Is it correct that these are policy-decisions that have not been made?”  U.S. Cyber Command Commander Admiral Michael S. Rogers responded: “The way I would describe it is, we clearly still are focused more on” an “event-by-event” approach to cyber incidents.” He urged to “accelerate debate on how to balance security and privacy in the ever-changing digital realm.” Otherwise, Rogers warned, “an enemy could change and manipulate data — rather than enter a computer system and steal — that action would be a threat to national security.”

Very little has changed since Admiral Rogers warned that the U.S. vulnerability to cyberattacks could allow hackers to shut down the electric grid throughout the country, disable communications and the operations of the critical infrastructure, and other industrial systems. On March 2, 2017, in what seems like Groundhog Day, Sen. McCain warned again, “Treating every attack on a case-by-case basis, as we have done over the last eight years has bred indecision and inaction, and the appearance of weakness has emboldened our adversaries.” In the meantime, as February’s Defense Science Board’s report details, Russia, China, North Korea, and with growing potential, Iran could launch such an attack today,   

When Chinese hacking of the New York Times was exposed by the paper in January, 2013, the conflict-averse Obama administration used a few well-publicized trials of Chinese military hackers (in absentia), as window dressing, leaving the window and even the door open to the nation’s cyber systems wide open.

The technological difficulties in developing cybersecurity are compounded by widespread cyber illiteracy in America and a prevalent misguided interpretation of the need for transparency. On October 11, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told a gathering of business people: “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States can locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests,’ he said.” Perhaps. However, sophisticated, corrupt and ideologically motivated government employees and contractors who hack into the systems, steal information and either sell or leak it, seem more difficult to track.  As for many government employees, many are cyber-illiterate, unable to grasp the risk associated with cyber communications. 

In 2015, the Office of Personnel Management announced that it had discovered that at the personal information of “least 22.1 million current and former employees along with extensive information about friends, relatives, and others listed as references in applications for security clearances for some of the most sensitive jobs in government” have been hacked. Other government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, have been hacked untold times. Some countermeasures to stop the hacking worked, but the hacking continued.

There is no public assessment of the damage already done to our defense capabilities, financial institutions, and the economy. The government, if it knows, keeps this information from the public. The private sector, for its part, is unwilling to speak publicly about the damages it has suffered, and, unsurprisingly, with little trust in the government, is often reluctant to exchange information. While details to increase cybersecurity are worked out, our adversaries, like the CIA, continue to exploit vulnerable websites and easy-to-breach cybersecurity systems, which allow the stealing of data relevant to new cybersecurity strategies, thus facilitating their ability to maintain their advantages.

Protection against cyberattacks and GPS interference should be among the U.S. government’s highest and most urgent priorities. 

President Trump should assemble the brightest cyber and GPS experts in the nation to participate in a highly secluded “Manhattan Project”-like group, to develop an alternative to the Internet and the current systems of wireless communication. The team should consist of experts from government, academia, and the private sector, thus gaining the confidence of the public. Better organization and less bureaucracy could be provided by the private sector and funding should be allocated by Congress, as well as the private sector.  

The organizers should insist on keeping the project secret. No detail should be discussed over the phone, in email or on the Internet, so national security secrets that have not been stolen yet, along with new ones, would remain secret. 

Everyone is shocked, shocked by WikiLeaks’ latest exposé that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been exploiting software vulnerabilities in our digital and electronic devices. All those “shocked” should have known better by now. 

After the publications of files stolen by former National Security Agency’s contractor, Edward Snowden, on U.S. military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures, and surveillance details, President Obama announced, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.”   

In the spring of 2016 — months before Hillary Clinton’s and John Podesta’s emails were published by WikiLeaks — the Pew Research Center survey showed that many Americans “do not trust modern institutions to protect their personal data — even as they frequently neglect cybersecurity best practices in their own personal lives.”  

For well over a decade, cyber experts have been testifying in open and closed Congressional hearings on the escalation of hacking into United States government agencies and private industries, communication, websites, and email. All without exception issued warnings on the short-term damages and the long-term threat posed by such hacking to U.S. national security and interests, and the American people by Chinese, Iranian, Russian, and other cybersavvy intelligence agencies, criminal and terrorist organizations. All the while very few, if any, warned of the proliferation of ground-based jammers and their growing interference with GPS timing and locations services, or data corruption and insertion. 

In 2010, then Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller lamented, “The scale of compromise, including the loss of sensitive and unclassified data, is staggering. We’re talking about terabytes of data, equivalent to multiple libraries of Congress.” (The Library of Congress is the world’s largest library, archiving millions of books, photographs, maps, and recordings.) 

Successive governments and the private sector have failed to secure our communications, exposing our personal and national secrets, costing untold economic damage to individuals, companies, and our national security. 

While the Obama administration oversaw the accelerated pace of moving to wireless communications — leaving very few alternatives, if any, for a time when those will be unavailable due to attack or natural disaster — it has adopted a slow knee-jerk cybersecurity policy. In 2014, the Obama administration was tasked by Congress to develop cyber countermeasure policies. But in response to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) question “Is it correct that these are policy-decisions that have not been made?”  U.S. Cyber Command Commander Admiral Michael S. Rogers responded: “The way I would describe it is, we clearly still are focused more on” an “event-by-event” approach to cyber incidents.” He urged to “accelerate debate on how to balance security and privacy in the ever-changing digital realm.” Otherwise, Rogers warned, “an enemy could change and manipulate data — rather than enter a computer system and steal — that action would be a threat to national security.”

Very little has changed since Admiral Rogers warned that the U.S. vulnerability to cyberattacks could allow hackers to shut down the electric grid throughout the country, disable communications and the operations of the critical infrastructure, and other industrial systems. On March 2, 2017, in what seems like Groundhog Day, Sen. McCain warned again, “Treating every attack on a case-by-case basis, as we have done over the last eight years has bred indecision and inaction, and the appearance of weakness has emboldened our adversaries.” In the meantime, as February’s Defense Science Board’s report details, Russia, China, North Korea, and with growing potential, Iran could launch such an attack today,   

When Chinese hacking of the New York Times was exposed by the paper in January, 2013, the conflict-averse Obama administration used a few well-publicized trials of Chinese military hackers (in absentia), as window dressing, leaving the window and even the door open to the nation’s cyber systems wide open.

The technological difficulties in developing cybersecurity are compounded by widespread cyber illiteracy in America and a prevalent misguided interpretation of the need for transparency. On October 11, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told a gathering of business people: “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States can locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests,’ he said.” Perhaps. However, sophisticated, corrupt and ideologically motivated government employees and contractors who hack into the systems, steal information and either sell or leak it, seem more difficult to track.  As for many government employees, many are cyber-illiterate, unable to grasp the risk associated with cyber communications. 

In 2015, the Office of Personnel Management announced that it had discovered that at the personal information of “least 22.1 million current and former employees along with extensive information about friends, relatives, and others listed as references in applications for security clearances for some of the most sensitive jobs in government” have been hacked. Other government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, have been hacked untold times. Some countermeasures to stop the hacking worked, but the hacking continued.

There is no public assessment of the damage already done to our defense capabilities, financial institutions, and the economy. The government, if it knows, keeps this information from the public. The private sector, for its part, is unwilling to speak publicly about the damages it has suffered, and, unsurprisingly, with little trust in the government, is often reluctant to exchange information. While details to increase cybersecurity are worked out, our adversaries, like the CIA, continue to exploit vulnerable websites and easy-to-breach cybersecurity systems, which allow the stealing of data relevant to new cybersecurity strategies, thus facilitating their ability to maintain their advantages.

Protection against cyberattacks and GPS interference should be among the U.S. government’s highest and most urgent priorities. 

President Trump should assemble the brightest cyber and GPS experts in the nation to participate in a highly secluded “Manhattan Project”-like group, to develop an alternative to the Internet and the current systems of wireless communication. The team should consist of experts from government, academia, and the private sector, thus gaining the confidence of the public. Better organization and less bureaucracy could be provided by the private sector and funding should be allocated by Congress, as well as the private sector.  

The organizers should insist on keeping the project secret. No detail should be discussed over the phone, in email or on the Internet, so national security secrets that have not been stolen yet, along with new ones, would remain secret. 



Source link