Soros, Funders of Domestic Terrorism, Form 'Coalition' Against Fed Investigations

Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

The Soros clan, along with other family foundations of the liberal elite, Knight, MacArthur, Ford, Omidyar, and the Rockefellers, have announced that they’re teaming up to fight investigations by the Justice Department.

While Alex Soros, George’s son, bragged that he would not give in, “over my dead body”, the presidents of the MacArthur and McKnight Foundations have declared that everyone needs to dust off their “crisis plans” and put their “legal teams on speed dial” ahead of a crackdown.

What are they afraid of?

The Unite in Advance coalition was formed so quickly by the big liberal grant making groups funding radicalism to form a ‘united front’ that it didn’t even have the time to build a site.

While Unite in Advance’s joint letter mentions the Charlie Kirk assassination and subsequent investigations of Antifa and other radical groups, an initial version of this ‘unity’ push had come out back in April with over 700 leftist groups, led by the MacArthur Foundation and, despite the claims of ‘non-violence’ included signatories like the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where a key figure supported Hezbollah, the Soros network, which has provided money to extremist and terrorist front groups, and BLM funders like the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

The latest incarnation of what the radical leftist funders are billing as the ‘Freedom to Give’ complains that they are being portrayed as “contributing to those acts of violence” and accuses unnamed figures, seemingly conservatives and the Trump administration, of plotting to “silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and limit charitable giving.”

After decades of trying to censor, ‘debank’ and ban conservative groups, the funders of these efforts are suddenly hailing a “freedom to give” when the investigation risks turning their way.

It’s nice that the Knight Foundation, a major SPLC donor, and which also provided millions to fund ‘disinformation’ research which was used to deplatform and silence opposing groups, has suddenly come around to believing in the value of free speech. But only when it’s their speech.

But speech, on either side, isn’t a crime. Funding domestic terrorism however is.

The frantic calls for unity, the 700+ signatories of the April letter and the 200 plus and counting foundations that have signed on to the ‘Unite in Advance’ letter are rightly worried about their legal exposure to funding foreign and domestic terrorist groups, rioters and others engaged in criminal activities that, as Freedom Center Investigates has shown over the years, violates their nonprofit status.

Take the Climate Emergency Fund, a 501(c)(3), funding some of the environmental vandalism in America and around the world, which received a founding grant from the Aileen Getty Foundation. The Getty Foundation bragged about “Greta Thunberg and disruptive groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion” which vandalized art masterpieces around the world.

Then there was the financial backing for the BLM movement from big nonprofit players like the Ford Foundation and W.K. Kellogg. And there’s the Soros backing for groups involved in the campus pro-Hamas riots and the more recent anti-ICE riots. Even the legal ‘non-violent’ No Kings protests can fall afoul of the tax-exempt nonprofit status of an organization depending on how they are being conducted.

Free speech is sacrosanct, but that doesn’t cover burning down neighborhoods, assaulting police officers, attacking Jewish students on campus or vandalizing art museums. Nor, for that matter, does it cover blocking roadways, shutting down Congress and other illegal activities that have been billed as ‘civil disobedience’ but that serve as grounds for loss of tax-exempt status.

The big lefty foundations assumed that they could not and would not be held accountable. Now they’re panicking because the Trump administration is moving to finally impose accountability.

The billionaire funders of leftist hate and violence have taken to pretending that they’re “charitable giving organizations” that contribute to “communities”, helping “new parents and elders, veterans and school children, hospitals and libraries.”

The reality is that the vast majority of their ‘giving’ is political.

You don’t go to George Soros if you’re hungry. The Open Society Foundations describe giving grants to “movements, coalitions, networks, collectives and even informal groups”.

Not soup kitchens.

The MacArthur Foundation lists categories such as ‘climate solutions’ and ‘criminal justice’. The first signatory to the Unite in Advance letter is the Action for Transformation Fund which announced that it’s “moving resources to trans-led organizing”.

Other signatories include the Foundation for Systemic Change that works to “highlight ongoing economic, political, social, racial, ethnic, and environmental inequities”, the Fund for Nonviolence, which ironically helped unleash a crime wave, and iF, A Foundation for Radical Possibility, which focuses on ‘systemic racism’.

None of this is charity, it’s leftist political organizing, and the refusal by the signatories to come out and say so, or to hide behind smaller local nonprofits, is dishonest and shameful.

If these big foundations had been funding soup kitchens, hospitals and libraries, rather than political organizing and radical violence, they wouldn’t need to preemptively form a ‘Unite in Advance’ front. And the heads of the MacArthur and McKnight foundations wouldn’t be urging foundations to “stand in solidarity”, organizing for mutual defense against “threats”.

They’re not afraid of being busted for feeding the poor, but for feeding violence and hate.

Now the groups that tried to shut down their political opponents are rallying to the Constitution and the First Amendment, things they never believed in and had worked to destroy, but suddenly rediscovered just in time to become born-again patriots and lovers of freedom.

But no one is buying it.

When these leftist groups had the chance, they tried to eliminate the political opposition. Now they’re terrified of having the actual laws, not imaginary laws about ‘disinformation’, but actual tax code regulations and domestic terrorism laws, being enforced against their activities.

And wouldn’t that be a shame.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.  Thank you for reading.

 

Offsetting guilt: Eco-minded descendants of billionaire oil barons are PAYING hundreds of activists $25,000-a-year to protest around the world because they feel 'a moral obligation to put genie back in the bottle

By James Gant For Dailymail.Com August 2022

Three American oil scions have been bankrolling mobs of eco-zealots who have terrorized the world by slashing tires, blocking traffic and attacking firms.  Aileen Getty, Rebecca Rockefeller Lambert and Peter Gill Case, who are heirs to their families' huge fortunes, are paying the salaries for thugs through their non-profits in an apparent bid to offset their relatives' legacies.  Getty, whose grandfather created Getty Oil, has so far splashed out $1million through her California-based Climate Emergency Fund.........To Read More....

Stepping Stones

By Rich Kozlovich

History is the pathway of the past; and should be the stepping stone to the future. We keep hearing the activists demand that more products be removed from the market because they cause terrible health problems in children. This, in spite of the fact that when this has been done in the past there were terrible consequences to the health of children!

They make all of these claims that it is “for the children” and yet I have to ask; if they are so concerned about the children in the first world, why do they distain the lives and health of the children in the third world?

Huge numbers of children have suffered and died unnecessarily from “green” policies that banned pesticides and genetically modified foods. Yet we only continue to hear all sorts of theoretical, speculative claims about pesticides and GMO’s causing a host of potential disasters from the media. Even if there was a grain of truth in these claims, the benefits would seriously outweigh any potential risks. Why do we keep ignoring the facts?

The events surrounding pesticide bans in the undeveloped world should be lesson enough to show that these types of actions are detrimental to the public health; yet we still go along with the activist’s nonsense. We all want to be green; yet we have no idea what that means today; and I can guarantee you that we will be shocked as to what that will mean tomorrow!

Everyone from my generation remembers that great comic strip “Peanuts”. One scenario was repeated over and over again was Lucy offering to hold the football for poor Charlie Brown to kick. Charlie always knew that Lucy would pull the ball out just at the last minute and he would fall on his back. Why was that funny? Because they would go through this dance about how she “always” pulled the ball out at the last minute and she would swear that this time it would be different; and he fell for it every time. Believing that activists can be believed to keep a bargain is exactly the same.

No agreement made with the activists will be kept by them because they have no command and control structure. If one group makes a deal with our industry another group will attack them and us. No agreement will be honored by them and no matter what agreements are made with governmental authorities; they will be overturned when some activist group demands it.

What probably sickens me the most of all is the worldwide media! In spite of the vast amount of evidence that the activists are directly and indirectly responsible for the death of tens of millions; and the needless suffering of hundreds of millions more because of the implementation of environmentalist’s policies, the media mostly remains silent. By remaining silent or promoting greenie ideas they are as blood guilty as Walter Duranty was when he won the Pulitzer Prize for say that Stalin wasn’t starving his people to death.

Industry information sources also do not challenge these people because they say that we can’t win in the court of public opinion, or they are not in a position to do so. If we never challenge them every time they make outrageous claims, how do we know? At the very least we could make information available to those inside the industry that will give them the ammunition to defend the industry.

It is painfully obvious to me that environmental activists intend to destroy developed societies; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering. It is also painfully obvious to me that the pesticide application, distribution and manufacturing industries will not have any problem compromising; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering.

I can at least understand the youthful following of these groups, “who are attracted by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the ‘movement’”. “The "movement" provides them with an outlet" “They protest against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the older generation." "It is a truly religio-psychological phenomenon.” The clouded vision of the green movement is one of bio-harmony; like a beautiful rainbow. That is romantic nonsense and Industry has no reason, nor excuse for such embracing such delusions.

Greenies demand perfection. The best we can hope for is the most acceptable imperfections. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to improve what becomes the acceptable level of imperfection, but the solutions presented by the greenies ignore and abandon the most effective system for overcoming imperfection the world has ever known. Capitalism! Imperfections are weeded out by the profit motive. If something isn’t working it is dismissed and replaced by something that does. And if the dominant companies refuse to innovate…someone else will come along and innovate and the dominant companies will be out of business or cease being dominant.

IBM gave Bill Gates DOS because “because everyone knows that the money is in the hardware”. Much of what Microsoft and Apple used as the basis for their empires was thrown away by IBM and Xerox.

My mother hates Wal-Mart because it put small businesses out of business. So? Many of those people went to work for Wal-Mart and ended up in a better financial situation than they did working sixteen hours a day for themselves. Wal-Mart is today what Sears was fifty years ago. And fifty years from now someone else will be what Wal-Mart is today.

When Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey monopolized the oil industry did things get better or worse for the nation? Let’s take a look at this. Rockefeller believed it was necessary to take over the oil industry because he believed it was the patriotic thing to do. Shocking isn’t it? In reality he was right! Because the price of oil was based on availability, and no one knew when the next gusher was going to come in. The fluctuation of the price of oil was so dramatic that it was difficult for industry to plan. Rockefeller reasoned that if he controlled all the oil it would stabilize the price; and it did. It might be noted that he didn’t crush all the oil companies…many of them asked to be taken over because it would stabilize their profits. Before he monopolized the oil industry the price of oil in 1860 was $12.00 to $16.00 a barrel. Between 1879 and 1900 it dropped to under $1.00 a barrel in every one of those years.

The Standard Oil of New Jersey story is often touted to show that breaking up monopolies works because the five companies that Standard Oil was broken up into became much, much larger than Standard Oil ever was. That is a logical fallacy because they leave out the most important part of the story. What was the number one product of Standard Oil? Kerosene! And gasoline as a byproduct that was thrown away because they had no use for it. Obviously that changes the values of the story. They didn’t become so much larger because they were the product of a Sherman Anti-Trust Act breakup; they became so much larger because the number one product became gasoline. That is, as Paul Harvey used to say; “the rest of the story!”

We need to start telling the story, the whole story. Our whole story, and we need to do it by attacking the lies told about pesticides.

• The activists attack us and we remain silent or we try to convince everyone to like us.
• The activists attack us more, and we adapt and change and continue to tell everyone that we are really nice people.
• They attack us some more, and we appease them all the more with the excuse that at least we had some input in the legislation.
• They attack again, and we still think that we “need to compromise”.
• We adopt their philosophies and become compliant, subservient and obedient and tell everyone that this is why they should like us.

Their successes, or I should say our failure to stand firm against them, breed more attacks, which become even more virulent.  In the meanwhile we have “compromised” so much that we don’t realize that we haven’t compromised, we have capitulated.

What I don’t know is this; does that make us slaves, fools, cowards? Or does that make us all three?

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.
###