To read part one of this article, click here.
* Union of Concerned Scientists: This organization typically minimizes the threats posed by foreign rogue regimes, and challenges U.S. assertions about the intentions and military capacities of those governments. In 1998, for instance, UCS (wrongly) assured the public that American analysts had exaggerated North Korea's ability to produce nuclear weapons, and that the Pyongyang regime was still many years away from being able to develop such an arsenal. UCS also calls for the "adoption of a U.S. nuclear no-first-use policy"; "a U.S. rejection of rapid-launch options, and a change in deployment practices to provide for the launch of U.S. nuclear forces in hours or days rather than minutes"; "the elimination of all U.S. 'tactical' nuclear weapons, intended for use on the battlefield"; "verified unilateral reductions to a total of 1,000 strategic warheads ... accompanied by warhead dismantlement"; an end to America's quest to develop a missile defense system; and "a commitment to further reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, on a negotiated and verified multilateral basis."
* International ANSWER: This organization (whose name is an acronym for "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism") is run by Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, which is staffed by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. ANSWER views the United States as a racist, imperialist, sexist, homophobic nation and the world's chief violator of human rights -- guilty of unspeakable atrocities, past and present, foreign and domestic. Founded on September 14, 2001, ANSWER has held numerous mass anti-war rallies in cities across the United States.
* American Friends Service Committee: AFSC is "committed to the principles of nonviolence and justice" in the face of any and all external threats, confident that "the transforming power of love, human and divine" will ultimately cause aggressors to lay down their weapons and permit peaceful reconciliation to prevail. Following what it calls "the radical thrust of the early Christian witness," AFSC members affirm that they "regard no person as our enemy." The AFSC worldview is founded on the belief that evil does not exist within individuals, who are endowed only with goodness by their divine Creator; and that evil exists only outside of the individual, in societal institutions which often cause people to do terrible things that are inconsistent with their inherent goodness. Thus AFSC "seek[s] to understand and address the root causes of poverty, injustice, and war … [and] to confront, nonviolently, powerful institutions of violence, evil, oppression, and injustice." According to AFSC, the primary agent of evil on earth is the United States. A pamphlet recently distributed by AFSC says that the "solution" to international strife is "to disarm America and have it withdraw economically and militarily from the globe."
In March 2005 AFSC complained that "the U.S. denies immigrant workers the most fundamental labor rights," and called for the protection of "the rights and dignity of all people, regardless of legal immigration status." AFSC has posted on its website a detailed list of strategies for illegal aliens to use in the event that they are interrogated, detained, or arrested by immigration authorities or police.
* Institute for Public Accuracy: On September 12, 2001 (the day after 9/11), IPA issued a press release condemning the "U.S. policy of causing massive civilian suffering in Iraq," and calling not for military retaliation but rather for "deeper compassion and understanding." In late 2002, this organization sponsored a visit to Baghdad by actor Sean Penn, which amounted to a public relations coup for Saddam Hussein. Near the end of his tour, Penn announced, "If there is a war or continued sanctions against Iraq, the blood of Americans and Iraqis will be on our hands." Exploting Penn’s naivete, the Iraqi News Agency falsely reported that Penn had "confirmed that Iraq is completely clear of weapons of mass destruction." Berkeley professor Norman Solomon, president of the IPA and Penn's handler for the occasion, opined that Penn's mission "could inspire many Americans from various walks of life to explore how they can impede the momentum toward war, whether in Baghdad or at home in the United States."
* Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization: In the 1980s, this organization opposed President Reagan's effort to check the spread of communism in Central America. Openly supporting the communists, IFCO stated that it "viewed the Sandinista revolution and the insurrection in El Salvador as powerful models for the struggle within the U.S. against U.S. militarism, racism, and economic exploitation, and saw the importance of drawing parallels and linkages between the Nicaraguan struggle and the struggle of black and Latino communities for social justice in the U.S." IFCO has similarly opposed all American military ventures since then.
* Women's International League for Peace and Freedom: Demanding an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, WILPF asserts that "this illegal war" has destabilized "the entire Middle East region" and destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, "politically and physically." "The Bush administration created the so-called 'War on Terrorism' to instill fear as the premise for U.S. foreign policy," says WILPF. "Basic human rights are being curtailed in the U.S. and abroad to propagate this lie. The administration uses the USA Patriot Act … to justify its actions. We call upon Congress to rescind the Patriot Act and to investigate all imprisonments caused by this fear-mongering."
* National Council of Churches: A staunch supporter of Communist Cuba, NCC was a signatory to a November 1, 2001 document characterizing the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a legal matter to be addressed by criminal-justice procedures rather than military reprisals. Ascribing the hijackers' motives to alleged social injustices against which they were protesting, this document explained that "security and justice are mutually reinforcing goals that ultimately depend upon the promotion of all human rights for all people," and called on the United States "to promote fundamental rights around the world." NCC further claims that the Patriot Act, instituted shortly after 9/11, tramples on the civil liberties of Americans. "We believe it is time for us to stop and think about where we should draw the line in our search for security," said NCC in 2004. "… Only a self-obsessed society pursues security at all costs."
* National Council of La Raza: This open-borders organization (whose name means “The Race”) charges that the Patriot Act "fails to respect our time-honored liberties" and "contains a multitude of new and sweeping law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering powers ... that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights." La Raza has also given its organizational endorsement to the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, which tries to influence city councils nationwide to pass resolutions creating "Civil Liberties Safe Zones"; that is, to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act. Moreover, La Raza is a sponsoring organization of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure ever-expanding rights and civil liberties protections for illegal aliens.
* Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund: The most influential Hispanic advocacy group in the United States, MALDEF is an open-borders organization advocating that all immigrants, legal and illegal, should be entitled to all the rights and privileges afforded to U.S. citizens. Trumpeting the value of illegal immigrants who currently reside in the U.S., MALDEF states that America's "failed immigration policy ... has resulted in a complete lack of legal recognition of millions of immigrants who are the backbone of the U.S. economy." Exhorting Congress "to consider legalization of the 8-9 million undocumented persons living and working here in the U.S.," MALDEF charges that Americans who oppose unrestricted immigration are motivated largely by "racism and xenophobia."
* Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund: Calling itself "the premier Latino organization fighting for the rights of day laborers throughout the Northeast," PRLDEF supports "immigration reform" that "will contain a path for legalization and citizenship for the millions of undocumented living in the United States." A prime objective of PRLDEF is to help develop Latino attorneys who -- by forging alliances with civil rights organizations, civil liberties organizations, and government agencies -- can influence public opinion and the crafting of legislation pertaining to illegal aliens' rights. Toward this end, in June 2005 PRLDEF launched its LAWbound initiative aimed at "increasing the number of Latinos who successfully stay on the path to law school."
* Arms Control Association: Highly critical of the war in Iraq, ACA has accused the Bush administration of "misleading" the American public concerning Saddam Hussein's capacity and intent to develop weapons of mass destruction. ACA also opposes America's development of a missile defense system, stating that "the unproven defense offers no reliable, useful shield against the threat it is designed to counter and is worthless in protecting Americans from more real dangers posed by terrorists and the spread of weapons of mass destruction." Moreover, ACA exhorts the U.S. to take a "softer" stance on Iran's uranium enrichment programs.
* Peace Action: Seven days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rania Masri, a National Board Member of Peace Action, wrote that any U.S. military campaign against Iraq would be unjustified because during the 1991 Gulf War, American troops had "massacre[d]" more than 200,000 Iraqis. "And the massacre continues," said Masri. "… Every day, approximately 150 Iraqi children under the age of five die due to the effects of sanctions." Less than three weeks later, on October 7, 2001, Peace Action issued this statement regarding America's military retaliation against Afghanistan: "We urge the president … instead to seek an end to terrorism through international legal cooperation. Treating the heinous acts of September 11 as an act of war, and waging war in response, will only escalate the violence and loss of life. The terrorist attacks … were criminal acts. The perpetrators of the crimes should be brought to justice through the international legal system. … Terrorism will only be defeated by a long-term commitment to building democracy, respect for human rights, and economic and social development in impoverished areas of the world." In summation, Peace Action exhorted Americans to seek "justice, not vengeance."
* Women's Action for New Directions: This organization's current objectives include: eliminating the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (bunker buster) bombs from the U.S. arsenal; abandoning efforts to establish a missile defense system; repealing the Patriot Act; and pulling all American troops out of Iraq. A WAND spokeswoman wrote in September 2006: “I had great hopes that out of our grief and lament [over the 9/11 attacks] would emerge a stronger nation, more compassionate to the world around us ... My grief curdled into anger when our national leadership, with the overwhelming support of many Americans, called for vengeance, perpetuating the cycle of violence. I knew our best option was not a hasty resort to war, I believed we were more creative than crying out “an eye for an eye.” I come from a religious tradition that urges me to love the enemy. ... Instead of engaging in costly war is if it were the only tool in our toolbox, we can create an exit strategy in Iraq, eliminate the bloat in Pentagon spending ... and increase funding for diplomacy and humanitarian programs which prevent terrorism by addressing the root causes of instability.”
* Win Without War: Seeking to make American foreign policy accountable to world opinion and multi-national consent, this organization describes itself as a "coalition of national organizations representing broad constituencies that aim to keep America safe by advocating that international cooperation and enforceable international law provide the greatest security for the United States and the world." Opposed to what it calls "the militarization of our foreign policy," WWW encourages groups and individuals to participate in demonstrations that portray America as a terrorist nation and the world's foremost human rights violator. Calling for the immediate "phased withdrawal of the U.S. military" from Iraq, WWW characterizes the War in Iraq as a misguided, disastrous failure of foreign policy: "The war has made America less safe by fueling terrorism in Iraq and around the world. It has isolated America, alienating even our strongest allies and friends while putting the burden of securing Iraq almost entirely on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform and American taxpayers. [The occupation] has shamed our nation, undercut our leadership in the world, and aroused Arab and Muslim hatred against us."
* September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows: This organization seeks "to support and offer fellowship to others seeking non-violent responses to all forms of terrorism"; "to call attention to threats to civil liberties, human rights, and other freedoms in the U.S. as a consequence of war"; "to acknowledge our fellowship with all people affected by violence and war, recognizing that the resulting deaths are overwhelmingly civilian"; "to encourage a multilateral, collaborative effort to bring those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks to justice in accordance with the principles of international law"; "to promote U.S. foreign policy that places a priority on internationally-recognized principles of human rights, democracy and self-rule"; and "to demand ongoing investigations into the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks … including exhaustive examinations of U.S. foreign policies and national security failures." Peaceful Tomorrows also claims that the U.S. government routinely uses torture against prisoners captured in the war on terror, and says that the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib “have heaped shame and embarrassment on the values of America.”
* Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies: This organization was founded by Dr. Randall Forsberg in 1980 to advocate for American nuclear disarmament, in the belief that such a course of action would give rise to a worldwide movement to do the same. In 2004, Dr. Forsberg criticized U.S. plans to develop a National Missile Defense system, stating that so-called "rogue states" (like North Korea and Iran) posed no threat to America, and that the missile defense scheme would only prompt Russia and China to expand their intercontinental ballistic missile forces.
* Center for Constitutional Rights: In the post-9/11 era, the pro-Castro CCR has focused its efforts heavily on reining in the U.S. government's newly implemented anti-terrorism measures such as the Patriot Act, which CCR depicts as having "seriously undermined civil liberties, the checks and balances that are essential to the structure of our democratic government, and indeed, democracy itself."
In March 2002, CCR president Michael Ratner explained his views on the origins of anti-American terrorism. "If the U.S. government truly wants its people to be safer and wants terrorist threats to diminish," he said, "it must make fundamental changes in its foreign policies ... particularly its unqualified support for Israel, and its embargo of Iraq, its bombing of Afghanistan, and its actions in Saudi Arabia. [These] continue to anger people throughout the region, and to fertilize the ground where terrorists of the future will take root." He further condemned America's post-9/11 attack on Afghanistan -- stating that thousands of refugees were being forced to flee, and citing a UN prediction that some 100,000 Afghan children would die as a result of U.S. "aggression." He suggested that, as an alternative to war, the U.S. ought to "treat the attacks on September 11 as a crime against humanity, establish a UN tribunal, extradite the suspects, or if that fails, capture them with a UN force, and try them."
At its 2004 annual convention, CCR honored the aforementioned attorney Lynne Stewart, an open supporter of terrorism.
* National Lawyers Guild: Founded in 1936 by Communist Party USA attorneys, NLG is an organization with more than 8,000 members, chapters in every major U.S. city, and tens of thousands of active supporters worldwide. NLG today is an active affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, which the CIA once described as "one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party, [an organization that] has so consistently demonstrated its support of Moscow's foreign policy objectives, and is so tied in with other front organizations and the Communist press, that it is difficult for it to pretend that its judgments are fair or relevant to basic legal tenets."
In recent decades, NLG has been at the forefront of efforts to weaken America's intelligence-gathering agencies. By effectively pushing such legislation as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, NLG helped limit U.S. law-enforcement and counter-intelligence capabilities. Post-9/11, NLG launched a national campaign to repeal the Patriot Act -- arguing that the Act's provisions trample on the civil liberties of Americans. NLG similarly opposes the Domestic Security Enhancement Act and the use of military tribunals for captured combatants in the War on Terror.
NLG is also a spearhead of the Open Borders Lobby. The organization's National Immigration Project consists of a network of attorneys, law students, and legal workers who "support the movement for full democratic rights for all non-citizens, and [an] end [to] all deportations and manipulations of the border carried out in the interests of capitalism." NLG has declared that it "stands in support of the immigrant rights movement, and … is providing political and legal support … for comprehensive immigration reform favorable to undocumented workers."
* American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee: Harshly critical of the post-9/11 anti-terrorist measures taken by the U.S. government, ADC was a co-plaintiff in the first major legal challenge to a section of the Patriot Act -- specifically Section 215, which allows for government access to such information as medical, educational, and library records pursuant to a terrorism investigation.
The Georgia and San Francisco chapters of ADC were signatories to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist (whose director is the Maoist activist C. Clark Kissinger), condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations. Titled "National Day of Solidarity with Muslim, Arab and South Asian Immigrants," the document read, in part, "The recent 'disappearances,' indefinite detention, the round-ups, the secret military tribunals, the denial of legal representation, evidence kept a secret from the accused, the denial of any due process for Arab, Muslim, South Asians and others, have chilling similarities to a police state. ... We are clear that being an immigrant is not a crime; Muslims, Arabs and South Asians are not terrorists."
* Abolition 2000: During the buildup to the 2003 war in Iraq, Abolition 2000 stated, "We are gravely concerned that conflict in the region might spiral out of control and that the U.S. would again use nuclear weapons." "Even if Iraq is found to possess WMDs or their components," said the organization, "the U.S. approach is wrong. ... [T]hough nuclear weapons represent the ultimate form of violence, they cannot and should not be eliminated through the use of force."
Abolition 2000 further insisted that Iraq was the wrong target in the War on Terror: "While we condemn Iraq's record of human rights violations, the U.S. policy towards Iraq is selective and hypocritical. The U.S. continues to support Israel, which has nuclear weapons as well as a long record of noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, and which has occupied Palestine for decades." In September of 2004, Abolition 2000 supported a boycott of U.S. products as a means of protesting the alleged fact that "the U.S. operates outside international law."
* Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: NAPF's assessment of America's military response to the 9/11 attacks was a defining statement for the organization: "Our attacks against Afghanistan have resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent Afghanis due to our high-altitude bombing," said NAPF founder and President David Krieger. "Our response to September 11 has probably killed more innocent Afghanis than the number of innocent persons who died in the terrorist attacks. But our president tells us we are a country at war, and dismisses the deaths of the innocent people we kill as collateral damage."
Opposed to taking military action against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their benefactors, Krieger and NAPF counseled Americans instead to recognize their own role in having given rise to the rage that animated the 9/11 hijackers. "[W]e need to really be thinking deeply about why these people hate us so much," Krieger told a CNN interviewer in the wake of 9/11. "I don't think the reason that we're so hated by these people, whoever they happen to be, is that they want to bring down democracy or they want to bring down our freedoms. … I think they have some far deeper grievances against us with regard to policies that we've instituted perhaps in the Middle East region."
* Human Rights First: Opposed to most of the homeland security measures taken by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, HRF charges that the Patriot Act and Operation Liberty Shield severely erode American civil liberties. It has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Jose Padilla, an American accused of attempting to detonate a "dirty bomb" for al Qaeda. It deplores the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities (and others maintained by the U.S. government to house suspected terrorists), claiming that prisoners there are rotuinely tortured by American authorities. In a quest to have U.S. officials charged with war crimes, HRF backs the International Criminal Court, from which President Bush has withheld American support.
In 2006, HRF vehemently opposed House Referendum 4437, legislation (which in December 2005 passed in the House by a margin of 239 to 182) that was intended to make it a felony for anyone to be in the United States illegally; to make it a crime for anyone to help illegal aliens in any way; and to initiate the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
* Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: LCCR's many affiliate offices have filed briefs against the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to limit the wholesale granting of green cards and to identify potential terrorists. The organization has also opposed measures to guarantee that airport security screeners are U.S. citizens. Many individual members of LCCR are members of the Lawyers' Committee on Human Rights, which has consistently criticized the Patriot Act and America's handling of military prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Other members of LCCR are affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for International Rights -- both of them fierce critics of U.S. foreign policy, the fight against terrorism, and the war in Iraq.
* Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition: This organization unequivocally supports the full legalization of all illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. To make a case for this agenda, MIRAC's literature repeatedly uses the generic term "immigrants" to signify every foreign-born person residing in the U.S. -- regardless of their legality or lack thereof. On those rare occasions where MIRAC makes explicit reference to illegal immigrants, it euphemistically calls them "undocumented." "Current immigration laws violate the basic human rights of immigrants," says MIRAC. "An unconditional general amnesty would provide undocumented immigrants an opportunity to obtain their legal permanent residency, thereby reunifying families and providing equal access to health care, housing, education, and workers' rights."
MIRAC further laments that illegal aliens in America are commonly subjected to "worker exploitation" and, because they must live in the proverbial shadows, lack the freedom "to organize for better working conditions." Such a state of affairs, says MIRAC, "fosters discrimination … undermines civil rights … [and] criminalizes hard work."
* Coalition for the Human Rights of Immigrants: Formed in 1997 "in response to an increase in workplace raids by the INS," the goal of CHRI is to secure labor rights for illegal immigrants in the U.S. by confronting "anti-immigrant policies through grassroots education and action." The organization has published a brochure entitled Protect Yourself During a Raid, detailing how illegal immigrant workers can avoid being arrested.
Although CHRI caters primarily to illegal immigrants from Mexico, shortly after the 9/11 attacks against the United States this group began distributing a pamphlet calling for the discontinuance of policies aimed at keeping terrorists out of the U.S. The pamphlet further urges illegal immigrants to try to influence public policy by contacting local political representatives. "Whether you are a U.S citizen or not," it reads, "and regardless of your legal status, you have a representative and two senators who represent you in the U.S. Congress, and you have the right ... to voice your concerns. They won't ask you about your status, and you don't have to tell them."
* Immigrant Legal Resource Center: ILRC has trained more than 800 nonprofit personnel and attorneys in areas of immigration law such as naturalization, deportation defense, ethics, and Delayed Enforced Departure. In addition, from 1999 to 2004 ILRC's National Immigrant Paralegal Training Project trained over 1,200 nonprofit staff people in basic immigration law and deportation hearing skills. On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, ILRC executive director Susan B. Lyndon stated, "Twelve months after terrorism struck on U.S. soil, I'm sobered to find myself living in a country that feels less than American to me." Lyndon then enumerated what she considered to be injustices that the American government had enacted in the name of national security: "Proposed rules that would require immigrants (from Muslim countries only) to check themselves into police stations. An initiative to proactively hunt down people (once again from Muslim countries only) with outstanding deportation orders for immigration violations. Even a proposal to enlist citizen spies as informers against neighbors they suspect to be terrorists. From my standpoint as a civil rights advocate, these measures are unconstitutional."
* Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy: Founded in 1981, LCNP is a national, nonprofit coalition of attorneys who pursue two animating principles—support for the wholesale elimination of nuclear weapons and opposition to all military interventions—by working to make global legislative bodies like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice the sole arbiters of international law. LCNP states that it "categorically rejects war as the answer to real or suspected or imagined nuclear proliferation," and holds that the resolution of international disputes must become exclusively the function of global organizations.
In the aftermath of 9/11, LCNP's attorneys set about the task of discrediting, by means of legal arguments, the looming American military response. Claiming that lawyers must "swim against the tide of public opinion," LCNP President Peter Weiss, who was (along with his wife, Cora Weiss) a pro-Soviet activist during the Cold War, insisted that it was insensible to attack al Qaeda's sponsor in Afghanistan, the Taliban regime: "A terrorist attack, no matter how heinous, committed by non-state actors, is not a casus belli, an 'act of war,' except in a metaphorical sense. It therefore cannot justify a state resorting to war against another state in response to the attack, unless the other state's responsibility for the attack has been unambiguously established." Weiss predicted that if the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, the result would be "a holy war ... and, if not the end of democracy as we know it, at least its diminution."
* Pax Christi: This organization (whose name is Latin for "Peace of Christ") describes itself as a "Catholic peace movement." As soon as the U.S. attacked Afghanistan (in October 2001) in retaliation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Pax Christi USA released a statement not only condemning the military response, but also impugning the United States as a racism-infested, terrorist nation with grossly misplaced priorities. In December 2002, Pax Christi helped organize large-scale protests against America's then-imminent invasion of Iraq. The group also sent its own delegation to Iraq to protest the coming war and, in effect, defend the legitimacy of the Saddam Hussein regime.
* Nonviolent Peaceforce: This organization's mission is "to build a trained, international civilian nonviolent peace force" that "will be sent to conflict areas to prevent death and destruction and protect human rights, thus creating the space for local groups to struggle nonviolently, enter into dialogue, and seek peaceful resolution." Members of this unarmed peace force would enter nations by which they are invited to help nonviolent factions therein perform acts of civil disobedience and disrupt military actions. The group's first campaign was an unsuccessful effort to end civil tensions in Sri Lanka.
In April 2004, Nonviolent Peaceforce's co-founder David Hartsough asked members of his organization to join members of another antiwar group, Peaceworkers, in an effort to disrupt American operations in Najaf, Iraq, where terrorists were overrunning the streets. A Peaceworkers statement reported, "The Najaf Emergency Peace Team, 'Peace Between Peoples,' [which consists of] a handful of determined volunteers from several well-established peace/global justice/human rights and religious organizations, has now arrived in the area, to place themselves 'nonviolently, symbolically and physically' between the U.S. armed forces massed nearby and the civilian population of the ancient holy city -- in the way of any American military assault."
United States -- a nation they consider to be a veritable snake pit of racist, imperialistic vipers seeking to gain dominion over the earth via violence and intimidation. To achieve "peace and security," these groups advocate nothing less than the wholesale reshaping, if not the outright destruction, of American society. Financing their efforts is the largesse of more than 50 foundations whose aggregate assets exceed $27 billion.
Such are the goals and worldviews of those organizations which benefit from the philanthropy of the Peace and Security Funders Group. They are united by the contempt they feel for the
To read part one of this article, click here.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.