Humanitarianism and charity can't always be taken at face value, if only because there is no better front for less-than-altruistic endeavors. Islamic charities, for example, have been exposed as fronts for terrorist funding. Most people simply assume that charity automatically equates to goodwill.
Set up a 
						non-governmental organization (NGO) or "think-tank" with 
						a dreamy humanitarian name to ultimately funnel cash 
						into various forms of political subversion and 
						disruption, and you've just created the perfect 
						instrument for the perpetual incitement of low-intensity 
						political conflict.
						
						Low-intensity operations are insidious because they 
						occur at a level just below the threshold that triggers 
						acute opposition. Much like the ignored second hand of 
						an analog clock, these low-intensity operations subtly 
						effect change. Russian President Vladimir Putin knows 
						this, which is why he rammed through a law in 2012 
						requiring NGOs that receive foreign funding and are 
						engaged in "political activity" to register as foreign 
						agents. Predictably, people complained that it wasn't a 
						very nice thing to do to all the well-meaning 
						humanitarians.
						
						Soros' Open Society Foundations have funded millions of 
						dollars of operations in Georgia, Ukraine and Russia. 
						The only one of those countries that hasn't experienced 
						total anti-Russian upheaval followed by a return to a 
						more balanced geopolitical reality is Russia itself -- 
						which the foundations are constantly complaining about. 
						In May, Soros wrote in The Guardian that Europe should 
						offer "free political risk insurance" to companies that 
						invest or do business in Ukraine, and "guarantee the 
						losses in the same way as they underwrite the World 
						Bank." This was his great offering to humanity in the 
						wake of that crisis.
						
						Yeah, nice try. Fourteen percent of Soros' stock 
						portfolio, according to the investment website 
						GuruFocus.com, consists of energy investments -- the 
						likes of which would benefit from entry into Ukraine's 
						underexploited domestic market. To put that into 
						plain-speak for those of us who aren't among the richest 
						people on the planet, it's like saying that the 
						government should offer me "hunger risk insurance" and 
						guarantee me a lifetime of free dining at taxpayer 
						expense.
						
						Why on earth would we taxpayers want to subsidize Soros' 
						stock portfolio? According to Soros, it's necessary "to 
						counteract Russia's efforts to destabilize Ukraine." Tu 
						quoque. Russia was satisfied with its monopoly in 
						Ukraine and not much interested in doing anything to 
						disrupt it.
						
						So, where else is Soros sticking his fingers? He gave $1 
						million in humanitarian aid to Syria through the 
						International Rescue Committee, which, according to Eric 
						Thomas Chester's book "Covert Network: Progressives, the 
						International Rescue Committee and the CIA," has worked 
						closely with the Central Intelligence Agency in various 
						parts of the world over the past several decades.
						
						On the domestic front, Obama-appointed regulatory 
						decision-makers ranging from Daniel Tarullo (the Federal 
						Reserve's informally designated lead governor for 
						banking regulations) to Amias Gerety (who chairs the 
						Financial Stability Oversight Council committee 
						responsible for designating the entities to undergo the 
						"too big to fail" regulatory straitjacketing process) 
						are products of the Soros-funded Center for American 
						Progress. Soros told the Wall Street Journal in 2010 
						that he was unhappy with President Obama's bailouts and 
						instead wanted to see U.S. banks nationalized and taken 
						over by the government. Many argue that strict new 
						Dodd-Frank regulations effectively achieve this.
						
						The Center for American Progress is also churning out 
						pro-amnesty pieces about America's current 
						undocumented-immigrant crisis.
						
						Perhaps not surprisingly, the Open Society Foundations 
						website has been advertising grants available for 
						organizations interested in fighting against "Islamophobia" 
						and "anti-Gypsyism" -- the sort of issues that only 
						totally open borders in Europe could possibly fix, of 
						course.
						
						Not to speculate on possible motives behind supporting a 
						flood of undocumented workers, but it would certainly 
						serve to depress working wages to the benefit of 
						oligarchs such as Soros -- a concern noted in a recent 
						report from the Congressional Budget Office.
						
						In Africa, the slippery slope from humanitarianism to 
						profit has been much steeper and more obvious, with the 
						Open Society Foundations moving from helping prostitutes 
						in the resource-rich Great Lakes Region -- comprising 
						Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, 
						Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda -- to commissioning reports 
						with titles such as "Energy Policy and the Petroleum 
						Industry Bill."
						
						Hmmm. You won't convince the good-hearted naifs of the 
						world to join forces with a multibillionaire to enrich 
						his bottom line through low-intensity disruption 
						operations -- er, I mean, to "save the world" -- with 
						profiteering titles like that.
						
						Russian oligarchs are effectively accountable to Putin 
						as the elected leader of the country. To whom are our 
						oligarchs accountable?