June 30, 2010, - 12:21 pm
The little girls . . . Who are they? Are they really their children? Or what are they?
Not long ago, I reviewed “The Joneses,” a movie with an interesting concept of sleeper cell faux-families designed to influence public opinion and consumer buying habits. As I said then, don’t think Muslims aren’t doing the same things with their sleeper cells and cultural jihads. This video report on the Russian spy ring is essentially that. There’s no proof, so far, that the Russian spies received or passed any classified information or intelligence (though they made contact with some top national security figures and insiders and probably attempted to get the info). They were mostly agents of influence, rather than espionage. And don’t think for a second that Muslims aren’t doing the exact same thing. Not all spies are as overt as “Boris & Natasha,” . . . or Ahmed and Hamida. The Russian spies assumed the identities of Irish-American real estate agents and financial consultants and Hispanic “reporters.” So do Islamic infiltrators. And, in many ways, we are, sadly, no brighter or sharp-witted than Bullwinkle in catching on. These Russians were only caught because the FBI was tipped off by a Russian defector.
Just who was the “unnamed” New York financier and major fundraiser for a political party who met with the Russian spies? Who do you think it is?
Exit question: how does a Russian chick get the surname, “Chapman”? (Anna Chapman was the ringleader of the the spy group.) Exit answer: When you’re a spy, you’re anyone you want to be. It’s up to those you are infiltrating to blindly believe it or dig deeper.
Tags: agents of influence, Anna Chapman, Boris and Natasha, Bullwinkle, change agents, infiltration, Irish names, Islam, Latino names, Muslims, Russian, Russian spy ring, spies, video