Soros

George Soros' announcement that he would be funding groups that will work for the defeat of Bush has drawn the ire of Republicans lately. This is an example of the worst... from the GOPUSA website. While not affiliated with the Republican PArty (wink, wink) here's a list of those speaking at the GOPUSA Conference last week...

* Gary Aldrich, Former FBI Agent and Author of "Unlimited Access" and "Thunder on the Left"
* The Honorable Bob Barr, Former U.S. Congressman
* James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Defense and Homeland Security, Davis Institute, The Heritage Foundation
* Kellyanne Conway, President, The Polling Company
* Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow, Centre for New Black Leadership
* The Honorable John Cornyn*, U.S. Senate, TX
* Chuck DeFeo, eCampaign Manager, Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.
* Rick Erickson, Director, Americans for Military Readiness
* Tim Goeglein, Deputy Director, White House Office of Public Liaison
* Kerri Houston, Vice President of Policy, Frontiers of Freedom
* Pete Jeffries, Communications Director, House Speaker Dennis Hastert
* The Honorable Steve King, U.S. Congress, IA-5
* Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach
* Mark Montini, President and CEO, CampaignSecrets.com
* Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
* Peter Roff, National Political Analyst, UPI
* Jack Spencer, Senior Policy Analyst, Defense and National Security, Davis Institute, The Heritage Foundation
* The Honorable Tom Tancredo*, U.S. Congress, CO-6
* Paul Teller, Ph.D., Legislative Director, House Republican Study Committee
* Genevieve Wood, Vice President of Communications, Family Research Council
* Michael Zak, Author, "Back to Basics for the Republican Party"

And here's the article in question...
_______________

Satan lives in George Soros
By SARTRE
November 17, 2003

The fiction which is interdependency has a prolocutor in the congregation of Moloch. His name is George Soros. No other single person represents the symbol and the substance of Globalism more than this Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock. He is the embodiment of the Merchant from Venice. His public reputation as an astute currency speculator is generous, while his skills as a manipulator and procurer of pain and suffering is shrouded in the footnotes of the financial journals. Claiming to be a philanthropist, his record is literally one of being a patron for indentured enslavement.

His assault on Sterling caused the British Empire to shutter. The Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad blamed the American billionaire for nearly ruining Malaysia's economy with massive currency speculation. And hard-core Russian nationalists decried as "meddling" his funding of progressive newspapers and institutions in post-Soviet Russia. But his incontrovertible talent does not rest in amassing financial fortunes; it lies in his social agenda.

While it is reported widely that Soros funded groups that support increased government spending, tax increases, oppose the death penalty and President Bush's judicial nominees; there is a far more sinister scheme. In report by Neil Hrab - George Soros' Social Agenda for America - drug legalization, euthanasia, immigration entitlements and feminism are examined. Mr. Hrab points out that in the book Open Society: "Reforming Global Capitalism", Soros wrote that he is: "rather leery of self-appointment, self righteous" international NGOs. From his own site Soros proudly claims that his foundations are dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society. They work closely with OSI to develop and implement a range of programs focusing on civil society, education, media, public health, and human rights as well as social, legal, and economic reform. In recent years, OSI and the Soros foundations network have spent more than $400 million annually to support projects in these and other focus areas.

Double standards for an advocate of a permissive, yet regimented globe? If you think he is a friend of humanity, beware of his public attempt to influence his tribe, by insulting their benefactors. Before the Jewish Funders Network, he recently made these remarks: "There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that," Soros said. "It's not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I'm critical of those policies." The inevitable outcry from the usual suspects, just illustrates the orchestrated nature of the Soros effort to rationalize his own social agenda, while deflecting criticism back to his ancestral blood line. Let the Zionists defend their fears, Soros has another George to defeat . . .

Since President George is busy consummating the relationship with Ariel, Soros must lump both together in order to attack the Bush administration. If it is the life's mission of Soros to slay the dragon, why is he so bashful? "It would be too immodest for a private person to set himself up against the president," he said. "But it is, in fact" - he chuckled - "the Soros Doctrine".

The Scotsman reports: "Mr. Soros invited Democratic strategists to his house in Southampton, including John Podesta, Jeremy Rosner, Bob Boorstin and Carl Pope. They discussed the coming election. Mr. Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal and Ellen Malcolm, the CEO and president of America Coming Together (ACT), who were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Mr. Soros told them he would give them $10 million.

The next morning, his friend Peter Lewis, the chairman of the Progressive Corp, had pledged $10 million to ACT. Rob Glaser, the founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million. Rob McKay, president of the McKay Family Foundation, gave $1 million and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman committed $500,000.

Mr. Soros also promised up to $3 million to Podesta's new think tank, the Centre for American Progress."

One need not be a Bush lackey to recognize that Soros is less fearful of Dubya and more motivated to enact his vision for the world. The dilemma that real conservatives have is distinguishing a truthful assessment of Bush and Sharon policies, while recognizing that the alternatives from a radical globalist like Soros are equally distorted. If Soros is correct when he says a "supremacist ideology" guides the White House, what would you call the practices of the archfiend of Free Enterprise? The Soros deception would make Shylock proud. However, where is Antonio?

Shylock: Antonio is a good man.

Bassanio: Have you heard any imputation to the contrary?

Shylock: Ho no, no, no, no: my meaning in saying he is a good man, is to have you understand that he is sufficient. - The Merchant of Venice [1.3.10-15]

Certainly George Bush has demonstrated his lack of sufficiency. No substitute is on the horizon, only alternatives from the likes of a Soros.

So when the billionaire financier said: "he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing last months speech by Malaysia´s outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, "Jews rule the world by proxy"; why should anyone empathize or embrace Soros' culpability? As is the normal practice, it's not about anti-Semitism! Mahathir Mohammad was just stating the truth . .. . The Soros duplicity is marked with the same betrayal as the framing of the eternal political conflict. The financial desolation that Soros leaves in the wake of his deceitful transactions is the proof. Ignoring this reality does not make it disappear.

Soros wants to drug you so you can't think, terminate you when you can no longer pay tribute, force you to intermingle with alien invaders and emasculate you to an unnatural equality. If that isn't the plan of the devil, what else would you call it?

 

Bush has two advanteges going into next year... he's in office and he has more money. Anything that threatens the latter will be the focus of GOP attacks...
________________
New Fundraising Scrutinized
House Republicans Seek to Question Tax-Exempt Groups

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 21, 2003; Page A43


House Republicans took aim yesterday at the fundraising vehicle that Democrats hope will help them equalize the money battle in the upcoming campaign -- organizations dubbed in political circles as "527s" or "501s," for sections of the tax code.

Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, was granted the power to subpoena leaders of six organizations seeking to mobilize voters in support of Democratic candidates after they refused to appear before the committee. Ney said they had "thumbed their noses" at the panel but declined to say whether he would exercise his subpoena power.

Democrats on the committee immediately warned that if Ney does so, they will try to shift the focus of future hearing to charges that Republican House leaders have performed legislative favors in return for contributions from pharmaceutical companies and utilities.

One of those who refused to testify yesterday, Steve Rosenthal, head of the Partnership for America's Families, said in a statement: "It is clear that President Bush and the Republican Leadership are intimidated by the prospect of our registering, educating and turning out hundreds of thousands of progressive voters in 2004 so they'll do whatever they can to hamstring our operations and attempt to harass us. . . . we will not be bullied by partisan abuse of congressional power."

Ellen Malcolm, head of both Emily's List and Americans Coming Together, who also refused to testify, said the proceedings were "a blatant, taxpayer-financed attempt -- through innuendo and false charges -- to try and discredit legitimate grass-roots political organizations."

The prospect of subpoenas and the sharp, and sometimes angry, committee debate suggestive of the partisan rancor during the Clinton administration, reflect a larger battle taking place in the aftermath of the passage last year of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The law barred both parties from raising and spending large "soft money" contributions from corporations, unions, trade associations and individuals. Self-described "independent" organizations from both sides of the political aisle are stepping in to fill the vacuum. These include nonprofit and political organizations, which fall under Internal Revenue Service sections 501 and 527, respectively.

Republicans are conducting a determined effort to stop -- or at least question -- what they claim could be the infusion of $400 million to $500 million to defeat President Bush in 2004 -- an estimate based on the highest spending claims made by all anti-Bush forces.

Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) called not only for a full-scale committee inquiry but also for investigations by the IRS and the Federal Election Commission, calling the growing number of independent organizations "the greatest threat to the federal election process we have ever seen."

Ney and his Republican colleagues sought to ridicule the claims of Democrats that the McCain-Feingold bill would take soft money out of politics, citing both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).

Ney quoted Pelosi warning that "the corrosive and corrupting effect of special interests' big money in the political process is indeed a danger to our participatory democracy," Ney then pointed out that a former top Pelosi aide, Cecile Richards, is now running one of the pro-Democratic groups raising soft money and that she refused to testify.

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) charged that Ney had allowed the committee to be "hijacked to carry out the national Republican Party's political attack agenda."

Democrats argued that the Republican complaints failed to acknowledge the numerous pro-GOP tax-exempt organizations that have established track records of spending millions of dollars on "issue ads" clearly designed to discredit Democrats or promote Republicans.

The Democratic National Committee contended that the only soft-money financed television commercials running are attacks on a Democrat, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), by the pro-Republican Committee for Justice. The DNC also noted that the Committee for Justice raised part of the money for the ads at an event in the home of former president George H.W. Bush.

 

More Soros bashing, this from the American Spectator... he must have really gotten under some right wing skins because they are increasingly becoming unglued about the man. The part about being a self-hating Jew just because you don't agree 100% with Sharon is bad enough, but criticizing Soros for how he survived the holocaust is downright vile.
___________
The Sorry Tale of George Soros
By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder
Published 11/26/2003 12:04:45 AM

There was this movie with Peter Sellers in which he played a character who was -- with all this political correctness floating around, we don't know the appropriate phrase du jour; perhaps it is -- "mentally challenged," but who everybody else thought was a great genius. At a press conference he was asked what he thought of China. He paused, bowed his head and slowly said, "China is full of Chinese." The reporters nodded their heads in awe and murmured, "Full of Chinese, hmm," remarking to each other how brilliant he was.

Money also does this to people. If you have a lot of it, people will never say you are crazy. Only poor people are crazy. You would be "eccentric." When a rich person shows up at a party wearing the most ridiculous clothes, everybody else then thinks they're the ones who aren't in style.

All this makes us think of George Soros, who apparently believes his money makes him a player on the world's stage -- someone whom other people should listen to and respect. Worse yet, these "other" people are beguiled into actually believing this nonsense. The thinking goes something like this. "All my life I have directed all my energies into making as much money as possible. Now, this man makes more in one day than I make in twenty years. Therefore, he must be a genius." But, if a baseball player hits 500 home runs, does that make him anything other than a home run hitter? If a tap dancer knocks your socks off and sounds like a combination of Fred Astaire and Bojangles, would you say he is anything more than a great tap dancer? Would you go to him to have your tonsils removed or for advice as to which mutual fund to buy?

George Soros came under our microscope some time back when he and some other billionaires took out advertisements in the newspapers opposing the abolition, or even the lowering of, the Federal Estate Tax. We, on the other hand, believed that President Bush was on the right track when he expressed the thought that the estate tax was the unfairest of the panoply of taxes that we pay. When you make the money, you are taxed up to 50 percent. Then if the government is lucky enough to have you die, they tax your estate, which is whatever you have left after a lifetime of paying income tax, once again up to 50 percent. If a small businessman or farmer works hard his entire life, pays his taxes in the hope of passing something to his children, perhaps even to keep the business or farm running when he is gone, at his death the government will swoop down to grab a substantial portion.

Millionaires have legions of lawyers and armies of accountants who devise ways to avoid these taxes, unlike the rest of us ordinary people. Mr. Soros and his colleagues who urge that estate taxes be maintained should first reveal what they have done to minimize their estate taxes. Our guess is that they have spent more on tax lawyers and accountants than most of the rest of us could possibly leave as our entire estate. Soros reminds us of the guy who wins board approval and gets into a private club or cooperative apartment house, and then tries to make it difficult for the next guy.

One thing we do know for sure, in the advertisement that Soros and friends ran in the press, basically urging that everyone should be liable for paying taxes, mention was made of an organization that was formed by them to support their aims. The office of this organization was in Boston or Philadelphia (coming from New York the geographic lines are blurred). We called and told them, to their eager delight, that we wanted to make a contribution. But we wanted to make sure it was tax deductible. We were assured it was. We were reminded of the old Southern preacher who said, "Don't do like I do. Do like I say do."

There is also the moral problem that we have with the way enormously rich people make their money. Other than wealth created by virtue of an invention, such as Edison and electricity, the acquisition of wealth is not a guiltless process, nor certainly is it a profitless and without harm transfer of monies. Notwithstanding Soros's professed interest in helping people via his charities, there is the fact that speculation in foreign currencies à la Soros can beget economic havoc in countries. In 1992, Soros earned one billion dollars in a one day by betting that the British pound would fall. Although Soros denies it, there are some that accuse him of causing the 1997 Asian economic crisis by his betting against the Thai baht. When these sorts of things occur it ultimately filters down to the humblest of a country's citizens. It is said that when a butterfly flutters its wings on a plain in Africa, it begets a hurricane in Louisiana. Soros is no butterfly!


IF THESE WERE OUR ONLY thoughts about Soros we would happily consign him to our private hell peopled by hypocrites, windbags, parasites and blowhards such as some used car salesmen, critics, lawyers, landlords, theatrical agents and real estate brokers, and simply forget all about him. No, we believe he is a more destructive person -- a self-hating Jew whose money gives him a podium to spout his nonsense.

We live in a world awash with anti-Semitism, from bombings of synagogues in Istanbul to the bombing of a Jewish school in a Paris suburb to the French ambassador making scatological remarks about Israel at a London dinner party, to a German politician and army leader spewing hatred.

A recent study demonstrated that Europeans believe Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. Nearly 60 percent of people surveyed from 15 E.U. countries said they consider Israel a threat. Only 53 percent said they consider Iran and North Korea to be a threat.

Self-hating Jew Soros openly says that he is not supportive of Israel. Here's his reference to his Jewishness and perhaps to the fact that he does not donate to Jewish organizations: "[M]y Jewishness did not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty that would have led me to support Israel." Somebody should interrupt him from counting his money long enough to explain to him that Israel is a nation not a "tribe."

Another gem from Soros. "There are some people in the Bush administration who have the same mentality as Arafat or Sharon." Thank goodness for those who do think like Sharon! But to equate our administration's leaders with a thug and murderer is beyond the pale. Soros ought to dwell on the fact that if he were a citizen of any one of the dictatorships that now threaten Israel and he equated one of its leadership with a common criminal he probably would soon find himself headless.

The world, with all its technological improvement, has not changed in its psyche. Anti-Semitism still walks much of the land, a seething venom under a facade of racial acceptance and equality. Three things are certain: death, taxes and anti-Semitism.

The ovens, grown cold over the last sixty years, are there, waiting only for a spark to be fired up. The only thing in this regard that is different now from then, is that now there is a State that Jews can turn to, that righteous countries can morally and practically support, a State that even if it were abandoned by the whole world could defend itself and be a haven for all Jews.

If the unhappy day ever comes when Israel is deserted by the rest of the world, Mr. Soros should understand that all the converting in the world, as his mother did, or all the passing as a non-Jew, as he did to survive World War II, will not help. The ovens did not distinguish between rich or poor. Nor should all of Soros's money give him a "pass" when it comes to public repudiation. If you put a pile of cash upon a donkey's back, underneath it he is still a donkey.


Jackie Mason is a comedian. Raoul Felder is a lawyer.

 

Hypocrisy reigns on the right...
_____________
Conservatives Shocked By the Power of Money
by Joe Conason

Whenever Republican leaders complain about the power of money in politics, the source of their concern is always the same: Somewhere, a Democrat of means has just written a substantial check. To Republicans who regard their financial advantage as a partisan birthright, such leveling gestures seem terribly unfair—as unsporting as a liberal who fights back.

So imagine their outrage at the news that George Soros, the billionaire financier and philanthropist, will spend millions next year to defeat President Bush. Actually, no imagination is needed to hear the squealing and squawking from the right. From the commanding heights of the Republican National Committee and House hearing rooms all the way down to the lowliest Web sites, George Soros is an object of vilification.

Righteous anger about the Soros funding burns hottest among those with the least credibility. Leading the anti-Soros chorus is Ed Gillespie, the new R.N.C. chairman and former lobbyist. His clients notably included the late Enron Corporation, a firm where criminal book-cooking paid for promiscuous political palm-greasing.

According to a former Enron executive interviewed by The Washington Post, "whenever we had to get in to see a Republican, the first call was to Gillespie." While churning out press releases about the nefarious Soros, the R.N.C. chief continues to hold an ownership stake in Quinn Gillespie, the lobby shop he founded in 2000 with former Clinton White House counsel Jack Quinn that has reported fees totaling $27 million from its corporate clientele.

Now Mr. Gillespie accuses Mr. Soros of seeking to empower "special interests," and of undermining campaign-finance restrictions that the Republican Party has traditionally opposed and subverted. He frets that the Soros donations may not be "disclosed to the public."

As Republican distress over Mr. Soros echoes in the conservative chat rooms, some critics aren’t as high-minded as Mr. Gillespie. On the Web site run by GOPUSA—a commercial entity that attracted major Republican legislators, lobbyists and commentators to its Washington conference this month—the Jewish financier was recently described as "a Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock."

For the vast majority of right-wing whiners, however, what rankles is not his ethnicity, but his determination. Mr. Soros, they say, is a hypocrite because after endorsing campaign-finance reform, he’s now violating the spirit of the McCain-Feingold law that banned soft-money donations to the political parties. The Wall Street Journal warns that liberal "fat cats" like Mr. Soros will be "less accountable" than the old soft-money donors, and that "his views will follow his cash in influencing Democratic policy."

The Journal editorial sniffs that Mr. Soros will give money through so-called "527" committees (a reference to the section of the I.R.S. code that regulates such groups), whose "disclosure patterns … have been full of holes and evasions." And any Democrat who defeats the President will have no choice but to answer to the Soros political "machine."

Exactly what has Mr. Soros done to provoke this reaction? He has given $3 million to a new liberal Washington think tank, the Center for American Progress. And yes, he has publicly pledged $10 million to Americans Coming Together, a liberal voter-registration effort, and $5 million to MoveOn.org, an Internet-based group that is raising millions of dollars in small donations for liberal candidates and causes.

That sounds like a lot of money, except when contrasted with the enormous amounts pumped into organs of conservative propaganda every year by such truly prodigious spenders as Sun Myung Moon, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife and literally dozens of other obscure but rich Republicans.

Besides, there is no evidence that Mr. Soros is seeking to influence Washington policy on behalf of his financial interests. The same can hardly be said of the "Rangers" and "Pioneers" who collect hundreds of thousands of dollars every day for the Bush campaign. The corporate leaders and K Street lobbyists who "bundle" these donations include an individual "tracking number" on every check—to ensure proper "credit" by the White House.

The results can be traced in nearly every important item of White House legislation. Its energy bill brimmed with billions in favors to the oil, nuclear, coal and auto industries. Its Medicare "reform" will dispense billions to the insurance, pharmaceutical, hospital and nursing-home industries.

Meanwhile, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay oversees his own array of Republican 527 committees, which funnel millions of dollars into various advertising campaigns and legislative races. He has long since mastered the "holes and evasions" of this system, and is constantly drilling new ones.

According to The New York Times, his latest is a "charity" that would suck huge, undisclosed contributions from anonymous Republican donors who desire access to Congress. Supposedly intended for the benefit of neglected children, this money’s real purpose is to pay for "late-night parties, luxury suites, and yacht cruises" at next September’s Republican convention.

But it is Mr. Soros who threatens the integrity of the political process. He wants to register more voters.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

That's easy to say, but all we really know about this is that it was published on the GOPUSA website, which is read and supported by many important GOP operatives. We also know that after a few days, GOPUSA pulled the article down off the website, though it is still on the author's personal website. We also know that there have since been similar attacks on Soros.

One could say what you just said about any number of works and groups from Das Kapital to Mein Kampf to any number of nameless screeds that never got any attention. Point is, at this point, we don't know what the end result of this coupling of anti-semitism/personal loathing and jealousy/fear of money being used for an opposition's cause will bring. If it does bring something, odds are it won't be good.