How Far is George Soros Willing to Go to Defeat Bush?

Is it fair that one man be allowed to impose his opinions on our open society without being elected? Is this a country of George Soros, by George Soros and for George Soros? Does one man have the right to wipe out the views of an entire nation, or at least half of it by means of buying an election? What will George Soros do with America once he wins this election? Who will be the real President of the U.S., George Soros or John Kerry?

I think these are important questions and they should be answered before it is too late. I call on the liberal media to prove they are not biased by asking these and other questions. I’ve tried to learn just what Soros thinks but it seems most of his opinions are carefully reported so as to make him look like a person in favor of democracy and open society. But what is democracy in George Soros eyes and what will he expect John Kerry to do about it when he is elected? The reason I think this is important is because, in my readings about George Soros, I hear statements about “human rights” but not about “individual” rights. So I’m skeptical.

I quote from a Washington Post article (November 11, 2003), “It is the central focus of my life,” Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is “a matter of life and death.”[1]

We assume, of course, that Soros is talking about a matter of life and death for the country and not for himself or his businesses. In his view, there must be something so sinister going in the Bush administration that he must step forward as the savior of the world and use all his off-shore nested money to defeat Bush. I wonder if he has delusions of grandeur but with the money to back it up? If so, the question is what does he advocate? What will happen if Soros wins? What if he is not the savior of the world but the pariah of the world? What if George Bush is right and George Soros is wrong? We try to find an answer.

“Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a 527 liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.”[2]

Visit moveon.org. You will learn that this organization will say anything, distort anything, lie and deceive people about the facts, so long as it is against George Bush and contributes to his defeat. Truth is not important to moveon.org. You either hate Bush or you are stupid. That just about sums up the Democratic message too.

But I’m more concerned about what Soros thinks is an open society? We don’t learn in this article. We hear the word “democracy” mentioned, but the communists thought they were democratic, or at least that is what they said, they were the democracy of the working classes. So we still don’t know what Soros favors.

“BERKELEY – Might does not make right, and therefore the United States has committed a tremendous mistake in using its military supremacy to force democracy on Iraq. That was the blunt critique of the Bush Administration that billionaire financier and munificent philanthropist George Soros delivered to a packed audience at UC Berkeley last night.”[3]

I can agree with the truth of the principle that might does not make right. Pindar, the Greek poet was one of the few advocates of it as well as people like Hitler and Stalin, all with whom Soros must certainly disagree, since he is himself an escapee of “occupied Hungary.”[4] But Soros’ use of the cliché to describe America means that we should not have fought World War II or defended ourselves after Pearl Harbor or even after 9/11. I presume that Lincoln was wrong in using might to preserve the nation. Perhaps some Americans will buy that, but the statement is a pure pacifist morally bankrupt statement based upon a shallow and impractical moral equivalency that fades into meaninglessness in view of the 9/11 attacks. “America, under Bush, is a danger to the world,” Soros said. Then he smiled: “And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”[5]

So, it would seem that money makes right. And Mr. Soros is willing to spend all of it to guarantee a Kerry victory. I don’t know about you, but as a free person, I’m not comfortable with that. I like the idea of one person one vote, everybody thinking over the issues and making a grave decision, for themselves, for their children, for their futures. I don’t want to be bowled over or threatened by a bunch of jackboots with lots of money. I’ve grown tired of people who think they can buy my vote or steal elections. Worse even are those who think they own my vote because of some supposed benefit that they have not given me - or who tell me I am a disgrace to my people because of the fact that I happen to believe in a free country not one made up of Democratic enslaved beneficiaries that must toe the party line. I wonder, too, what is Soros willing to do with that money. How far is he willing to go? With that kind of money, Hitler could have done a lot more unsavory things than he did while he was a young struggling rebel intimidating Jews. I’d like to ask a few questions of Mr. Soros.

“His campaign began last summer with the help of Mort Halpern, a liberal think tank veteran. Soros invited Democratic strategists to his house in Southampton, Long Island, including Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta, Jeremy Rosner, Robert Boorstin and Carl Pope.

They discussed the coming election. Standing on the back deck, the evening sun angling into their eyes, Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal, CEO of the liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT), and Ellen Malcolm, its president. They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give ACT $10 million.”[6]

Has Mr. Soros released the minutes of that meeting? Does the American public have a right to know what was discussed at that meeting? What plans were made and who said what? In particular, I’d like to ask, was there any discussion of tactics to be used? For instance, was it discussed at this meeting or any other meeting, about using the tactics of the “Big Lie” against George Bush? The “Big Lie” is a Nazi and Soviet technique that involves repeating the same lie over and over until people begin to believe it. Go to moveon.org, the website to which Mr. Soros contributed, to see many examples of the “Big Lie.” One such lie is that Bush lied about WMD which is a favorite saw of the liberal left. Another lie is that the Bush administration pushed intelligence agents to exaggerate the threat that Saddam posed. Another was the lie that Bush went into Iraq unilaterally, when in fact he had put together a coalition of countries. There are a host of other lies being told about Bush. Did Soros agree to or even suggest these lies against Bush? Does he believe them and how could he when the facts speak against them? If he is wrong, then what does that make of him and his effort to unseat a President?

What was said in these meetings about a strategy to publish a number of books all damaging to George Bush? How was this strategy conceived and how were the tactics developed? The real question is why do these books seem to be biased against the facts and the Bush administration? Is this bias a deliberate policy of Soros to deceive the American people? Is deception an appropriate method for someone that believes in democracy or is it more an indication of the unfairness of someone that believes that money makes right?

Did Soros or any of his shadow organizations have anything to do with financing these books? Did Soros have anything to do with financing a number of movies that are also anti-Bush and full of unsupported lies? More importantly, does Soros believe that it is ok to lie to the American people if it is good for democracy? How does he see the role of lies in an open society? What was said in any of the meetings Soros attended about these matters? I think the American people have a right to know.

I think the notes from these meetings would answer some other questions, such as what does ACT plan to do when “mobilizing” voters in those battle ground states? Will there be any intimidation? Will voters be treated as property of the Democratic Party? Will they be asked before hand for whom they will vote and if so, will Bush voters be denied transportation? Is that a democratic thing to do? Will the ex-convicts being hired to register voters be allowed to strong arm and force people to vote the way they are “supposed” to vote? Keep in mind, Hitler had no problem with using ex-convicts and criminals to achieve his political aims. Neither did Stalin or Saddam. I want to ensure that none of these efforts to use criminals are intended to be a veiled threat to people to vote a certain way or else. Is using criminals to mobilize voters a sign of the Soros brand of democracy?

Further, were any strategies discussed at these meetings to ensure that Republicans are not allowed to vote? Is any work being done to remove Republicans from the rolls of voters or otherwise prevent them from voting? Is there any voter fraud planned such as dead people voting? What was said about possibly stealing the election if necessary? I think the American people have a right to know what was discussed at these meetings.

I’d also like to know if any deals were made at these meetings. Politicians are known for making deals. What will Soros get in return for all this money that will make their right? How will any of his companies benefit from the Democrats being in power? What sort of securities will his companies purchase as a result of winning the election and knowing the direction our government will take? How will the tax laws change? What are his plans for money speculation if he wins? Will he be given any insider information? How much money does Mr. Soros anticipate making and in what industries? Is there any "October surprise" planned to create a financial crisis that would help John Kerry? I think the American people have a right to know.

Also, was there any discussion at his meetings about using the media as a propaganda arm? I’m sure Hitler and Stalin loved propaganda but that is not something an advocate of democracy like Soros would countenance, right? Why is it that the media seems to be more biased this election than in the past? Why are there so many slanted stories and virtually, almost, never a favorable story or even a balanced story from the mainstream media other than Fox News? Why do we see the efforts to defame and criticize alternative media critics like Fox News and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, not by arguing against their positions or stories, but by insulting and marginalizing them? Is this part of the Soros strategy? Was this discussed in these meetings? Finally, what will happen to the political opposition once Soros’ money makes right in America? Will they be exposed to IRS audits, illegal searches, fishing expeditions, outright lies and possibly even efforts to strong arm their sponsors into dropping them? Was this discussed at these meetings? I’m sure Soros, being in favor of democracy, would not countenance any of this, right? It just seems strange, conspiracy theorist that I am, that there should be so much vitriol against Bush and the conservatives but no real debate, so many stories that distort the record and the facts. It took me several pages doing a Google Search on the Bush Doctrine because someone had flooded the Internet with story after story of how the Bush Doctrine had failed. Don’t look for balance on the Internet, or should I say, look harder.

I’d like to know what Soros and his Democratic friends intend to do with our health care system and who will benefit financially from it? Who will get first dibs on the bonanza that a new health care system will create? How about other programs?

What will they do about terrorism? Judging from what Soros has said publicly, it appears that they will love the terrorists to death, turn the fight over to the UN and give more foreign aid, but nothing specifically to fight terrorism. Soros believes that George Bush is creating the terrorism in the world by fighting it so I’d like to know what the government Soros buys will do to ensure we are safe? Or will they do anything?

For a man that supports democracy around the world, I have to wonder just what he really supports and what is hidden under the large sums of expenditures. If George Soros wants to buy our country we should ask some tough questions. I’m sure the media will not. But to begin, one must question the spin tactic of defining your opponent and then arguing against your definition of him. That itself is dishonest and deceptive.

“Soros argued that President Bush and his small group of neoconservative advisers used the terrorist attacks of September 11 to advance a new definition of America's position in the world, the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine, said Soros, rests on two pillars: that the United States must do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy, and that it alone has the right to preemptive action. Soros said combining these two ideas creates two classes of sovereignty for nations — "the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations, and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the Bush doctrine. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's 'Animal Farm': All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."”[7]

Does the Bush doctrine rest on these two pillars or is that wishful thinking on Soros’ part? Is Mr. Soros defining his enemy then striking down the definition? Certainly, I would prefer to live in a country that is militarily more powerful than all other nations because that would mean I am protected. If that nation is a free, open society, such as Mr. Soros favors, then it should be defended. If we look at the facts, I really don't see the U.S. trying to take over the world. What countries have we taken over? Afghanistan? Iraq? What is his definition of taking over? In fact, Soros is dropping the entire context of the Bush Doctrine and forgetting about something that supposedly affected Soros very much: 9/11. The Bush doctrine is a doctrine intended to help the U.S. fight and defeat terrorism. Apparently, Soros does not think we need to do such a thing or he thinks that our belief that we have a right to defend ourselves (what he calls “unquestioned military supremacy”) is not a valid belief. I can only assume that in the face of 9/11, he thinks we should disarm in order to make the world safer.

I wonder what he would be saying if 9/11 had occurred during Kerry’s watch? Would he say this?

"I get nervous, because it reminds me of this kind of 'Either you are with us or you are against us' mentality [that means] you've got to suspend your critical faculties," Soros said. "That's a threat to an open society, because an open society depends on open discussion and a critical attitude."[8]

I think most Americans know that when Bush said, "You are either with us or against us," he was not pronouncing American military supremacy, but a doctrine against terrorism. You are either with us in the fight against terrorism or you are a friend to the terrorists. That line about a critical attitude being necessary to an open society is a spin tactic and irrelevant to the Bush Doctrine. If I believe that red is blue and you believe that red is red, which one of us has a critical attitude, the one that is wrong or the one that is right? Soros' comment enables Soros to criticize everything that Bush holds as conviction and to automatically take the position that he, Soros, is right, not because he is right but because he is critical. I believe he is calling red blue. Once again, we see the dropping of context and what I call selective outrage. I don’t think Soros is being fair, accurate or even honest in his statements of what the Bush Doctrine means. In fact, let’s look at the idea of pre-emption:

“Nations and alliances should move early to deal with crises while they are still ambiguous and can be dealt with more easily, for delay raises both the costs and risks. Early action is the objective to which statesmen and military leaders should resort.
--Wesley Clark, "Waging Modern War" (2001)”[9]

Hmmm. Soros has contributed to the Presidential campaign of Wesley Clark. I also wonder if Clark (had he been President last year) would have gone into Iraq, since at the time he believed all the so-called bad intelligence and would Soros have started a campaign to defeat his Presidency?.

“In the first place, preemptive war--or even preventive (some say preventative) war where no threat is imminent--was hardly invented by the Bush administration. It has long been an accepted option not only for the United States, but for other nations as well. In his new book, "The Breaking of Nations," Robert Cooper, a career British diplomat who is now a senior European Union official, writes that "the War of the Spanish Succession, fought to ensure that the crowns of France and Spain were not united . . . was a preventative war. No one attacked Britain; but if Britain had allowed the two countries to unite it would by then have been unable to deal with an attack from the resulting superpower."

You don't have to reach back to the 18th century for instances of preventive military action. In 1962 the Kennedy administration seriously considered a military strike to take out the Soviet missiles in Cuba, even though it was highly unlikely they would ever be fired against the United States. Kennedy wisely refrained from launching World War III, but he did undertake a naval blockade (he called it a "quarantine"), which is regarded under international law as an act of war.” [To quote from the book:]

Recent U.S. history is replete with smaller-scale instances of preventive action, from the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to the invasion of Grenada in 1983. In neither case had there been a direct attack on the United States; the threats being addressed (the rise of communism in the Dominican Republic, the cultivation of Grenada as a Soviet and Cuban base) were largely speculative, and many critics charged that they were being blown out of proportion. But Presidents Johnson and Reagan, respectively, thought the dangers grave enough to risk American lives.

More recently, in 1993-94, the Clinton administration seriously considered launching a war to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. Clinton didn't act that time, but in 1998 he did launch strikes against al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and various Iraqi military installations. The attack on Afghanistan might be seen as a punitive strike since it came after al Qaeda had bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. But the Sudan strike was mainly preemptive. As recounted by former National Security Council staffers Daniel Benjamin and Steve Simon in their book "The Age of Sacred Terror," the pharmaceutical plant was targeted because it was suspected of making chemical weapons for al Qaeda. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said he wanted to take it out before nerve gas showed up on the New York City subway. [My question: Was this a failure of intelligence or did Clinton lie? Who is responsible?]

The Clinton administration launched another preventive war the following year by attacking Serbia in cooperation with its NATO allies. When the military operation started, the ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars was only just beginning. The NATO action, as Gen. Wesley Clark later testified, "was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization" (italics added). We are today keeping thousands of soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo, not because there is a war going on but to avert another war from breaking out.[10]

I wonder what Mr. Soros thought of Kennedy’s pre-emptive measures or Johnson’s or Clinton’s. Was there an immanent threat to an open society to which these Presidents responded? Did Soros think America under Kennedy or Johnson or Clinton was a danger to the world? Did he try to get them defeated in the polls? Perhaps he would not approve of these moves, but it does prove that pre-emptive actions were not invented by Bush. And it makes you wonder, in light of the fact that Bush was reacting to 9/11, the largest, most brutal murder of Americans in our history, if Soros is wrong in attributing to Bush some sinister, “new” idea about American military dominance of the world. Is it possible that George Bush is just doing his job, trying to protect us? Is it possible that George Soros and all the millions he is spending are working to buy an election that will contribute to the defeat of America in the world while at the same time contributing to the enrichment of George Soros? Is it possible that because of George Soros our country will indeed see the decline he fears; will indeed be no longer an open society? Judging by the tactics of his soul-mates that he has bought in this election, you have to wonder about the future of freedom.

In fact, Soros admits that he came to the U.S. because he wanted to make money; he was attracted to economic freedom. If so, then why does does he have so much of his earnings off-shore, a tactic that Kerry has criticized in other American businesses. I submit that he needs to take a stronger look at his Hungarian “experience” and remember that it was freedom that was decidedly not present in the country that he left and that it was American military dominance and power that was, in part, responsible for the defeat of two oppressive dictatorships, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, not to mention Imperial Japan. Were those defeats done for the sake of American military supremacy or were they accomplished for the sake of something more “democratic” such as making it possible for the family Soros left behind to also live in an open society? Perhaps there is so much evidence available of America's magnanimity that such an intelligent and successful man like Soros should have seen this very critical fact: that the U.S. is the most generous, most helpful nation in the world, that it spreads good will and trade, yes, even in a Bush administration, around the world and that the source of our military power and the reason we are hated by dictators and would be dictators, is our freedom to judge them and decide what we will think of them and do about them – and that fear keeps many of them in line and contributes to peace and stability on this earth. Why didn’t his “Hungarian” experience teach him that lesson? It was everywhere to be seen.

Mr. Soros would perhaps prefer a world where we did not judge dictators like Saddam and their brutal tactics; does he prefer that we Americans, out of all the people in the world, not be free to think for ourselves. How do we know? If he is trying to buy a U.S. election, then what are we to think about what he might be trying to buy in these other countries where he has supposedly been so generous? Is he trying to buy democracy in these countries or control? Is it possible he does not want us to know the answer to that question? Is it possible that George Bush would not look the other way and John Kerry would? Is he trying to buy markets perhaps? What would keep him, a very astute investor, from buying certain markets in the U.S. by means of controlling the politicians that he put into power? Does the U.S. under George Bush represent an obstacle to some of his goals? Maybe if we were to get some notes from some of his meetings we might learn that there is more to Mr. Soros than all the praise he is getting. Maybe he’s buying the praise too? He’s certainly trying to buy an election isn’t he, and upon some questionable grounds considering the false statements he has made about the Bush Doctrine.

Soros says, “Might doesn't make right, and rightness aside, he argued, "power doesn't give legitimacy. And without legitimacy you can't lead."

I would like to say to Mr. Soros, that money doesn’t make right either and neither does it buy legitimacy no matter how many awards you get and doting bureaucrats you support. You have to fight for your right, not buy it. Legitimacy you earn – and you certainly don’t earn it by betting on the margins of mankind and selling short. If you disagree with the ideas and policies of George Bush, get out there and start talking to people one-on-one rather than funding hate groups and spin masters and liars. Learn what it means to change a mind rather than to buy one. As a fighter for an “open society,” I find it strange that you don’t know we are in an open society. And, sincerely, if you believe in an open society, Mr. Soros, why are you trying to buy this election with people that are neither open nor nice. Is it possible that your money is covering up another motive? Let’s see the notes.

[1] http://www.msnbc.com/news/991865.asp?vts=111120031007

[2] Ibid

[3] http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/04_soros.shtml

[4] http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/04_soros.shtml

[5] http://www.msnbc.com/news/991865.asp?vts=111120031007

[6] Ibid

[7] http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/04_soros.shtml

[8] Ibid

[9] http://www.cfr.org/pub6768/max_boot/the_bush_doctrine_lives.php

[10] Ibid

See below for a selection of my works available for sale:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------